4 ms·

While I agree that something has to change, I don‘t agree with what you propose. The demands of climate activists in Europe are mostly completely unrealistic an

by grecht 7y ago

While I agree that something has to change, I don‘t agree with what you propose. The demands of climate activists in Europe are mostly completely unrealistic and would mean drastic life style changes for people with smaller incomes, while others would just pay the premium. What a country like Germany, with comparably high emissions per capita but all in all irrelevant contributions to worldwide emissions, needs to show is that it‘s possible to push climate-friendly politics that work with (and through!) the economy, not against it. Maybe this could lead to a change. 20 years ago, Germany raised taxes on fuel, but that didn’t make anyone drive less. I’m guessing the same would happen with a tax on CO2. So I‘m favoring emissions allowances: Politics dictates a threshold of how much CO2 is permitted and gives out allowances, then the price develops on the market. But it feels like, for those „rebellions“, capitalism is the root of all evil.

perfunctory 7y ago
> So I‘m favoring emissions allowances The system already exists, isn't it? The so called "cap and trade" https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en But the cap is too high and the prices are too low. Would you accept it's ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? But also, wouldn't a lower cap lead to the "drastic life style changes for people" anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts)?
- grecht 7y ago
  > The system already exists Yes, but not for all industries. > Would you accept it‘s ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? If people rebel for realistic solutions I‘m all for it! > wouldn‘t a lower cap lead to the „drastic life style changes for people“ anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts) Yeah, probably! Surely not to the same extent like the carbon tax demanded by climate activists. But the idea is to incentivize companies to find more climate-friendly solutions. Certainly some companies would lose their competitive ability if they depend on high emissions, though.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Not only did it not reduce fuel consumption, the money was also used to fix holes in our social security system and almost nothing was done for the environment. Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport. People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others. Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past. I think the current little pupil rebellion is something very worth supporting. But their demands are naive. Your proposition would be a more efficient mechanism. Currently there is a discussion about giving people a fixed amount of money for the additional costs this tax would cause. What a waste of time...
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  Seriously? Give out certificates (yes, that idea is not new, it's just limited to certain industries at the moment) and then let the price develop? Those certificates would be a rare resource. How many of those would the non-rich be able to afford, eh? If you look at movements such as extinction rebellion, reducing social (including financial) inequality is part and parcel of what they demand, exactly because the rich have not been paying their fair share. This is true on a national level, as well as a global level. And yes, this all requires drastic lifestyle changes. That's the point. No lifestyle change, no climate effect. Simple as that.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I agree but how do you think this drastic lifestyle change look would look like? The price of emission certificates would be reflected in the products you buy, of course. That is a huge part of the criticism against a tax for households that are just responsible for 1/5th of emissions and I wouldn't include them in the emission trade at all. Because even today people don't waste significant energy for basic needs like heating, so any instrument can only be that effective. And corporations are currently the only ones paying for every tonne of CO² they emit. And you want to change that to be extended to everyone... You might argue that they should pay more, but... Of course people in many political parties are rubbing their hands that you actually want to increase tax burdens. Money solves problems, right?

by grecht 7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago

> So I‘m favoring emissions allowances The system already exists, isn't it? The so called "cap and trade" https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en But the cap is too high and the prices are too low. Would you accept it's ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? But also, wouldn't a lower cap lead to the "drastic life style changes for people" anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts)?

grecht 7y ago
> The system already exists Yes, but not for all industries. > Would you accept it‘s ok to rebel to force the politicians to lower the cap? If people rebel for realistic solutions I‘m all for it! > wouldn‘t a lower cap lead to the „drastic life style changes for people“ anyway (at least in the short term while the economy adapts) Yeah, probably! Surely not to the same extent like the carbon tax demanded by climate activists. But the idea is to incentivize companies to find more climate-friendly solutions. Certainly some companies would lose their competitive ability if they depend on high emissions, though.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Not only did it not reduce fuel consumption, the money was also used to fix holes in our social security system and almost nothing was done for the environment. Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport. People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others. Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past. I think the current little pupil rebellion is something very worth supporting. But their demands are naive. Your proposition would be a more efficient mechanism. Currently there is a discussion about giving people a fixed amount of money for the additional costs this tax would cause. What a waste of time...

black_puppydog 7y ago
Seriously? Give out certificates (yes, that idea is not new, it's just limited to certain industries at the moment) and then let the price develop? Those certificates would be a rare resource. How many of those would the non-rich be able to afford, eh? If you look at movements such as extinction rebellion, reducing social (including financial) inequality is part and parcel of what they demand, exactly because the rich have not been paying their fair share. This is true on a national level, as well as a global level. And yes, this all requires drastic lifestyle changes. That's the point. No lifestyle change, no climate effect. Simple as that.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I agree but how do you think this drastic lifestyle change look would look like? The price of emission certificates would be reflected in the products you buy, of course. That is a huge part of the criticism against a tax for households that are just responsible for 1/5th of emissions and I wouldn't include them in the emission trade at all. Because even today people don't waste significant energy for basic needs like heating, so any instrument can only be that effective. And corporations are currently the only ones paying for every tonne of CO² they emit. And you want to change that to be extended to everyone... You might argue that they should pay more, but... Of course people in many political parties are rubbing their hands that you actually want to increase tax burdens. Money solves problems, right?