4 ms·

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, y

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...
- philipkglass 7y ago
  A tonne of gasoline occupies about 350 gallons and contains about 85 percent carbon by mass. At $300 per tonne of carbon that translates into a tax of about 73 cents per gallon.
- brutos 7y ago
  I did the calculation myself due to multiple conflicting numbers in this thread: I get 2.6 dollar per gallon of gas (8.65kg CO2 produced by complete combustion of 1 gallon gas): 300$/ton * 8.65kg = 2.6$ per gallon (0.6$ per liter) 100$/ton * 8.65kg = 0.87$ (0.23$ per liter) 30$/ton * 8.65kg = 0.26$ (0.07$ per liter) 7 cent per liter seems quite acceptable. And people are reporting that some companies are targeting that price point for sequestration. Please correct my if I miscalculated something.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    OP said "by burning a tonne of carbon" rather than "by emitting a tonne of CO2," which is the main reason your calculated per-gallon results are significantly higher than mine. Neither interpretation gets close to $6/gallon in added taxes, so I'm not quite sure what OP meant.
empath75 7y ago
If you don’t notice it, it’s not particularly effective is it?

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...
philipkglass 7y ago
A tonne of gasoline occupies about 350 gallons and contains about 85 percent carbon by mass. At $300 per tonne of carbon that translates into a tax of about 73 cents per gallon.
brutos 7y ago
I did the calculation myself due to multiple conflicting numbers in this thread: I get 2.6 dollar per gallon of gas (8.65kg CO2 produced by complete combustion of 1 gallon gas): 300$/ton * 8.65kg = 2.6$ per gallon (0.6$ per liter) 100$/ton * 8.65kg = 0.87$ (0.23$ per liter) 30$/ton * 8.65kg = 0.26$ (0.07$ per liter) 7 cent per liter seems quite acceptable. And people are reporting that some companies are targeting that price point for sequestration. Please correct my if I miscalculated something.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  OP said "by burning a tonne of carbon" rather than "by emitting a tonne of CO2," which is the main reason your calculated per-gallon results are significantly higher than mine. Neither interpretation gets close to $6/gallon in added taxes, so I'm not quite sure what OP meant.

empath75 7y ago

If you don’t notice it, it’s not particularly effective is it?