3 ms·

> What is your alternative proposal? According to the "The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History": a carbon tax and dividend [0]. The technology o

> What is your alternative proposal? According to the "The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History": a carbon tax and dividend [0]. The technology of markets is one of price signals and feedback loops, generally on time horizons between nano-second HFTs and quarterly earnings reports. Ecological events, occurring on the scale of decades or centuries, require governments (or other forms of collective action) to create artificial price signals for those externalities. At any rate, I agree that there's nothing wrong with this initiative. Every bit potentially helps; I don't see this diverting resources from other efforts. [0] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> At any rate, I completely agree that there's nothing wrong with this initiative. Every bit potentially helps; I don't see this diverting resources from other efforts. That was the point I was trying to make. Amazon's $2B investment isn't mutually exclusive with government efforts to combat climate change. It's additive. The knee-jerk reactions to Amazon's climate initiatives from the HN comments are disappointing.
- lukifer 6y ago
  Yes, I agree. There are arguably some corporate initiatives that are trivial PR stunts, or attempts to pre-empt government intervention; but $2B is a big chunk of change, and this doesn't seem like either. From Amazon's perspective, this a good move (and I'm sure as much in the interests of their bottom line as long-term planetary altruism). But from a citizen's perspective, we shouldn't rest on our laurels and assume that corporations and private investment will solve the problem on their own.
ip26 6y ago
The tax & divided definitely seems like an ideal solution, but we can't waste another twenty years trying to convince voters to institute it. Carbon tax & dividend proposals have gone nowhere for twenty years now. Even in Washington, the latest attempt lost by almost 70% against.
- thinkharderdev 6y ago
  Right, and more to the point the point of a carbon tax is to incentive the private sector to decarbonize which will require capital investments in clean tech. The problem isn't going to be solved by everyone reducing their carbon footprint by 10%. Everyone has to reduce their carbon footprint to zero and then we most likely still need to be pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
- lukifer 6y ago
  Tax & Dividend isn't necessarily the fastest-acting policy in the world, and I'm keenly aware that we're on a clock; indeed, it seems exceptionally likely we're already beyond an inflection point, and will need something akin to geo-engineering in addition to however we reduce new carbon emissions. I think a concerted PR effort could move the needle on popularity relatively quickly (which isn't unprecedented on other policy issues: opinions on gay marriage and marijuana legalization both tipped relatively quickly). The fact that it's market-based and doesn't expand government bureaucracy helps sell it to the right, the fact that most working people would come ahead economically helps sell it to the left. But absent that: do you have a better policy solution in mind that is more politically viable? I think the Green New Deal is a pretty good idea, at least in the abstract, but without a major sea change it seems to be DOA as well.
  - ip26 6y ago
    Unfortunately even if we can get everyone to agree that a carbon tax should be implemented, no one can seem to agree exactly how the revenues should be spent. E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left. It seems that's been the big point of contention. I don't know what the most realistic policy is at this point. Perhaps some mix of continued subsidy for renewable energy & storage, quiet ongoing research into iron fertilization, and pray that we have the technology ready to ramp when the voting public is finally forced to face reality. Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope. If synthetic direct air capture fuel ever becomes cheaper than fossil, it would decarbonize many challenging industries overnight, as well as providing a good launch pad for sequestration. (Continued investment in renewable energy makes this more possible)

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> At any rate, I completely agree that there's nothing wrong with this initiative. Every bit potentially helps; I don't see this diverting resources from other efforts. That was the point I was trying to make. Amazon's $2B investment isn't mutually exclusive with government efforts to combat climate change. It's additive. The knee-jerk reactions to Amazon's climate initiatives from the HN comments are disappointing.

lukifer 6y ago
Yes, I agree. There are arguably some corporate initiatives that are trivial PR stunts, or attempts to pre-empt government intervention; but $2B is a big chunk of change, and this doesn't seem like either. From Amazon's perspective, this a good move (and I'm sure as much in the interests of their bottom line as long-term planetary altruism). But from a citizen's perspective, we shouldn't rest on our laurels and assume that corporations and private investment will solve the problem on their own.

ip26 6y ago

The tax & divided definitely seems like an ideal solution, but we can't waste another twenty years trying to convince voters to institute it. Carbon tax & dividend proposals have gone nowhere for twenty years now. Even in Washington, the latest attempt lost by almost 70% against.

thinkharderdev 6y ago
Right, and more to the point the point of a carbon tax is to incentive the private sector to decarbonize which will require capital investments in clean tech. The problem isn't going to be solved by everyone reducing their carbon footprint by 10%. Everyone has to reduce their carbon footprint to zero and then we most likely still need to be pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
lukifer 6y ago
Tax & Dividend isn't necessarily the fastest-acting policy in the world, and I'm keenly aware that we're on a clock; indeed, it seems exceptionally likely we're already beyond an inflection point, and will need something akin to geo-engineering in addition to however we reduce new carbon emissions. I think a concerted PR effort could move the needle on popularity relatively quickly (which isn't unprecedented on other policy issues: opinions on gay marriage and marijuana legalization both tipped relatively quickly). The fact that it's market-based and doesn't expand government bureaucracy helps sell it to the right, the fact that most working people would come ahead economically helps sell it to the left. But absent that: do you have a better policy solution in mind that is more politically viable? I think the Green New Deal is a pretty good idea, at least in the abstract, but without a major sea change it seems to be DOA as well.
- ip26 6y ago
  Unfortunately even if we can get everyone to agree that a carbon tax should be implemented, no one can seem to agree exactly how the revenues should be spent. E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left. It seems that's been the big point of contention. I don't know what the most realistic policy is at this point. Perhaps some mix of continued subsidy for renewable energy & storage, quiet ongoing research into iron fertilization, and pray that we have the technology ready to ramp when the voting public is finally forced to face reality. Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope. If synthetic direct air capture fuel ever becomes cheaper than fossil, it would decarbonize many challenging industries overnight, as well as providing a good launch pad for sequestration. (Continued investment in renewable energy makes this more possible)