6 ms·

So if the generators exist, it is shady but investors keep their profits. If the generators don't exist then it is still shady, also a scam, and everyone loses

So if the generators exist, it is shady but investors keep their profits. If the generators don't exist then it is still shady, also a scam, and everyone loses money (+ jail time for some). The question I'd have is why haven't the federal government closed this loophole either way? I understand incentivising solar, but this is rather having the federal government pay the full cost (or more in some cases).

bryanlarsen 7y ago
The most efficient solution is a carbon tax that fully captures externalities. But $10/gallon gas would cause riots.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- marnett 7y ago
  At $10 a gallon there would likely be civil war.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Yet collectively as a society we are paying more than $10/gallon. It's just that the costs aren't paid at the pump.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Because lives in the future can't fight back.
      - saltcured 7y ago
        Hmm, did you just logically prove that time travel doesn't exist...?
        amatecha 7y ago
        Nah, just that they didn't figure out how to utilize it yet! :)
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > The most efficient solution is a carbon tax that fully captures externalities. I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. It's much easier to identify the existence of unpriced externalities than it is to quantify them. I know people associated with the IMF have attempted to do so[1], but they still admit the calculations are "contentious". [1] https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA...
  - runako 7y ago
    > "apolitical calculation" is this something that exists in the realm of economics (nee "political economy")?
  - vkou 7y ago
    > I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. Would you agree that the longer we wait, the higher that number will be (Because we will need more drastic reductions, faster)? > apolitical calculation Economics is, by nature, political. If we're waiting for that criteria to be met, we are going to be waiting forever.
  - ars 7y ago
    It's not necessary to use the actual value though, you can use 20% of it and still be useful.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    I'd be happy with any point on the error bar of those calculations.
  - ajross 7y ago
    > I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. Which is just code for "I'll never support this because I'll never believe you". Dismissing something as "policital" is the easiest out. All it takes is for your political enemies to support something and you have a built-in excuse to refuse to believe it. That is exactly the behavior that led to the circumstance we're in right now, where literally half the voting population of the USA straight up refuses to recognize scientific consensus. So... this isn't helpful. If you really want good analysis, get in there and help with it. Or at least be willing to accept something as "good enough". But what you wrote there is nothing more than a fancy excuse.
- Tade0 7y ago
  I think the desired effect could be achieved with $6/gallon. People would have to switch to smaller, more fuel efficient cars as they did in Europe, where this is roughly the average price.
  - gameswithgo 7y ago
    the desired effect at this point is no fossil fuel vehicles
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      The desired effect is net-zero carbon emissions. Which means all fossil fuel vehicle emissions must be offset. That'd make it cheaper to switch away from fossil fuel for the vast majority, but there will always be use cases for fossil fuels.
      - lrem 7y ago
        Don't we actually need net-negative?
        empath75 7y ago
        Yes. And there’s no way to offset carbon emissions at any significant scale that I’m aware of.
- ndonnellan 7y ago
  I think you're being hyperbolic, but then again, that's probably the misconception most people have when they hear of carbon tax. If Canada is any indication, you probably wouldn't even notice it at 4.4 c/L to start up to 11c (or 16c/gal -> 41c/gal). https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you-114671 https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-...
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    $300 is a number that has been calculated several times as the externalities caused by burning a tonne of carbon. That's over $6 per gallon, so I'm not being hyperbolic. Considering the hysteria that $10/tonne is causing in Canada, I don't think my riots statement is hyperbolic either.
    - clickok 7y ago
      Here in Canada, the "hysteria" is due to the perceptible economic slowdown, bordering on recession, associated with the carbon tax. If such a minor tweak is enough to make businesses pull investment, then surely more than tripling the price would be ill-advised. Then you have the fact that transport, and hence fuel, affects the price of most goods, so fears of a recession (decrease in purchasing power) are not unfounded. Also consider that, while justified as addressing a "tragedy of the commons scenario", rarely do such tax dollars go towards mitigating the externalities in question. The tax would sting less if it was being spent building renewable energy rather, than initiatives that are charitably described as contentious and perhaps more accurately described as pandering. If we could avoid the graft and self-dealing usually associated with federal spending, that would likely cut down on the complaints as well.
      - bryanlarsen 7y ago
        Putting carbon taxes towards externality mitigation would be double dipping. The whole point of the carbon tax is that it is pure incentive as it is, nothing more should be needed. And giving the carbon tax back to people as a dividend is not pandering, it's making a highly regressive tax progressive. Giving money directly to people is the purest and most effective form of economy pumping. So while carbon-intensive businesses are hurt other's will benefit; recession fears are completely overblown. And the carbon tax is the most efficient form of carbon mitigation strategy. Did you see the recent news about Doug Ford's plan being twice as expensive as the carbon tax?[1] And it is imposes the costs almost exclusively on industry, increasing the chance of a recession much more than the carbon tax it would replace. 1: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/costs-of-ontario-climate-plan-would-be-double-liberal-carbon-tax-raise-household-costs-report https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/costs-of-ontario-clim...
- icebraining 7y ago
  Eh, that's not even double the price in my EU country. And people still drive way too much.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  Because such a tax would be regressive that it would be beyond stupid to attempt, even at half that amount. Already government regulation, taxes, and fees, affect the poorest among us. Those hiked cost to register your vehicle, obtain a license, renew plates, and such, all hit that segment the hardest. You want a carbon tax, put it where it belongs, tax vehicles that return less MPG and priced beyond average car price purchases of the middle class. That Vette over there, bam, 10k extra. That Ferrari, 50k. See that lovely Audi S5 sport coupe, tack on another 10k there too. Tax small planes, tax motorcycles beyond a certain CC and size, but never tax the fuel. To encourage a change in what is an acceptable method of transportation means taxing what you don't want more of, not punishing those who are least able to withstand it let alone are not causing it.
  - the8472 7y ago
    > even at half that amount. Pretty sure that's already what europeans pay.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    Far more US CO2 emissions come out of the tailpipes of 10 year old Camries than of brand new Ferraris. Seriously reducing transport emissions requires reducing how much petroleum the middle class burns, one way or another. Carbon fee and dividend can avoid the regressive effects of a plain flat carbon tax.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Canada returns 90% of its carbon tax as a per-capita dividend, making it highly progressive.
- bsder 7y ago
  You do that by raising the tax $0.10 every 3 months until your tax is at the right price. The issue isn't $10/gallon gas. The issue is $10/gallon gas suddenly. If everybody knows that gas is going to go up every quarter for the next 10 years, things will adjust. Businesses will start making long-term decision around the increase. People will buy smaller cars and will start screaming for mass transit.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  I disagree the most efficient and politically palatable solution is an excise tax on products that consume fossil fuels. AKA slap a $5000 excise tax on new cars. You can use the money to buy back older cars. Same deal with gas furnaces and the like.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

The most efficient solution is a carbon tax that fully captures externalities. But $10/gallon gas would cause riots.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
marnett 7y ago
At $10 a gallon there would likely be civil war.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Yet collectively as a society we are paying more than $10/gallon. It's just that the costs aren't paid at the pump.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Because lives in the future can't fight back.
    - saltcured 7y ago
      Hmm, did you just logically prove that time travel doesn't exist...?
      - amatecha 7y ago
        Nah, just that they didn't figure out how to utilize it yet! :)
vonmoltke 7y ago
> The most efficient solution is a carbon tax that fully captures externalities. I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. It's much easier to identify the existence of unpriced externalities than it is to quantify them. I know people associated with the IMF have attempted to do so[1], but they still admit the calculations are "contentious". [1] https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA...
- runako 7y ago
  > "apolitical calculation" is this something that exists in the realm of economics (nee "political economy")?
- vkou 7y ago
  > I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. Would you agree that the longer we wait, the higher that number will be (Because we will need more drastic reductions, faster)? > apolitical calculation Economics is, by nature, political. If we're waiting for that criteria to be met, we are going to be waiting forever.
- ars 7y ago
  It's not necessary to use the actual value though, you can use 20% of it and still be useful.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  I'd be happy with any point on the error bar of those calculations.
- ajross 7y ago
  > I'm all for that once someone comes up with a rigorous, apolitical calculation for what that value is. Which is just code for "I'll never support this because I'll never believe you". Dismissing something as "policital" is the easiest out. All it takes is for your political enemies to support something and you have a built-in excuse to refuse to believe it. That is exactly the behavior that led to the circumstance we're in right now, where literally half the voting population of the USA straight up refuses to recognize scientific consensus. So... this isn't helpful. If you really want good analysis, get in there and help with it. Or at least be willing to accept something as "good enough". But what you wrote there is nothing more than a fancy excuse.
Tade0 7y ago
I think the desired effect could be achieved with $6/gallon. People would have to switch to smaller, more fuel efficient cars as they did in Europe, where this is roughly the average price.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  the desired effect at this point is no fossil fuel vehicles
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    The desired effect is net-zero carbon emissions. Which means all fossil fuel vehicle emissions must be offset. That'd make it cheaper to switch away from fossil fuel for the vast majority, but there will always be use cases for fossil fuels.
    - lrem 7y ago
      Don't we actually need net-negative?
      - empath75 7y ago
        Yes. And there’s no way to offset carbon emissions at any significant scale that I’m aware of.
ndonnellan 7y ago
I think you're being hyperbolic, but then again, that's probably the misconception most people have when they hear of carbon tax. If Canada is any indication, you probably wouldn't even notice it at 4.4 c/L to start up to 11c (or 16c/gal -> 41c/gal). https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you-114671 https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-...
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  $300 is a number that has been calculated several times as the externalities caused by burning a tonne of carbon. That's over $6 per gallon, so I'm not being hyperbolic. Considering the hysteria that $10/tonne is causing in Canada, I don't think my riots statement is hyperbolic either.
  - clickok 7y ago
    Here in Canada, the "hysteria" is due to the perceptible economic slowdown, bordering on recession, associated with the carbon tax. If such a minor tweak is enough to make businesses pull investment, then surely more than tripling the price would be ill-advised. Then you have the fact that transport, and hence fuel, affects the price of most goods, so fears of a recession (decrease in purchasing power) are not unfounded. Also consider that, while justified as addressing a "tragedy of the commons scenario", rarely do such tax dollars go towards mitigating the externalities in question. The tax would sting less if it was being spent building renewable energy rather, than initiatives that are charitably described as contentious and perhaps more accurately described as pandering. If we could avoid the graft and self-dealing usually associated with federal spending, that would likely cut down on the complaints as well.
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Putting carbon taxes towards externality mitigation would be double dipping. The whole point of the carbon tax is that it is pure incentive as it is, nothing more should be needed. And giving the carbon tax back to people as a dividend is not pandering, it's making a highly regressive tax progressive. Giving money directly to people is the purest and most effective form of economy pumping. So while carbon-intensive businesses are hurt other's will benefit; recession fears are completely overblown. And the carbon tax is the most efficient form of carbon mitigation strategy. Did you see the recent news about Doug Ford's plan being twice as expensive as the carbon tax?[1] And it is imposes the costs almost exclusively on industry, increasing the chance of a recession much more than the carbon tax it would replace. 1: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/costs-of-ontario-climate-plan-would-be-double-liberal-carbon-tax-raise-household-costs-report https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/costs-of-ontario-clim...
icebraining 7y ago
Eh, that's not even double the price in my EU country. And people still drive way too much.
Shivetya 7y ago
Because such a tax would be regressive that it would be beyond stupid to attempt, even at half that amount. Already government regulation, taxes, and fees, affect the poorest among us. Those hiked cost to register your vehicle, obtain a license, renew plates, and such, all hit that segment the hardest. You want a carbon tax, put it where it belongs, tax vehicles that return less MPG and priced beyond average car price purchases of the middle class. That Vette over there, bam, 10k extra. That Ferrari, 50k. See that lovely Audi S5 sport coupe, tack on another 10k there too. Tax small planes, tax motorcycles beyond a certain CC and size, but never tax the fuel. To encourage a change in what is an acceptable method of transportation means taxing what you don't want more of, not punishing those who are least able to withstand it let alone are not causing it.
- the8472 7y ago
  > even at half that amount. Pretty sure that's already what europeans pay.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Far more US CO2 emissions come out of the tailpipes of 10 year old Camries than of brand new Ferraris. Seriously reducing transport emissions requires reducing how much petroleum the middle class burns, one way or another. Carbon fee and dividend can avoid the regressive effects of a plain flat carbon tax.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Canada returns 90% of its carbon tax as a per-capita dividend, making it highly progressive.
bsder 7y ago
You do that by raising the tax $0.10 every 3 months until your tax is at the right price. The issue isn't $10/gallon gas. The issue is $10/gallon gas suddenly. If everybody knows that gas is going to go up every quarter for the next 10 years, things will adjust. Businesses will start making long-term decision around the increase. People will buy smaller cars and will start screaming for mass transit.
Gibbon1 7y ago
I disagree the most efficient and politically palatable solution is an excise tax on products that consume fossil fuels. AKA slap a $5000 excise tax on new cars. You can use the money to buy back older cars. Same deal with gas furnaces and the like.