3 ms·

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

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)
- lukifer 6y ago
  > E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left Huh, that's news to me. Can you point to any prominent left politicians/pundits opining that? Is it just that they prefer Green New Deal? Do they object to the "strange bedfellows" of Frank Luntz & co. (if any Republicans like it, it must be a corporate/neo-fascist plot)? > Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope. Yeah, I think we'll need something like this anyway. But with our current tech, it's still orders of magnitude more efficient to not pull the carbon out of the ground in the first place. (One of my crazier/handwavium ideas: massive fail-safe thorium reactor, hundreds of miles away from any human habitation to avoid NIMBY problems, whose only job is to pull carbon out of the air.)
  - ip26 6y ago
    I can't point to any pundits, it's more like carbon tax & dividend bills meet a lot of argument from leftist groups in the press & popular discussion- we should spend the revenue on climate mitigation. No, it should be directly invested in renewables. No, it should be given only to poor people because they suffer more from climate change. Actually, we've been looking for a source of funds for <unrelated progressive program>...
    - lukifer 6y ago
      Ah, interesting. My assumption is that "just give it back to people" would entirely sidestep the question of how to spend the funds, but I suppose it suffers from the https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ problem ;)

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)

lukifer 6y ago
> E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left Huh, that's news to me. Can you point to any prominent left politicians/pundits opining that? Is it just that they prefer Green New Deal? Do they object to the "strange bedfellows" of Frank Luntz & co. (if any Republicans like it, it must be a corporate/neo-fascist plot)? > Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope. Yeah, I think we'll need something like this anyway. But with our current tech, it's still orders of magnitude more efficient to not pull the carbon out of the ground in the first place. (One of my crazier/handwavium ideas: massive fail-safe thorium reactor, hundreds of miles away from any human habitation to avoid NIMBY problems, whose only job is to pull carbon out of the air.)
- ip26 6y ago
  I can't point to any pundits, it's more like carbon tax & dividend bills meet a lot of argument from leftist groups in the press & popular discussion- we should spend the revenue on climate mitigation. No, it should be directly invested in renewables. No, it should be given only to poor people because they suffer more from climate change. Actually, we've been looking for a source of funds for <unrelated progressive program>...
  - lukifer 6y ago
    Ah, interesting. My assumption is that "just give it back to people" would entirely sidestep the question of how to spend the funds, but I suppose it suffers from the https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ problem ;)