3 ms·

> It's on the nuclear people to figure out how to get operating costs safely down. But boy howdy it'd be nice if their carbon-free nature could be valued higher

> It's on the nuclear people to figure out how to get operating costs safely down. But boy howdy it'd be nice if their carbon-free nature could be valued higher, or if fracking could be made more expensive. Well, it is not like there is a law of physics prohibiting a carbon tax (and dividend) scheme...

acidburnNSA 7y ago
> Well, it is not like there is a law of physics prohibiting a carbon tax (and dividend) scheme... After trying twice and failing twice in WA state, it sure feels like there is! Doing this on the national or international level seems even harder. I guess we may have to wait and see some more serious climate effects to get people onboard. I've heard a few anecdotal stories of climate change deniers quickly changing their minds after hurricanes/floods that haven't happened in 50 years take out their homes.
- hannob 7y ago
  As far as I'm aware there's a good reason why the carbon tax in washington failed: They didn't implement a mechanism to give back the money to citizens. However this is a key part of what many believe a carbon tax should contain, so it doesn't look like a "government wants more money" scheme. Most carbon tax schemes proposed by economists explicitly have this built in, see e.g.: https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    I-732 was the first attempt, designed by some real pros and supported by James Hansen [1], who tends to agree with your assertion that revenue neutral approaches are the only way to navigate the politics. It got weird and lost support from prominent organizations related to not being inclusive enough in its design... or something. The more inclusive follow-initiative (I-1631) was worse from a neutrality perspective and lost. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-climate-change-by-passing-i-732/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-...

acidburnNSA 7y ago

> Well, it is not like there is a law of physics prohibiting a carbon tax (and dividend) scheme... After trying twice and failing twice in WA state, it sure feels like there is! Doing this on the national or international level seems even harder. I guess we may have to wait and see some more serious climate effects to get people onboard. I've heard a few anecdotal stories of climate change deniers quickly changing their minds after hurricanes/floods that haven't happened in 50 years take out their homes.

hannob 7y ago
As far as I'm aware there's a good reason why the carbon tax in washington failed: They didn't implement a mechanism to give back the money to citizens. However this is a key part of what many believe a carbon tax should contain, so it doesn't look like a "government wants more money" scheme. Most carbon tax schemes proposed by economists explicitly have this built in, see e.g.: https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  I-732 was the first attempt, designed by some real pros and supported by James Hansen [1], who tends to agree with your assertion that revenue neutral approaches are the only way to navigate the politics. It got weird and lost support from prominent organizations related to not being inclusive enough in its design... or something. The more inclusive follow-initiative (I-1631) was worse from a neutrality perspective and lost. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-climate-change-by-passing-i-732/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-...