3 ms·

At least on this climate policy simulator built by MIT, planting trees is indeed not a big winner for achieving climate goals. And actually, neither is limiting

At least on this climate policy simulator built by MIT, planting trees is indeed not a big winner for achieving climate goals. And actually, neither is limiting deforestation. (But we should do those things for other great reasons like preserving and restoring habitat.) This simulator doesn't address wetlands specifically, unfortunately. If you really want to see what gets emissions down, move the carbon price slider. https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.35 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.... According to tons of leading economists, we can make a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions economically sustainable and politically viable by returning the net revenue from the fee to households as carbon dividends. https://econstatement.org/ https://econstatement.org/

imtringued 6y ago
>According to tons of leading economists, we can make a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions economically sustainable and politically viable by returning the net revenue from the fee to households as carbon dividends. Anyone who did a little research knows that a market based solution like carbon taxes is going to solve the problem very effectively. The concept is very simple. Calculate how much damage a ton of CO2 is causing and tax companies so that they pay for the damage they caused. In some cases it is easier to treat the damage. In others it is easier to reduce the damage. The market gets to decide what is most efficient. The problem is that there are lots of people who are not deep in the subject who believe that it is just a money grab or that if you are going to give them the money back they would prefer no taxation in the first place. This has lead to Germany introducing a carbon price instead of a carbon tax. The difference? You're not getting your money back. People's allergy to taxes backfired. Kind of ironic. Taxing CO2 emissions of imports is another problem. You would have to introduce tariffs to nudge big foreign polluters to implement their own CO2 tax.

imtringued 6y ago

>According to tons of leading economists, we can make a steadily rising fee on carbon emissions economically sustainable and politically viable by returning the net revenue from the fee to households as carbon dividends. Anyone who did a little research knows that a market based solution like carbon taxes is going to solve the problem very effectively. The concept is very simple. Calculate how much damage a ton of CO2 is causing and tax companies so that they pay for the damage they caused. In some cases it is easier to treat the damage. In others it is easier to reduce the damage. The market gets to decide what is most efficient. The problem is that there are lots of people who are not deep in the subject who believe that it is just a money grab or that if you are going to give them the money back they would prefer no taxation in the first place. This has lead to Germany introducing a carbon price instead of a carbon tax. The difference? You're not getting your money back. People's allergy to taxes backfired. Kind of ironic. Taxing CO2 emissions of imports is another problem. You would have to introduce tariffs to nudge big foreign polluters to implement their own CO2 tax.