7 ms·

Well, the answers won't get you (re-)elected: * Subsidize public transportation (maybe even 100%), and make it a feasible mode of transportation for as many pe

Well, the answers won't get you (re-)elected: * Subsidize public transportation (maybe even 100%), and make it a feasible mode of transportation for as many people as possible (at least for daily commutes; bonus: many people are concentrated in cities, so start there). * Regarding daily driving: If public transportation is a feasible alternative, punish those who still use their car for commuting. * Massively increase taxes on all kinds of fossil fuels; no matter if used for driving or for electricity (initially ease this in regions with difficult/bad public transportation). * Make it easier to build regenerative energies (e.g. solar and wind) plus storage systems (e.g. pumped water or battery). * I'm personally undecided on nuclear fission, but compared to coal it could be the lesser of two evils? * On the packaging of any product (from bottled water over electronics to toothpaste) print the amount of energy used in production and for transportation. * Punish producers of goods that break early (e.g. define minimum durability requirements for various product groups). Would you elect someone with this agenda? I would have a hard time, though I think these points could all be appropriate responses to the climate crisis. Even better: Try to get elected with that ;-)

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
More taxes, less freedom, more punishments. Yes, I believe this would be unpopular. However, remind me while you are punishing people for driving cars, how is the public transit outside major urban areas? Have you been outside urban areas?
- Angostura 7y ago
  > Yes, I believe this would be unpopular. As indeed is the idea of your grand children living in a post-civilisation world
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    OP never said the whole platform was bad. Just that public transport doesn’t work in certain areas. Especially less dense ones.
- archi42 7y ago
  > Have you been outside urban areas? Yes. I lived there for well over a decade and am still regularly visiting. I elaborated on the meaning of the word "feasible" in the sentence "If public transportation is a feasible alternative", but removed that wall of text for better readability. Maybe should have kept it to clarify...? > More taxes, less freedom, more punishments. That's what we're already doing for destructive behavior if someone doesn't understand/care that what they're doing is bad. Look back at the last 30 years and tell me we actually learned that it's a bad idea to destroy our planet?
- CalRobert 7y ago
  They did point out it wouldn't get you elected. "It's impractical for me to live in the middle of nowhere" doesn't actually refute any of their statements though. If I were worried about spotted owls going extinct, saying "but I _like_ burning spotted owls for heat in the winter" doesn't really mean your actions are not going to have the negative consequence of spotted owls going extinct. Compared to "hundreds of millions of people in India will die of thirst or starvation" "I like driving everywhere and living in the middle of nowhere" isn't inducing much sympathy. Of course, you _can_ live in the middle of nowhere and have a pretty low carbon footprint. Ride a bike, eat vegetables, grow your own heating fuel, etc. Plenty of people do just that - here's one I've been following lately https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6vcadTSSQKVsdOudnbqwtg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6vcadTSSQKVsdOudnbqwtg . But "I like having a cheap giant house in the middle of nowhere and driving a long ways to and from work" isn't exactly an argument. Sad thing is that we are often pushed to live in the middle of nowhere by NIMBYs. Moderate density well-insulated homes near jobs and services that you can get to by bike, walking or transport isn't exactly a miserable life. Copenhageners seem happy enough.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >how is the public transit outside major urban areas? Have you been outside urban areas? Doesn't matter. The planet doesn't care how difficult your commute is, and global climate policy shouldn't either. We're far past the point where we can ease in change. We need drastic worldwide change and we need it yesterday. Of course it's going to be very painful for a lot of people, but the level of climate change we're going to see on our current path is going to be an order of magnitude more so.
- Valgrim 7y ago
  The majority of the population lives in urban and suburban areas, and a minority lives in rural areas. These are very different environments and public transport should be expected to be very different between them. In cities, we should expect a high capacity system, like subways, 10-minutes buses and trams. Gradually, as we move outside the cities densest areas, we should have a lighter but faster system, such as light transit rails, longer but still frequent bus routes. Eventually, as we move outside suburban areas into rural areas, we should get something that barely exist right now: on-demand transit, like collective taxis, or flexible minibuses.
ximeng 7y ago
Labour Party in the UK just announced a manifesto that commits to rapid reductions in emissions paid by taxes including a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, so we will soon see.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Electing Labor will almost certainly hurt the UK economy more by 2100 than will an RCP 8.5 scenario.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Cobblers. Haven't seen this election's manifesto yet, but in 2017 their manifesto was judged more financially credible - by the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) - than that of the bloody Tories.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Corbyn is an old socialist who opposed removing Clause IV from labor’s platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-conference-common-ownership-a9112161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-...
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a Tory manifesto is more than just BoJo or May. Our Prime Ministers do not get US presidential - i.e. 18th century British monarchical - powers. Brexit reveals there are some major failings with the system and how it can be hijacked by a focused minority group (e.g. the ERG), but it is not subject to the major US weakness to the {right|wrong} individual.
        rayiner 7y ago
        Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.
rayiner 7y ago
None of that will have any significant impact on total emissions given growth in Asia, China, and India. There is no scenario for keeping us at 1.5 or 2C that allows the developing world to start living better lives that doesn’t involve the developed world going net negative in carbon emissions.
- archi42 7y ago
  Add net-negative to the list then ;) I bet voters are keen on paying for that. Regarding Asia: I thought of this at a more global scale. Of course it's pointless cleaning up the pool if the other people at the party using it as a trash dump (but maybe someone has to start).
  - rayiner 7y ago
    They’re not “using it as a trash dump.” They just want to live a decent modern life. The average Bangladeshi emits 0.5 tons of CO2. The average European is more than 10x that. Europeans biking anywhere isn’t going to cut emissions by enough to let Bangladeshis live a European style life (even if the Bangladeshis bike everywhere too).
    - archi42 7y ago
      I didn't mean that literally, and I suppose/hope nobody things "hey, let's destroy the earth! Death to humans!". If developing countries aspire to an European life style this will come with more emissions (which you said, and I agree with you). I would be the last to claim that some people should have a less decent life than others. But the people in those country can see where this path leads, and since they're still "developing" they can try to start on a better path (if they want to). They have the advantage that these days there is greener tech available, so there is no need to go down the dirty road that led us to where we are right now in the west: We dumped a lot of shit in the pool, and still do, and we act as if we can't do anything about it while we should get ourselves together rather sooner than later. //edit: What I mean is, I think our lifes are little bit too decent; at least with the costs we're paying for them, e.g. by destroying our planet. [Queue pun on technical debt or raking up a bill our (grand-)kids have to pay]
kazagistar 7y ago
I would almost vote for that platform. The problem is it's regressive... prices on basic good and utilities disproportionately harm those who are poor, at least in the short term. But I think there are ways to mitigate that, and as a package would likely be a popular position.
- archi42 7y ago
  Yeah, I know: VAT and (similar taxes on daily goods/resources) affect poor people the most, since they invest most of their money in these. The cynical thing is: People with a lot of money make most of the profit from environmental destruction and can later use that money/resources to ease the effect of climate destruction on themselves and their families/heritage; poor people just try to get by, and have a harder time mitigating the effects. I think I have a second point for my platform: Shift tax pressure from VAT to income tax and/or taxation on wealth. I should announce this one AFTER the gala with the corporate sponsors; also, this is difficult to balance for economic growth).
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Climate change is regressive.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Yes I would, and vote accordingly - heavily against my personal financial interest. Yet I recognise that I am not especially representative here. I'd also criticise the party proposing those as not doing nearly enough. :) > Even better: Try to get elected with that I don't live under a Swiss model of direct democracy, or even one of the better forms of proportional representation. We disassembled most local government powers and gave them to central. A majority of votes are pointless and wasted in safe seats. Many consider my country (the UK) one of the least representative implementations of "democracy" on the planet - with good cause. Only the top 2 - 4 issues and latest "idiot soundbite" swing elections. Scarily the Murdoch media can still apparently swing elections. Where I live there's no point voting - there's too many retirees who've paid off mortgage, kids moved out etc who are voting solely on tax and pension levels. Which leaves a) achieve a miracle of making it a key issue for Murdoch (or Lebedev, Desmond, Barclay Brothers etc) or b) get a world so hugely impacted that it's above health, employment and tax for most including the pensioners... Or I guess wait for the revolution? ;)
pacala 7y ago
Yet another Western centric litany of small palliative course corrections. They might have worked in 1950s, but are simply insignificant today. The world is rapidly changing. * Global population is exploding. We passed 2B as recently as 1927, now we are close to 8B. Most of this historically unprecedented tsunami of people aspires to an energy-rich lifestyle, by hook or by crook. * Most of the global carbon emissions are produced by non-Western countries. Led by China, whose emissions are more than US + EU combined. * How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions?
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  The population is projected to stabilise and then fall in the future. Most of the future growth is from people not dying as fast rather than people being born. Are you intentionally using per country rather than per capita numbers. This appears to be a talking point I see it so often, but it's hard to tell if people are just repeating it without thought. Carbon tariffs let you penalise any country that doesn't play by the rules. We already do similar for other environmental and social reasons. Plus, the environmental option is often cheaper and more efficient, it's only a short term hit to entrenched interests. So really you should be worried about African nations leapfrogging you to cheap solar based manufacturing while you get locked into expensive fossil fuels to keep Republican donors rich.
  - pacala 7y ago
    Emissions = number of capitas * per capita emissions. Most people aspire to a western lifestyle. Multiply global population with western lifestyle emissions. This is wildly unsustainable. Minor western lifestyle tweaks are not making a dent. Something major will have to give.
- triceratops 7y ago
  > How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions? Tariffs. Import duties. Trading blocs that exclude anyone who isn't on board. It's already been done with copyright and other IP.
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Why do you think it would be hard to get elected on that platform? To be clear I think you're right, but the reason I'd give is that people with financial interests in fossil fuels will spend their money on attacking you and boosting your opponent. Nothing about the actual steps required seems that unpopular to me. Cleaner air, cheaper energy, better cars and busses? It only seems terrible if you believe the lies put out by the aforementioned fossil fuel interests.
ddxxdd 7y ago
>I'm personally undecided on nuclear fission, but compared to coal it could be the lesser of two evils? Hesitance towards nuclear power is part of the reason the public doesn't take climate change activism seriously.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Massively increase taxes on all kinds of fossil fuels; no matter if used for driving or for electricity (initially ease this in regions with difficult/bad public transportation). It isn't really necessary to ease this in at all if it's used to fund a dividend. Paying $5000 more for gas and electricity is no problem when you get the full $5000 back. All it does is make it cheaper to do something different than you are doing, because then you still get the $5000 but don't have to spend it all -- which is exactly the point. You might even want to go the other direction in that case -- raise the tax in regions with bad transit, which would also increase the dividend in that region and give people there more incentive to at least buy electric vehicles etc., since they're the region with the highest carbon emissions per capita and most in need of remediation. > On the packaging of any product (from bottled water over electronics to toothpaste) print the amount of energy used in production and for transportation. Most people aren't going to care, and the carbon tax should take care of it anyway by making wasteful products cost more. > Punish producers of goods that break early (e.g. define minimum durability requirements for various product groups). Same thing there. The combination of "things cost more but you have more money (from the dividend)" causes the market to start to have a preference for durable goods, without actually harming the economy because it always nets to zero. You really can let the market solve the whole problem just by pricing carbon appropriately. There is no need to micromanage it.
- sampo 7y ago
  > Paying $5000 more for gas and electricity is no problem when you get the full $5000 back. Then people stop buying fuel, and the tax income from fuels taxes dries out, and then the state no longer has the funds to pay those dividents. The state will need to stop paying dividents. Yes, emissions went down (a good thing), but also people's standard of living went down.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The only way standard of living goes down is if, and to the extent, the replacement technology costs more than the existing technology -- even after it's being deployed with economies of scale. And that's the minimum amount we can pay in order to cause it to actually happen regardless. Since the alternatives are very close to cost competitive already, that isn't a huge hit if any, and greater economies of scale may even invert it and increase standard of living once they hit critical mass. All the tax does is cause people to have a preference for the new technology over the old one when it would have otherwise been about even. And by the time the dividend goes to zero because nobody is buying fuel anymore, that also means that nobody is paying the tax anymore either. The only difference is that then every car is electric, which by that point cost about the same or less to own than gasoline cars traditionally did.
tarsinge 7y ago
The elephant in the room you are missing is people’s lifestyle: “shopping” should be over. No need to produce and ship the tons of fashion and crap. Also less meat. But people like to complain without doing the slightest effort.
- hedonistbot 7y ago
  The "tons of fashion and crap" that you correctly identify as the elephant in the room is also the main source of employment and income for the majority of the population. The reason we are not doing anything about climate change (and will not do anything in the foreseeable future) is that any meaningful change will require abandoning the market capitalism and growth models that run the world economy. Try selling that to the voters or even here among the more privileged technocrats. Are you willing to take a major cut in your living standard in order to help people in Africa and Bangladesh? It's far more likely that the West builds walls on its borders and as a previous comment said, we start mowing down the hungry masses with machine guns. With the full support of its population of course, under an enlightened and highly developed democratic system.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

More taxes, less freedom, more punishments. Yes, I believe this would be unpopular. However, remind me while you are punishing people for driving cars, how is the public transit outside major urban areas? Have you been outside urban areas?

Angostura 7y ago
> Yes, I believe this would be unpopular. As indeed is the idea of your grand children living in a post-civilisation world
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  OP never said the whole platform was bad. Just that public transport doesn’t work in certain areas. Especially less dense ones.
archi42 7y ago
> Have you been outside urban areas? Yes. I lived there for well over a decade and am still regularly visiting. I elaborated on the meaning of the word "feasible" in the sentence "If public transportation is a feasible alternative", but removed that wall of text for better readability. Maybe should have kept it to clarify...? > More taxes, less freedom, more punishments. That's what we're already doing for destructive behavior if someone doesn't understand/care that what they're doing is bad. Look back at the last 30 years and tell me we actually learned that it's a bad idea to destroy our planet?
CalRobert 7y ago
They did point out it wouldn't get you elected. "It's impractical for me to live in the middle of nowhere" doesn't actually refute any of their statements though. If I were worried about spotted owls going extinct, saying "but I _like_ burning spotted owls for heat in the winter" doesn't really mean your actions are not going to have the negative consequence of spotted owls going extinct. Compared to "hundreds of millions of people in India will die of thirst or starvation" "I like driving everywhere and living in the middle of nowhere" isn't inducing much sympathy. Of course, you _can_ live in the middle of nowhere and have a pretty low carbon footprint. Ride a bike, eat vegetables, grow your own heating fuel, etc. Plenty of people do just that - here's one I've been following lately https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6vcadTSSQKVsdOudnbqwtg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6vcadTSSQKVsdOudnbqwtg . But "I like having a cheap giant house in the middle of nowhere and driving a long ways to and from work" isn't exactly an argument. Sad thing is that we are often pushed to live in the middle of nowhere by NIMBYs. Moderate density well-insulated homes near jobs and services that you can get to by bike, walking or transport isn't exactly a miserable life. Copenhageners seem happy enough.
0xffff2 7y ago
>how is the public transit outside major urban areas? Have you been outside urban areas? Doesn't matter. The planet doesn't care how difficult your commute is, and global climate policy shouldn't either. We're far past the point where we can ease in change. We need drastic worldwide change and we need it yesterday. Of course it's going to be very painful for a lot of people, but the level of climate change we're going to see on our current path is going to be an order of magnitude more so.
Valgrim 7y ago
The majority of the population lives in urban and suburban areas, and a minority lives in rural areas. These are very different environments and public transport should be expected to be very different between them. In cities, we should expect a high capacity system, like subways, 10-minutes buses and trams. Gradually, as we move outside the cities densest areas, we should have a lighter but faster system, such as light transit rails, longer but still frequent bus routes. Eventually, as we move outside suburban areas into rural areas, we should get something that barely exist right now: on-demand transit, like collective taxis, or flexible minibuses.

ximeng 7y ago

Labour Party in the UK just announced a manifesto that commits to rapid reductions in emissions paid by taxes including a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, so we will soon see.

rayiner 7y ago
Electing Labor will almost certainly hurt the UK economy more by 2100 than will an RCP 8.5 scenario.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Cobblers. Haven't seen this election's manifesto yet, but in 2017 their manifesto was judged more financially credible - by the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) - than that of the bloody Tories.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Corbyn is an old socialist who opposed removing Clause IV from labor’s platform: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-conference-common-ownership-a9112161.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-clause-4-labour-...
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a Tory manifesto is more than just BoJo or May. Our Prime Ministers do not get US presidential - i.e. 18th century British monarchical - powers. Brexit reveals there are some major failings with the system and how it can be hijacked by a focused minority group (e.g. the ERG), but it is not subject to the major US weakness to the {right|wrong} individual.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.

rayiner 7y ago

None of that will have any significant impact on total emissions given growth in Asia, China, and India. There is no scenario for keeping us at 1.5 or 2C that allows the developing world to start living better lives that doesn’t involve the developed world going net negative in carbon emissions.

archi42 7y ago
Add net-negative to the list then ;) I bet voters are keen on paying for that. Regarding Asia: I thought of this at a more global scale. Of course it's pointless cleaning up the pool if the other people at the party using it as a trash dump (but maybe someone has to start).
- rayiner 7y ago
  They’re not “using it as a trash dump.” They just want to live a decent modern life. The average Bangladeshi emits 0.5 tons of CO2. The average European is more than 10x that. Europeans biking anywhere isn’t going to cut emissions by enough to let Bangladeshis live a European style life (even if the Bangladeshis bike everywhere too).
  - archi42 7y ago
    I didn't mean that literally, and I suppose/hope nobody things "hey, let's destroy the earth! Death to humans!". If developing countries aspire to an European life style this will come with more emissions (which you said, and I agree with you). I would be the last to claim that some people should have a less decent life than others. But the people in those country can see where this path leads, and since they're still "developing" they can try to start on a better path (if they want to). They have the advantage that these days there is greener tech available, so there is no need to go down the dirty road that led us to where we are right now in the west: We dumped a lot of shit in the pool, and still do, and we act as if we can't do anything about it while we should get ourselves together rather sooner than later. //edit: What I mean is, I think our lifes are little bit too decent; at least with the costs we're paying for them, e.g. by destroying our planet. [Queue pun on technical debt or raking up a bill our (grand-)kids have to pay]

kazagistar 7y ago

I would almost vote for that platform. The problem is it's regressive... prices on basic good and utilities disproportionately harm those who are poor, at least in the short term. But I think there are ways to mitigate that, and as a package would likely be a popular position.

archi42 7y ago
Yeah, I know: VAT and (similar taxes on daily goods/resources) affect poor people the most, since they invest most of their money in these. The cynical thing is: People with a lot of money make most of the profit from environmental destruction and can later use that money/resources to ease the effect of climate destruction on themselves and their families/heritage; poor people just try to get by, and have a harder time mitigating the effects. I think I have a second point for my platform: Shift tax pressure from VAT to income tax and/or taxation on wealth. I should announce this one AFTER the gala with the corporate sponsors; also, this is difficult to balance for economic growth).
0xffff2 7y ago
Climate change is regressive.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Yes I would, and vote accordingly - heavily against my personal financial interest. Yet I recognise that I am not especially representative here. I'd also criticise the party proposing those as not doing nearly enough. :) > Even better: Try to get elected with that I don't live under a Swiss model of direct democracy, or even one of the better forms of proportional representation. We disassembled most local government powers and gave them to central. A majority of votes are pointless and wasted in safe seats. Many consider my country (the UK) one of the least representative implementations of "democracy" on the planet - with good cause. Only the top 2 - 4 issues and latest "idiot soundbite" swing elections. Scarily the Murdoch media can still apparently swing elections. Where I live there's no point voting - there's too many retirees who've paid off mortgage, kids moved out etc who are voting solely on tax and pension levels. Which leaves a) achieve a miracle of making it a key issue for Murdoch (or Lebedev, Desmond, Barclay Brothers etc) or b) get a world so hugely impacted that it's above health, employment and tax for most including the pensioners... Or I guess wait for the revolution? ;)

pacala 7y ago

Yet another Western centric litany of small palliative course corrections. They might have worked in 1950s, but are simply insignificant today. The world is rapidly changing. * Global population is exploding. We passed 2B as recently as 1927, now we are close to 8B. Most of this historically unprecedented tsunami of people aspires to an energy-rich lifestyle, by hook or by crook. * Most of the global carbon emissions are produced by non-Western countries. Led by China, whose emissions are more than US + EU combined. * How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions?

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
The population is projected to stabilise and then fall in the future. Most of the future growth is from people not dying as fast rather than people being born. Are you intentionally using per country rather than per capita numbers. This appears to be a talking point I see it so often, but it's hard to tell if people are just repeating it without thought. Carbon tariffs let you penalise any country that doesn't play by the rules. We already do similar for other environmental and social reasons. Plus, the environmental option is often cheaper and more efficient, it's only a short term hit to entrenched interests. So really you should be worried about African nations leapfrogging you to cheap solar based manufacturing while you get locked into expensive fossil fuels to keep Republican donors rich.
- pacala 7y ago
  Emissions = number of capitas * per capita emissions. Most people aspire to a western lifestyle. Multiply global population with western lifestyle emissions. This is wildly unsustainable. Minor western lifestyle tweaks are not making a dent. Something major will have to give.
triceratops 7y ago
> How do you scale back energy intensive economies, without being rolled over by countries with no such compunctions? Tariffs. Import duties. Trading blocs that exclude anyone who isn't on board. It's already been done with copyright and other IP.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Why do you think it would be hard to get elected on that platform? To be clear I think you're right, but the reason I'd give is that people with financial interests in fossil fuels will spend their money on attacking you and boosting your opponent. Nothing about the actual steps required seems that unpopular to me. Cleaner air, cheaper energy, better cars and busses? It only seems terrible if you believe the lies put out by the aforementioned fossil fuel interests.

ddxxdd 7y ago

>I'm personally undecided on nuclear fission, but compared to coal it could be the lesser of two evils? Hesitance towards nuclear power is part of the reason the public doesn't take climate change activism seriously.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Massively increase taxes on all kinds of fossil fuels; no matter if used for driving or for electricity (initially ease this in regions with difficult/bad public transportation). It isn't really necessary to ease this in at all if it's used to fund a dividend. Paying $5000 more for gas and electricity is no problem when you get the full $5000 back. All it does is make it cheaper to do something different than you are doing, because then you still get the $5000 but don't have to spend it all -- which is exactly the point. You might even want to go the other direction in that case -- raise the tax in regions with bad transit, which would also increase the dividend in that region and give people there more incentive to at least buy electric vehicles etc., since they're the region with the highest carbon emissions per capita and most in need of remediation. > On the packaging of any product (from bottled water over electronics to toothpaste) print the amount of energy used in production and for transportation. Most people aren't going to care, and the carbon tax should take care of it anyway by making wasteful products cost more. > Punish producers of goods that break early (e.g. define minimum durability requirements for various product groups). Same thing there. The combination of "things cost more but you have more money (from the dividend)" causes the market to start to have a preference for durable goods, without actually harming the economy because it always nets to zero. You really can let the market solve the whole problem just by pricing carbon appropriately. There is no need to micromanage it.

sampo 7y ago
> Paying $5000 more for gas and electricity is no problem when you get the full $5000 back. Then people stop buying fuel, and the tax income from fuels taxes dries out, and then the state no longer has the funds to pay those dividents. The state will need to stop paying dividents. Yes, emissions went down (a good thing), but also people's standard of living went down.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The only way standard of living goes down is if, and to the extent, the replacement technology costs more than the existing technology -- even after it's being deployed with economies of scale. And that's the minimum amount we can pay in order to cause it to actually happen regardless. Since the alternatives are very close to cost competitive already, that isn't a huge hit if any, and greater economies of scale may even invert it and increase standard of living once they hit critical mass. All the tax does is cause people to have a preference for the new technology over the old one when it would have otherwise been about even. And by the time the dividend goes to zero because nobody is buying fuel anymore, that also means that nobody is paying the tax anymore either. The only difference is that then every car is electric, which by that point cost about the same or less to own than gasoline cars traditionally did.

tarsinge 7y ago

The elephant in the room you are missing is people’s lifestyle: “shopping” should be over. No need to produce and ship the tons of fashion and crap. Also less meat. But people like to complain without doing the slightest effort.

hedonistbot 7y ago
The "tons of fashion and crap" that you correctly identify as the elephant in the room is also the main source of employment and income for the majority of the population. The reason we are not doing anything about climate change (and will not do anything in the foreseeable future) is that any meaningful change will require abandoning the market capitalism and growth models that run the world economy. Try selling that to the voters or even here among the more privileged technocrats. Are you willing to take a major cut in your living standard in order to help people in Africa and Bangladesh? It's far more likely that the West builds walls on its borders and as a previous comment said, we start mowing down the hungry masses with machine guns. With the full support of its population of course, under an enlightened and highly developed democratic system.