5 ms·

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

by 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

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.