5 ms·

> They resent people who use climate change as a proxy for another agenda In my experience, it's more a question that whenever action is proposed, they simply

> They resent people who use climate change as a proxy for another agenda In my experience, it's more a question that whenever action is proposed, they simply claim as an axiom that it those proposing action actually have another agenda. "You want to introduce tax on carbon emissions? You clearly want big government to control our lives and destroy American industry". This kind of paranoid thinking is problematic in introducing effective measures.

motohagiography 7y ago
There is probably more middle ground. Many people read problematic, and just hear counter-revolutionary. If we agree on reducing carbon emissions, and using policy tools to do it, there are a lot of solutions that don't require trusting that a carbon tax will be used for anything but general revenue. Without limits on what the money is used for, it's the same as a progressive VAT/consumption tax, which isn't a necessarily terrible idea if it replaced the current VATs, income and other burdens, but when it's just another largess fund for connected believers, it's a nonconstructive shibboleth for an identity politics agenda. Someone wrote here the other day on Scissor ideas that some differences of opinion can only be reconciled through power, and it's a seductive idea, but we all know what the alternative to discourse looks like, so I think it's more valuable to support ideas that contribute to preserving it as the means for reconciliation.
- tzs 7y ago
  Most carbon tax proposals I've seen have not given the money to the government. They have been revenue neutral, with the money collected distributed back to the general population, with each person getting an equal share.
- Angostura 7y ago
  > there are a lot of solutions that don't require trusting that a carbon tax will be used for anything but general revenue. There are indeed. Carbon fee and dividend is perhaps the most popular proposal in the world. Under this system the revenue is immediately returned to the general populace, equally on a per-person basis. Why are you assuming any other kind?
  - motohagiography 7y ago
    We would be getting into the weeds of it, but it's just redistributive, with all the moral hazard associated with that, and without applying it to direct investment in a carbon sink technology that mitigates the problem. There are values that just don't scale well without trade offs against things like human dignity (loaded, but important), and applying the sentiments behind equity to vastly heterogeneous global interests is one of them. While I (and my more reactionary and working class friends) understand that carbon taxes presumably compensate The People for the consequences of what was formerly an environmental externality - the use of climate as just a pretext for redistribution signals what gets perceived as an underlying dishonesty and illegitimate elitism that makes it difficult to legitimize the rationale, or outcomes. For example, basic income funded by indirect taxation is an interesting solution to a specific set of problems around technology and globalization, but it requires a level of trust that has been damaged by freighting climate with these other agendas. Still doable, but to honestly discuss the options requires frank talk about limits and boundaries to its application. I've got opinions like anyone and I'm not always entirely above point scoring either, so it's going to take real work for people to do it. Having read things like Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, and watching Scott Alexander's influence, the question of what the fundamental irreconcilable difference of interest may be is the most pressing question. How do we reconcile interests and coexist with people whose most basic beliefs we experience as alien? Some would just say, "win," even independent of political persuasion, but I'd argue there is immensely valuable work to be done to find ways to do better. So short version, returning carbon tax money to the general populace means general revenue, for general spending, which is not something conservatives tend to trust.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      I think this is a very good example of what I was talking about. Bring up the idea of taxing carbon - making manufacturing actually pay for the disposal cost of the CO2 they generate and suddenly people pop up talking about: "There are values that just don't scale well without trade offs against things like human dignity". There's talk of "the use of climate as just a pretext for redistribution signals" and away we go. This stuff has nothing to do with "is it a good idea to apply market pricing when it comes to dumping waste into the atmosphere? "it requires a level of trust that has been damaged by freighting climate with these other agendas" You know who has been doing the freighting? The industries who will do absolutely anything to avoid a rational debate about how we apply a cost to their polluting ways. > How do we reconcile interests and coexist with people whose most basic beliefs we experience as alien? Who are these people who basically don't believe the scientific evidence that we are destroying the ecology we rely on? > which is not something conservatives tend to trust. Fine - I await with interest conservatives actual proposals for reducing CO2 emissions. But I can't afford to wait too long.
- Tarq0n 7y ago
  I don't really see the issue with a regular carbon tax? Whether is redistribution or government spending, both can have positive economic impacts.

motohagiography 7y ago

There is probably more middle ground. Many people read problematic, and just hear counter-revolutionary. If we agree on reducing carbon emissions, and using policy tools to do it, there are a lot of solutions that don't require trusting that a carbon tax will be used for anything but general revenue. Without limits on what the money is used for, it's the same as a progressive VAT/consumption tax, which isn't a necessarily terrible idea if it replaced the current VATs, income and other burdens, but when it's just another largess fund for connected believers, it's a nonconstructive shibboleth for an identity politics agenda. Someone wrote here the other day on Scissor ideas that some differences of opinion can only be reconciled through power, and it's a seductive idea, but we all know what the alternative to discourse looks like, so I think it's more valuable to support ideas that contribute to preserving it as the means for reconciliation.

tzs 7y ago
Most carbon tax proposals I've seen have not given the money to the government. They have been revenue neutral, with the money collected distributed back to the general population, with each person getting an equal share.
Angostura 7y ago
> there are a lot of solutions that don't require trusting that a carbon tax will be used for anything but general revenue. There are indeed. Carbon fee and dividend is perhaps the most popular proposal in the world. Under this system the revenue is immediately returned to the general populace, equally on a per-person basis. Why are you assuming any other kind?
- motohagiography 7y ago
  We would be getting into the weeds of it, but it's just redistributive, with all the moral hazard associated with that, and without applying it to direct investment in a carbon sink technology that mitigates the problem. There are values that just don't scale well without trade offs against things like human dignity (loaded, but important), and applying the sentiments behind equity to vastly heterogeneous global interests is one of them. While I (and my more reactionary and working class friends) understand that carbon taxes presumably compensate The People for the consequences of what was formerly an environmental externality - the use of climate as just a pretext for redistribution signals what gets perceived as an underlying dishonesty and illegitimate elitism that makes it difficult to legitimize the rationale, or outcomes. For example, basic income funded by indirect taxation is an interesting solution to a specific set of problems around technology and globalization, but it requires a level of trust that has been damaged by freighting climate with these other agendas. Still doable, but to honestly discuss the options requires frank talk about limits and boundaries to its application. I've got opinions like anyone and I'm not always entirely above point scoring either, so it's going to take real work for people to do it. Having read things like Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind, and watching Scott Alexander's influence, the question of what the fundamental irreconcilable difference of interest may be is the most pressing question. How do we reconcile interests and coexist with people whose most basic beliefs we experience as alien? Some would just say, "win," even independent of political persuasion, but I'd argue there is immensely valuable work to be done to find ways to do better. So short version, returning carbon tax money to the general populace means general revenue, for general spending, which is not something conservatives tend to trust.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    I think this is a very good example of what I was talking about. Bring up the idea of taxing carbon - making manufacturing actually pay for the disposal cost of the CO2 they generate and suddenly people pop up talking about: "There are values that just don't scale well without trade offs against things like human dignity". There's talk of "the use of climate as just a pretext for redistribution signals" and away we go. This stuff has nothing to do with "is it a good idea to apply market pricing when it comes to dumping waste into the atmosphere? "it requires a level of trust that has been damaged by freighting climate with these other agendas" You know who has been doing the freighting? The industries who will do absolutely anything to avoid a rational debate about how we apply a cost to their polluting ways. > How do we reconcile interests and coexist with people whose most basic beliefs we experience as alien? Who are these people who basically don't believe the scientific evidence that we are destroying the ecology we rely on? > which is not something conservatives tend to trust. Fine - I await with interest conservatives actual proposals for reducing CO2 emissions. But I can't afford to wait too long.
Tarq0n 7y ago
I don't really see the issue with a regular carbon tax? Whether is redistribution or government spending, both can have positive economic impacts.