6 ms·

Tax carbon, and you’ll influence all industries broadly and fairly, rather than taking on the venal task of searching out who doesn’t deserve or make good use o

by Empact 6y ago

Tax carbon, and you’ll influence all industries broadly and fairly, rather than taking on the venal task of searching out who doesn’t deserve or make good use of their emissions, according to us. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

leoedin 6y ago
And you'll create a business model for all sorts of more efficient technologies. And you'll make green energy pay for itself so quickly everyone will be installing it. This is the obvious solution. Tax carbon heavily and the economy will reward efficiency and non-carbon-generating technologies. Hands off! https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/ https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > And you'll create a business model for all sorts of more efficient technologies. And you'll make green energy pay for itself so quickly everyone will be installing it. History doesn't agree with your view, if anything it creates a perverse market wherein people who benefit from the status quo pay people who don't in order to skirt their supposed environmental responsibilities and commitments as they continue as they did before. Just look at the Carbon Credit model and the relationship Tesla had with the big auto manufactures [0]. > As a spokesman for Fiat Chrysler said: “Until demand catches up with regulatory requirements, and there is regulatory relief, we will use credits as appropriate.” I worked for VW during Diesel gate, and I can tell you that this is standard operational procedure for the Industry and what made me quit in utter disgust. It will not change course unless dire, existential consequences are imminent. And it has to be more severe than what Diesel-gate cost VW. You could argue this gave Tesla a lifeline that it otherwise wouldn't have had during its early years after the original Roadster was released and they were working on the Model S, but those are tertiary effects at best and consequential more than anything. In short, no, nothing seems to indicate that is what occurs when you allow the State to create such a system as it will always allow for exemptions if their is profit to be made. Making individual people at these corps responsible for things like Ecocide and have the dire consequences (actual prison time) for the infractions multi national corps currently get out of with political bribes (campaign contributions and fundraising) and lobbying would be a much better start. Some VW execs got thrown in jail and VAG lost ~$12 billion from diesel gate, and yet the brand gained Market share in certain emerging markets that offset those losses. Incidentally, many other manufactures (Ford, Subaru, Mazda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Nissan-Renault, Harley Davidson) were all caught cheating emissions as well and weren't nearly as punished in the US. In fact Nissan was able to purchase Mitsubishi Motors US outright in the midst of the VW fall out with no scandal. 0: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/14/why-greenhouse-gas-credits-dont-help-the-environme/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/14/why-greenho...
  - leoedin 6y ago
    Well, yes, if you make all sorts of exemptions then businesses will pursue those. That's the state of carbon trading today. I'm advocating for a clear, non-negotiable tax on fossil fuels. If carbon leaves the ground (therefore entering the ecosystem), a fee is paid. It needs to be relatively high, otherwise it won't drive change. It changes how people make decisions through the entire economy. If you're deciding whether to build renewables + a battery or build a gas power plant, the economics look very different when your fuel comes with a large carbon fee. If you're deciding whether to buy in internal combustion engine car or an electric one, the economics are very different when the cost of gas is high because of the carbon fee. You look at the other options, or drive less. Less carbon enters the ecosystem. Ultimately corporations sell people what they want. People buy SUVs because they're comfortable, and because the extra cost of gas is marginal. If that gas cost 2x or 3x as much, those purchasing decisions would be different. We know they would, because they have been in the past. Both the 1970s and 2008 oil price shocks saw changing consumer behaviour - a move towards more efficient cars and less miles driven. If we're going to get a grip on carbon emissions, we need to price fossil fuels to represent their true cost.
  - scatters 6y ago
    > those are tertiary effects at best and consequential more than anything Those tertiary effects are the entire point of using the market to transmit policy. They work; the market works. > Making individual people at these corps responsible [...] would be a much better start. Some VW execs got thrown in jail [...] yet the brand gained Market share in certain emerging markets that offset those losses. It sounds like putting people in jail doesn't work?
    - Melting_Harps 6y ago
      > Those tertiary effects are the entire point of using the market to transmit policy. They work; the market works. You do realize Tesla was on the brink of death long before the the first Carbon Credit was sold in 2012? There was a real possibility that Tesla would have never made it to get to that point were it not for the external investments, Elon's own money and the DOE's loan that made it possible to make that possible for them to survive long enough to be able to be in that position to do so. Markets may work for many aspects as a medium to achieve desirable ends, and are definitely better than State involvement, but despite being a self professed Anarcho-Capitalist with a massive Agorist and Environmentalist bend I'm not convinced that Market forces alone are able to address the damage we have collectively inflicted as Species to the Environment. Actions have to have consequences for something so dire and if prison and fund seizure is widely accepted and used as a deterrent for the most heinous of crimes in Society for the Private Citizen then it must also apply to the State, Hedge-fund and Corporate class. These immunity decrees need to be abolished, and their actions are not something we should allow to be settled out of court. Selling the affluent class Teslas isn't going to undo the damage to the polluted and depleted Oceans, or arable farm land and aquifers being used as chemical dump sites by State subsidized Corps. It has to be more extensive than that and punishing Politicians, Banks, Corporations and People with jail time and fund seizures used solely to reverse these issues will be what had any chance to curtail this. > It sounds like putting people in jail doesn't work? No, as I mentioned it was the selective application of the Law that is the issue; by making it clear that everyone involved was going to prison and have their assets clawed back from their entire careers in those Industries will there be any chance for it make any significant impact. I cannot divulge the specifics but if you just heard the way the Reps from Bosch I dealt with on daily basis spoke about this knowing all they had to do was pay out a small amount in refunds in relation to VW you'd understand why I hold these views.
zests 6y ago
I'm a skeptic of this approach. How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? I have a hard time believing it wont just benefit whoever has the best carbon-accountants. Tax some carbon, tax some consumption, harsh penalties for countries that pollute a lot. I think there are many ingredients needed here.
- xnx 6y ago
  Would taxing the extraction from the ground address this?
  - adrianN 6y ago
    If you manage to instate a global carbon tax. In the more realistic approach of only having a carbon tax in a couple of countries at first, you need some way to estimate tariffs and rebates for trade purposes.
- xoa 6y ago
  >How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? You don't, the entire point is that it naturally gets dealt with (or at least, sufficiently) if you simply internalize the emission cost of inputs. You set the price of emitting a ton of CO2 equivalent during energy or material production at the present bid price of industrial scale rapid removal of a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere with some attractive margin (10% maybe, but that could be set by experts), and then the market can figure it out from there. All energy then becomes net neutral, as well as the vast majority of materials, and it's more straight forward to police (though still real work) since law enforcement just need to focus on a smaller number of central points. "CO2 emissions" don't just materialize by magic, they're a result of energy/material inputs to a product. Take care of those and there isn't any need at all to care what people do with the product or for how long. There is no stupid, counter productive moralizing required either about what people do with their luxury energy budget. The goal is that the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays static (or at this point, is lowered back to our optimal standard, then kept steady state). That goal is what should be legislated, not how to reach it.
Technically 6y ago
Fairly would imply a long, long bill of carbon debt corporations owe us. I don't see any carbon tax plan recuperating this debt.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Tax carbon, and 1% of people will cause 55% of global aviation emissions. Why? Because those who can afford frequent airlines tickets can afford the tax as well. It won't change their behavior much. The family that can barely scrape together the money to fly to Disneyland? They're the ones whose behavior you'll change. This saves you the task of deciding who's deserving, but it produces outcomes that sure feel unfair...

by Empact 6y ago

leoedin 6y ago

And you'll create a business model for all sorts of more efficient technologies. And you'll make green energy pay for itself so quickly everyone will be installing it. This is the obvious solution. Tax carbon heavily and the economy will reward efficiency and non-carbon-generating technologies. Hands off! https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/ https://concretecuts.xyz/articles/green-tech-market/

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> And you'll create a business model for all sorts of more efficient technologies. And you'll make green energy pay for itself so quickly everyone will be installing it. History doesn't agree with your view, if anything it creates a perverse market wherein people who benefit from the status quo pay people who don't in order to skirt their supposed environmental responsibilities and commitments as they continue as they did before. Just look at the Carbon Credit model and the relationship Tesla had with the big auto manufactures [0]. > As a spokesman for Fiat Chrysler said: “Until demand catches up with regulatory requirements, and there is regulatory relief, we will use credits as appropriate.” I worked for VW during Diesel gate, and I can tell you that this is standard operational procedure for the Industry and what made me quit in utter disgust. It will not change course unless dire, existential consequences are imminent. And it has to be more severe than what Diesel-gate cost VW. You could argue this gave Tesla a lifeline that it otherwise wouldn't have had during its early years after the original Roadster was released and they were working on the Model S, but those are tertiary effects at best and consequential more than anything. In short, no, nothing seems to indicate that is what occurs when you allow the State to create such a system as it will always allow for exemptions if their is profit to be made. Making individual people at these corps responsible for things like Ecocide and have the dire consequences (actual prison time) for the infractions multi national corps currently get out of with political bribes (campaign contributions and fundraising) and lobbying would be a much better start. Some VW execs got thrown in jail and VAG lost ~$12 billion from diesel gate, and yet the brand gained Market share in certain emerging markets that offset those losses. Incidentally, many other manufactures (Ford, Subaru, Mazda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Nissan-Renault, Harley Davidson) were all caught cheating emissions as well and weren't nearly as punished in the US. In fact Nissan was able to purchase Mitsubishi Motors US outright in the midst of the VW fall out with no scandal. 0: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/14/why-greenhouse-gas-credits-dont-help-the-environme/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/14/why-greenho...
- leoedin 6y ago
  Well, yes, if you make all sorts of exemptions then businesses will pursue those. That's the state of carbon trading today. I'm advocating for a clear, non-negotiable tax on fossil fuels. If carbon leaves the ground (therefore entering the ecosystem), a fee is paid. It needs to be relatively high, otherwise it won't drive change. It changes how people make decisions through the entire economy. If you're deciding whether to build renewables + a battery or build a gas power plant, the economics look very different when your fuel comes with a large carbon fee. If you're deciding whether to buy in internal combustion engine car or an electric one, the economics are very different when the cost of gas is high because of the carbon fee. You look at the other options, or drive less. Less carbon enters the ecosystem. Ultimately corporations sell people what they want. People buy SUVs because they're comfortable, and because the extra cost of gas is marginal. If that gas cost 2x or 3x as much, those purchasing decisions would be different. We know they would, because they have been in the past. Both the 1970s and 2008 oil price shocks saw changing consumer behaviour - a move towards more efficient cars and less miles driven. If we're going to get a grip on carbon emissions, we need to price fossil fuels to represent their true cost.
- scatters 6y ago
  > those are tertiary effects at best and consequential more than anything Those tertiary effects are the entire point of using the market to transmit policy. They work; the market works. > Making individual people at these corps responsible [...] would be a much better start. Some VW execs got thrown in jail [...] yet the brand gained Market share in certain emerging markets that offset those losses. It sounds like putting people in jail doesn't work?
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > Those tertiary effects are the entire point of using the market to transmit policy. They work; the market works. You do realize Tesla was on the brink of death long before the the first Carbon Credit was sold in 2012? There was a real possibility that Tesla would have never made it to get to that point were it not for the external investments, Elon's own money and the DOE's loan that made it possible to make that possible for them to survive long enough to be able to be in that position to do so. Markets may work for many aspects as a medium to achieve desirable ends, and are definitely better than State involvement, but despite being a self professed Anarcho-Capitalist with a massive Agorist and Environmentalist bend I'm not convinced that Market forces alone are able to address the damage we have collectively inflicted as Species to the Environment. Actions have to have consequences for something so dire and if prison and fund seizure is widely accepted and used as a deterrent for the most heinous of crimes in Society for the Private Citizen then it must also apply to the State, Hedge-fund and Corporate class. These immunity decrees need to be abolished, and their actions are not something we should allow to be settled out of court. Selling the affluent class Teslas isn't going to undo the damage to the polluted and depleted Oceans, or arable farm land and aquifers being used as chemical dump sites by State subsidized Corps. It has to be more extensive than that and punishing Politicians, Banks, Corporations and People with jail time and fund seizures used solely to reverse these issues will be what had any chance to curtail this. > It sounds like putting people in jail doesn't work? No, as I mentioned it was the selective application of the Law that is the issue; by making it clear that everyone involved was going to prison and have their assets clawed back from their entire careers in those Industries will there be any chance for it make any significant impact. I cannot divulge the specifics but if you just heard the way the Reps from Bosch I dealt with on daily basis spoke about this knowing all they had to do was pay out a small amount in refunds in relation to VW you'd understand why I hold these views.

zests 6y ago

I'm a skeptic of this approach. How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? I have a hard time believing it wont just benefit whoever has the best carbon-accountants. Tax some carbon, tax some consumption, harsh penalties for countries that pollute a lot. I think there are many ingredients needed here.

xnx 6y ago
Would taxing the extraction from the ground address this?
- adrianN 6y ago
  If you manage to instate a global carbon tax. In the more realistic approach of only having a carbon tax in a couple of countries at first, you need some way to estimate tariffs and rebates for trade purposes.
xoa 6y ago
>How do you begin to measure CO2 emissions for the entire lifecycle of a product? You don't, the entire point is that it naturally gets dealt with (or at least, sufficiently) if you simply internalize the emission cost of inputs. You set the price of emitting a ton of CO2 equivalent during energy or material production at the present bid price of industrial scale rapid removal of a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere with some attractive margin (10% maybe, but that could be set by experts), and then the market can figure it out from there. All energy then becomes net neutral, as well as the vast majority of materials, and it's more straight forward to police (though still real work) since law enforcement just need to focus on a smaller number of central points. "CO2 emissions" don't just materialize by magic, they're a result of energy/material inputs to a product. Take care of those and there isn't any need at all to care what people do with the product or for how long. There is no stupid, counter productive moralizing required either about what people do with their luxury energy budget. The goal is that the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays static (or at this point, is lowered back to our optimal standard, then kept steady state). That goal is what should be legislated, not how to reach it.

Technically 6y ago

Fairly would imply a long, long bill of carbon debt corporations owe us. I don't see any carbon tax plan recuperating this debt.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Tax carbon, and 1% of people will cause 55% of global aviation emissions. Why? Because those who can afford frequent airlines tickets can afford the tax as well. It won't change their behavior much. The family that can barely scrape together the money to fly to Disneyland? They're the ones whose behavior you'll change. This saves you the task of deciding who's deserving, but it produces outcomes that sure feel unfair...