3 ms·

All solutions for large scale reduction of CO2 emissions are politically impossible, so some kind of carbon capture is probably the only thing that could save u

by mrob 7y ago

All solutions for large scale reduction of CO2 emissions are politically impossible, so some kind of carbon capture is probably the only thing that could save us. It's unlikely to work, but we should at least incentivize trying. I suggest taxing all fossil fuels sufficient to cause a compounding 10% price rise per year, and applying an equivalent tariff based on estimated embodied energy from fossil fuels to imports from countries that don't apply the same tax. All the money goes into a prize fund, and anybody can claim a share of it in proportion to their share of net CO2 removed from the atmosphere out of the total verified claims of net CO2 removed that year (paying an application fee sufficient to cover third party verification of their claim). Anybody anywhere in the world can claim, and you could win the entire multi-billion dollar prize with a single gram of carbon if nobody else claimed. This would strongly encourage competition.

eru 7y ago
You start by talking about political impossibility, but then propose an even more outlandish scheme. Applying CO2 tax as a consumption tax like VAT seems like a feasible solution. Your prize fund, less so. But it's not needed. The tax take can just finance government in general. Companies will have plenty of incentive to reward inventors for lessening their tax burden.
- mrob 7y ago
  Your proposal will only result in moderately reduced emissions, which isn't enough. We need zero, or ideally negative emissions, which the prize fund idea has a chance of providing.
  - eru 7y ago
    How much emissions reduce depends on how high the tax is, how well it is enforced, and how easy the divers technologies and trade-offs to reduce emissions work in practice. On the one hand, if the tax worked perfectly, emissions would cease completely, and there would be no prize money funded. On the other hand, if there was a lot of tax take, that would be a big incentive for companies to do their own research and put up prizes. Government picking winners in such a beauty-contest competition is inherently dangerous. Eg one obvious 'idea' is to just reduce your consumption, like driving less. Or running your aircon less often and only at higher temperatures. Those ideas are very effective, but are their prize worthy? The only prize worthy aspect of them would be in the social science / propaganda necessary to get many people to adopt them. How are you going to judge that? (And in that case, the politicians who voted for the carbon tax can arguable claim the biggest part of that prize..)
    - mrob 7y ago
      If emissions cease completely then there's much less need for the prize fund. The point of the prize system is that it avoids the government picking winners. The money is distributed by objective measurement. But admittedly "net removed carbon" (meaning carbon removed from the air - carbon released into the air by the removal process) has some subjectivity in the "by the removal process" part. What qualifies as part of the process? This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. Just reducing consumption is not pulling carbon out of the air so it would score zero, and it's a highly ineffective solution (we've been trying it for decades, but CO2 levels keep increasing).
      - eru 7y ago
        Reducing consumptions works quite well, if you look at eg GDP / carbon released. But so far without a carbon tax there hasn't been much incentive to reduce CO2 release in absolute levels. A gram of carbon saved is equivalent to a gram of carbon captured. > This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. I am not sure how that's avoiding the problem at all? Btw, how would you judge the brilliant idea of growing trees?
        mrob 7y ago
        The reason I said "net carbon captured" was to avoid the "cobra effect" of people releasing carbon deliberately so they can capture it, or of people using fossil fuel powered carbon capture that releases more than it captures. If they are paying high taxes on fossil fuels then it will quickly become unprofitable, so in that case it's not a serious problem. Assuming they are not later burnt, growing trees qualifies as carbon capture. I now realize the tax would have to be on all forms of CO2 emissions, not just fossil fuels, otherwise the captured carbon would be re-burned.

by mrob 7y ago

eru 7y ago

You start by talking about political impossibility, but then propose an even more outlandish scheme. Applying CO2 tax as a consumption tax like VAT seems like a feasible solution. Your prize fund, less so. But it's not needed. The tax take can just finance government in general. Companies will have plenty of incentive to reward inventors for lessening their tax burden.

mrob 7y ago
Your proposal will only result in moderately reduced emissions, which isn't enough. We need zero, or ideally negative emissions, which the prize fund idea has a chance of providing.
- eru 7y ago
  How much emissions reduce depends on how high the tax is, how well it is enforced, and how easy the divers technologies and trade-offs to reduce emissions work in practice. On the one hand, if the tax worked perfectly, emissions would cease completely, and there would be no prize money funded. On the other hand, if there was a lot of tax take, that would be a big incentive for companies to do their own research and put up prizes. Government picking winners in such a beauty-contest competition is inherently dangerous. Eg one obvious 'idea' is to just reduce your consumption, like driving less. Or running your aircon less often and only at higher temperatures. Those ideas are very effective, but are their prize worthy? The only prize worthy aspect of them would be in the social science / propaganda necessary to get many people to adopt them. How are you going to judge that? (And in that case, the politicians who voted for the carbon tax can arguable claim the biggest part of that prize..)
  - mrob 7y ago
    If emissions cease completely then there's much less need for the prize fund. The point of the prize system is that it avoids the government picking winners. The money is distributed by objective measurement. But admittedly "net removed carbon" (meaning carbon removed from the air - carbon released into the air by the removal process) has some subjectivity in the "by the removal process" part. What qualifies as part of the process? This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. Just reducing consumption is not pulling carbon out of the air so it would score zero, and it's a highly ineffective solution (we've been trying it for decades, but CO2 levels keep increasing).
    - eru 7y ago
      Reducing consumptions works quite well, if you look at eg GDP / carbon released. But so far without a carbon tax there hasn't been much incentive to reduce CO2 release in absolute levels. A gram of carbon saved is equivalent to a gram of carbon captured. > This problem could be avoided by limiting applicants to countries with the fossil fuel tax + import tariffs, and judging purely on carbon recovered. I am not sure how that's avoiding the problem at all? Btw, how would you judge the brilliant idea of growing trees?
      - mrob 7y ago
        The reason I said "net carbon captured" was to avoid the "cobra effect" of people releasing carbon deliberately so they can capture it, or of people using fossil fuel powered carbon capture that releases more than it captures. If they are paying high taxes on fossil fuels then it will quickly become unprofitable, so in that case it's not a serious problem. Assuming they are not later burnt, growing trees qualifies as carbon capture. I now realize the tax would have to be on all forms of CO2 emissions, not just fossil fuels, otherwise the captured carbon would be re-burned.