5 ms·

The difficulty is accurately taxing the embodied carbon of imported non-fuel goods. Figuring out the carbon footprint of a barrel of oil relatively easy, but fi

The difficulty is accurately taxing the embodied carbon of imported non-fuel goods. Figuring out the carbon footprint of a barrel of oil relatively easy, but figuring out how much carbon was emitted to produce a shipping container full of electronics is not. This is important because if you underestimate you are effectively subsidizing foreign industry.

credit_guy 6y ago
Not the OP, but I think what he meant was that the electricity that went into producing the container full of electronics will be more expensive depending on the way it was produced. If it was produced in a fossil-fuel burning power plant, then the producer will pay a carbon tax when they buy the fuel. This tax will cover the externality produced by the CO2 emitted during the electricity generation, and the manufacturer of the electronics does not need to bother with another tax themselves. I personally think this makes sense. What the OP did not mention is how do you give a benefit to those who contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, for example for people who plant trees on their property. To me it's only logical that a tax charge for emissions should go hand in hand with a tax rebate for negative emissions. However, I'm not deeply immersed into this topic, I have no idea of the pros and cons of various approaches. I simply think that this simple idea makes sense.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Tax rebates are simple to corrupt. The simplest, non corruptible method to reach the goal of reducing fossil fuel usage is to tax the fossil fuel itself. How high does the tax need to be? Keep raising it until the effects of fossil fuels on climate change subside. And this won’t ever happen because it will cause a decrease in perceived quality of life due to decreased ability to consume resources, and that’s not politically tenable. All of this carbon offset and credit and rebate talk is useless since it won’t actually reduce overall consumption, but it is politically palatable as it just pretends to shift things around without sacrifice, much like recycling did.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > how do you give a benefit to those who contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, for example for people who plant trees on their property. You don't. Unless it's done at a large, industrial scale the effects of these efforts are negligible. There are always exceptions of course, like that guy in Texas who rehabilitated thousands of acres of land. Not to mention planting trees on your property is its own reward. Trees are nice to look at, they give shade, hold topsoil, and create healthy ecosystems. They may even increase your property's value. On the other hand, if we get good at carbon capture at scale (e.g. by harnessing un-storeable renewable energy) the money from carbon taxes should be used to pay for it.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    An acre of trees absorbs on average the CO2 produced by two cars [1]. A typical American car travels about 12000 miles/ year and has an fuel consumption of about 24mpg, so two cars burn about 1000 gallons per year. For a carbon tax of $0.2/gallon [2], that's $200 per year. Currently you can buy forest land for less than $1000/acre e.g. [3]. An incentive of $200/year could make forest ownership one of the best investments available anywhere. [1] http://www.tenmilliontrees.org/trees/ http://www.tenmilliontrees.org/trees/ [2] https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-a-carbon-tax/ https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/calculating-va... [3] https://www.landandfarm.com/property/Timber_Property_Surrounded_By_Ag_Land_In_Northern_MN-10772852/ https://www.landandfarm.com/property/Timber_Property_Surroun...
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Nice analysis! Thank you!
triceratops 6y ago
> This is important because if you underestimate you are effectively subsidizing foreign industry. I think the idea is that every country in the world taxes imported or mined carbon, so there's no escaping the taxes and no implicit subsidies. The ones that don't play get hit with heavy tariffs, sanctions, or trade embargoes.
- thescriptkiddie 6y ago
  That would be great, but under current WTO rules sanctions and trade embargoes are effectively illegal unless they are against North Korea, Cuba, or Iran.

credit_guy 6y ago

Not the OP, but I think what he meant was that the electricity that went into producing the container full of electronics will be more expensive depending on the way it was produced. If it was produced in a fossil-fuel burning power plant, then the producer will pay a carbon tax when they buy the fuel. This tax will cover the externality produced by the CO2 emitted during the electricity generation, and the manufacturer of the electronics does not need to bother with another tax themselves. I personally think this makes sense. What the OP did not mention is how do you give a benefit to those who contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, for example for people who plant trees on their property. To me it's only logical that a tax charge for emissions should go hand in hand with a tax rebate for negative emissions. However, I'm not deeply immersed into this topic, I have no idea of the pros and cons of various approaches. I simply think that this simple idea makes sense.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Tax rebates are simple to corrupt. The simplest, non corruptible method to reach the goal of reducing fossil fuel usage is to tax the fossil fuel itself. How high does the tax need to be? Keep raising it until the effects of fossil fuels on climate change subside. And this won’t ever happen because it will cause a decrease in perceived quality of life due to decreased ability to consume resources, and that’s not politically tenable. All of this carbon offset and credit and rebate talk is useless since it won’t actually reduce overall consumption, but it is politically palatable as it just pretends to shift things around without sacrifice, much like recycling did.
triceratops 6y ago
> how do you give a benefit to those who contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, for example for people who plant trees on their property. You don't. Unless it's done at a large, industrial scale the effects of these efforts are negligible. There are always exceptions of course, like that guy in Texas who rehabilitated thousands of acres of land. Not to mention planting trees on your property is its own reward. Trees are nice to look at, they give shade, hold topsoil, and create healthy ecosystems. They may even increase your property's value. On the other hand, if we get good at carbon capture at scale (e.g. by harnessing un-storeable renewable energy) the money from carbon taxes should be used to pay for it.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  An acre of trees absorbs on average the CO2 produced by two cars [1]. A typical American car travels about 12000 miles/ year and has an fuel consumption of about 24mpg, so two cars burn about 1000 gallons per year. For a carbon tax of $0.2/gallon [2], that's $200 per year. Currently you can buy forest land for less than $1000/acre e.g. [3]. An incentive of $200/year could make forest ownership one of the best investments available anywhere. [1] http://www.tenmilliontrees.org/trees/ http://www.tenmilliontrees.org/trees/ [2] https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-a-carbon-tax/ https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/calculating-va... [3] https://www.landandfarm.com/property/Timber_Property_Surrounded_By_Ag_Land_In_Northern_MN-10772852/ https://www.landandfarm.com/property/Timber_Property_Surroun...
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Nice analysis! Thank you!

triceratops 6y ago

> This is important because if you underestimate you are effectively subsidizing foreign industry. I think the idea is that every country in the world taxes imported or mined carbon, so there's no escaping the taxes and no implicit subsidies. The ones that don't play get hit with heavy tariffs, sanctions, or trade embargoes.

thescriptkiddie 6y ago
That would be great, but under current WTO rules sanctions and trade embargoes are effectively illegal unless they are against North Korea, Cuba, or Iran.