39 ms·

The problem is that there's no short term downside to using more than your share, and most people won't live to see the longer term effects of their decisions.

The problem is that there's no short term downside to using more than your share, and most people won't live to see the longer term effects of their decisions. People tend to maximize their own utility, and cutting back typically is the opposite. I don't think we should go the opposite direction, though, and legislate our way out by, for example, banning popular polluting products like meat and cars. Instead, I think we should just add in the long term costs so short term decisions are appropriately adjusted. I believe strongly that a carbon tax (or a more general pollution tax to cover things like methane) can significantly improve things generally without any bans. If you increase the price of jet fuel, airline ticket prices go up, which discourages use of airlines and encourages more efficient alternatives, like trains or telecommuting. It can touch pretty much every negative aspect of society without the complexity and subjectivity of deciding which products are bad enough to get banned. Companies that pollute will be forced to innovate or lose to greener competitors without all the complexity of juggling subsidies. I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. One side of politics chooses to ignore the problem, while the other side chases subsidies and regulation. I think taxing sources of carbon and other greenhouse gases makes a ton of sense.

esotericn 7y ago
A carbon tax is precisely what I'm talking about, it's just forced. Sure, we shouldn't ban anything. We probably actually can't.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
> I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. Two countries with highly visible carbon taxes are France and Canada. You've seen the video of the yellow vest protests in France. A carbon tax is highly regressive, affecting the poor more than the rich. In Canada they did it "properly", making it progressive through an offset. 80% of Canadians get more money from the carbon tax offset than they pay out into the carbon tax. The government is likely going to fall (or at best drop into minority status) in the election on Monday. The carbon tax is one of the key reasons for their fall. You're right, it doesn't make any sense.
- pintxo 7y ago
  I am positive we will be able to find technological solutions, but I am very skeptical if we can find social solutions. Generating society consensus on how to react on change might be the most important todo.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    I'm not quite so skeptical. We don't need consensus, we "just" need political action. 50% + 1. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.
    - pintxo 7y ago
      Looking at the violent protests of a minority in France, it seems a 50%+1 majority is no guarantee for a stable society. Finding a political majority is only one mandatory step. More relevant will be to create a stable support in the citizenry.

esotericn 7y ago

A carbon tax is precisely what I'm talking about, it's just forced. Sure, we shouldn't ban anything. We probably actually can't.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

> I don't know why we haven't seriously presented a workable carbon tax. Two countries with highly visible carbon taxes are France and Canada. You've seen the video of the yellow vest protests in France. A carbon tax is highly regressive, affecting the poor more than the rich. In Canada they did it "properly", making it progressive through an offset. 80% of Canadians get more money from the carbon tax offset than they pay out into the carbon tax. The government is likely going to fall (or at best drop into minority status) in the election on Monday. The carbon tax is one of the key reasons for their fall. You're right, it doesn't make any sense.

pintxo 7y ago
I am positive we will be able to find technological solutions, but I am very skeptical if we can find social solutions. Generating society consensus on how to react on change might be the most important todo.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  I'm not quite so skeptical. We don't need consensus, we "just" need political action. 50% + 1. Extremely difficult, but not impossible.
  - pintxo 7y ago
    Looking at the violent protests of a minority in France, it seems a 50%+1 majority is no guarantee for a stable society. Finding a political majority is only one mandatory step. More relevant will be to create a stable support in the citizenry.