4 ms·

Not sure how well that would go over with the average American, suddenly seeing their usual $200-$300'ish monthly bill on gas suddenly change to $2000 - $3000/m

Not sure how well that would go over with the average American, suddenly seeing their usual $200-$300'ish monthly bill on gas suddenly change to $2000 - $3000/month. And who would get all that extra tax revenue? I assume the US Government, but does anyone have any belief that the US Government would actually put that money towards carbon offsets?

tito 7y ago
I’m not saying the tax you propose will ever happen, I don’t think it could or necessarily should. This is a model of the real social cost of carbon. Which means someone will pay it, maybe not you or me though, and maybe not right now. And that cost may go up.
aphextim 7y ago
If it cost me 10x to fill my 500 gallon propane tank, well it's back to burning wood/cutting down trees for me.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings. Mature trees (especially coniferous trees) are fairly carbon neutral because they suppress undergrowth. Seedlings capture tons of carbon. So the tax would incentivize emitting much less net carbon. That's the point.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    >If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings. Most of the time I can drive around my family's property and find many trees that have already fallen and are down without having to even cut mature trees. It's just the extra work that goes into it rather than calling up the gas company for a refill. I am lucky and my great grandpa/family has been passing the farm/land down through the generations and now it's a 'family' farm with about 1500 acres, and about 2/3 of that is forest with trails. Worst case scenario I contract out some kids/young adults in the area to cut/haul/stack my wood if I am short on time and unable to get enough for the winter myself. Lots of Maple trees in Upper Michigan :D
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      Even better. Deadfall will rot, releasing its carbon anyways.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    Yes but if you burn them....
    - bryanlarsen 7y ago
      The comparison is to burning natural gas.
  - hackeraccount 7y ago
    CO2 is not the only type of pollution. Particulate is a lot worse in most ways. And it's also a lot more noticeable. Heck it's probably even as bad or worse for the climate.
pliny 7y ago
Washington had a revenue neutral carbon tax on the ballot in 2016 and that was (imo unfortunately) rejected by voters. The revenue for the carbon tax would have funded a reduction in the sales tax: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_S...
tzs 7y ago
> And who would get all that extra tax revenue? The proposals that seem to be taken most seriously are for a "revenue neutral" tax. The money collected is distributed back to the public, with each person receiving an equal share.

tito 7y ago

I’m not saying the tax you propose will ever happen, I don’t think it could or necessarily should. This is a model of the real social cost of carbon. Which means someone will pay it, maybe not you or me though, and maybe not right now. And that cost may go up.

aphextim 7y ago

If it cost me 10x to fill my 500 gallon propane tank, well it's back to burning wood/cutting down trees for me.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings. Mature trees (especially coniferous trees) are fairly carbon neutral because they suppress undergrowth. Seedlings capture tons of carbon. So the tax would incentivize emitting much less net carbon. That's the point.
- aphextim 7y ago
  >If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings. Most of the time I can drive around my family's property and find many trees that have already fallen and are down without having to even cut mature trees. It's just the extra work that goes into it rather than calling up the gas company for a refill. I am lucky and my great grandpa/family has been passing the farm/land down through the generations and now it's a 'family' farm with about 1500 acres, and about 2/3 of that is forest with trails. Worst case scenario I contract out some kids/young adults in the area to cut/haul/stack my wood if I am short on time and unable to get enough for the winter myself. Lots of Maple trees in Upper Michigan :D
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    Even better. Deadfall will rot, releasing its carbon anyways.
- OJFord 7y ago
  Yes but if you burn them....
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    The comparison is to burning natural gas.
- hackeraccount 7y ago
  CO2 is not the only type of pollution. Particulate is a lot worse in most ways. And it's also a lot more noticeable. Heck it's probably even as bad or worse for the climate.

pliny 7y ago

Washington had a revenue neutral carbon tax on the ballot in 2016 and that was (imo unfortunately) rejected by voters. The revenue for the carbon tax would have funded a reduction in the sales tax: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_Sales_Tax_Reduction,_Initiative_732_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_S...

tzs 7y ago

> And who would get all that extra tax revenue? The proposals that seem to be taken most seriously are for a "revenue neutral" tax. The money collected is distributed back to the public, with each person receiving an equal share.