4 ms·

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it have been better to tax the carbon emissions? If you could offset the carbon emissions for 10 EUR, maybe add 12 EUR to th

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it have been better to tax the carbon emissions? If you could offset the carbon emissions for 10 EUR, maybe add 12 EUR to the price of a ticket and use that money to buy carbon offsets? That way those who still want it can still fly, and we're at net negative emissions.

Analemma_ 6y ago
It would, but the last time France tried imposing a carbon tax there were riots in the streets. This might be the best we can hope for.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  As long as no one figures out what's been taken from them.
  - bertil 6y ago
    The riots were because filling a car tank would get expensive. I’m not sure people would not notice, until a majority of the population is driving electric.
- williamdclt 6y ago
  It was a carbon tax on gas that was going to affect the lower classes disproportionately. I don't think we'd see an uprising for a carbon tax on intra-national flights, which are much more of a business travel mode
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    People choose to fly rather than take the train because flying is usually cheaper. This ban also impacts poor people more than rich people.
    - dagenleg 6y ago
      Poor people don't fly that often
      - Befterriager 6y ago
        Because their train travels are heavily subsidized. And more recently, it became easier to carpool easily for long distance trips in France with Blablacar (before the pandemy).
Denvercoder9 6y ago
Carbon offsets are not a structural solution though. Most offsets right now reduce emissions elsewhere, where it's either cheaper or technologically more feasible. However, eventually we'll run out of those, and offsets will actually need to capture carbon from the atmosphere. Since there's no feasible synthetic carbon sequestration process invented yet, practically that means you have to increase biomass, and ensure it remains biomass in perpetuity. That can only be taken so far, at a certain point you'll run out of space to plant forests.
- Qub3d 6y ago
  Well, then carbon offsets raise in price as it becomes more expensive to offset a given quantity of CO2. This makes various schemes relying on purchasing offsets more and more expensive, until they become unfeasible or are spending so much that really radical advanced techniques can be developed or become realistic to implement. Economics is a powerful tool.
- go_blue_13 6y ago
  You're missing the point of the offset market: as we exhaust the low hanging fruit of planting forests, and carbon becomes more and more expensive to offset, increasingly complex and expensive carbon capture schemes become feasible
ddevault 6y ago
>I'm not an economist The last thing we need is the insights of an economist when it comes to solutions to climate change. It's thanks to economists that we're still dealing with the problem in the first place!
- gpvos 6y ago
  Not sure about that, I think it's more industry lobbyists and politicians listening to them. There are lots of economists with good ideas about this. A carbon tax or emissions trading might well work if they didn't give out exceptions to polluting industries for fear of them moving elsewhere.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Human greed isn't a result of economics, it's just what economists study. Carbon taxes and carbon capture are absolutely the best solutions to climate change.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Most economists do not support currect decisions made by politicians
- mkoubaa 6y ago
  There is at least one valid point here. Neoliberal economics led to a lot of wealth creation and economic growth, which increases CO2 emissions. But it also helped prevent large scale wars which may have emitted loads of CO2.
IkmoIkmo 6y ago
That's my thought as well. But I'd be most concerned with the complex calculation that people have to do around mobility, that dilute these subtle price nudges. There's no apples to apples price comparisons that can be easily made, where say car vs plane is say 30 vs 42 euro, and this 12 euro tax clearly doubles the price difference. Car trips are typically priced as a per-trip cost that only counts fuel and sometimes parking, whereas air tickets essentially include everything from airport to airport. But what's left out for the car trip is the cost of ownership (depreciation/maintenance), taxes, insurance. It can't be compared to a flight ticket very easily for most people unless they make a quick Excel sheet and plug in some numbers. And even if you include all those other costs of ownership, how much can be attributed to that single trip by car to replace that flight, if the car is used for other trips, too? The same calculus goes for time as it does for price. An airport to airport travel time cannot be directly compared to a door-to-door car trip. You'd have to include trips from and to the airports as well as the boarding/security/checkin stuff, as well as a safety buffer not needed for car trips. Not to mention the experience differences, which are difficult to value. Should a plane ticket be compared to a taxi, because it includes the price of the chauffeur in both cases? Obviously not, yet we also can't just ignore the cost of having to drive concentrated for hours yourself versus sitting in a plane. In short, while raising the price by 12 euro tax of course does have an impact, but it may not get the impact an economist or policy-maker would expect. It may just go into a very muddy calculated comparison between car/plane (or otherwise). Second, the tax shouldn't even be such a granular thing. Domestic flights have far greater greenhouse gas emissions than bus, train or car travel. If air was say 30% more poluting than a train, then nudges with taxes would help. But if it's the equivalent of 250gr of Co2 per km travelled [0], and the Eurostar train is 6gr and coach is 27gr then banning seems to be the quickest solution. There's good reasons to say that if mobility option A pollutes 40x more than option B, that you ban A instead of trying to nudge consumption via taxes. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Analemma_ 6y ago

It would, but the last time France tried imposing a carbon tax there were riots in the streets. This might be the best we can hope for.

hackeraccount 6y ago
As long as no one figures out what's been taken from them.
- bertil 6y ago
  The riots were because filling a car tank would get expensive. I’m not sure people would not notice, until a majority of the population is driving electric.
williamdclt 6y ago
It was a carbon tax on gas that was going to affect the lower classes disproportionately. I don't think we'd see an uprising for a carbon tax on intra-national flights, which are much more of a business travel mode
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  People choose to fly rather than take the train because flying is usually cheaper. This ban also impacts poor people more than rich people.
  - dagenleg 6y ago
    Poor people don't fly that often
    - Befterriager 6y ago
      Because their train travels are heavily subsidized. And more recently, it became easier to carpool easily for long distance trips in France with Blablacar (before the pandemy).

Denvercoder9 6y ago

Carbon offsets are not a structural solution though. Most offsets right now reduce emissions elsewhere, where it's either cheaper or technologically more feasible. However, eventually we'll run out of those, and offsets will actually need to capture carbon from the atmosphere. Since there's no feasible synthetic carbon sequestration process invented yet, practically that means you have to increase biomass, and ensure it remains biomass in perpetuity. That can only be taken so far, at a certain point you'll run out of space to plant forests.

Qub3d 6y ago
Well, then carbon offsets raise in price as it becomes more expensive to offset a given quantity of CO2. This makes various schemes relying on purchasing offsets more and more expensive, until they become unfeasible or are spending so much that really radical advanced techniques can be developed or become realistic to implement. Economics is a powerful tool.
go_blue_13 6y ago
You're missing the point of the offset market: as we exhaust the low hanging fruit of planting forests, and carbon becomes more and more expensive to offset, increasingly complex and expensive carbon capture schemes become feasible

ddevault 6y ago

>I'm not an economist The last thing we need is the insights of an economist when it comes to solutions to climate change. It's thanks to economists that we're still dealing with the problem in the first place!

gpvos 6y ago
Not sure about that, I think it's more industry lobbyists and politicians listening to them. There are lots of economists with good ideas about this. A carbon tax or emissions trading might well work if they didn't give out exceptions to polluting industries for fear of them moving elsewhere.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Human greed isn't a result of economics, it's just what economists study. Carbon taxes and carbon capture are absolutely the best solutions to climate change.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Most economists do not support currect decisions made by politicians
mkoubaa 6y ago
There is at least one valid point here. Neoliberal economics led to a lot of wealth creation and economic growth, which increases CO2 emissions. But it also helped prevent large scale wars which may have emitted loads of CO2.

IkmoIkmo 6y ago

That's my thought as well. But I'd be most concerned with the complex calculation that people have to do around mobility, that dilute these subtle price nudges. There's no apples to apples price comparisons that can be easily made, where say car vs plane is say 30 vs 42 euro, and this 12 euro tax clearly doubles the price difference. Car trips are typically priced as a per-trip cost that only counts fuel and sometimes parking, whereas air tickets essentially include everything from airport to airport. But what's left out for the car trip is the cost of ownership (depreciation/maintenance), taxes, insurance. It can't be compared to a flight ticket very easily for most people unless they make a quick Excel sheet and plug in some numbers. And even if you include all those other costs of ownership, how much can be attributed to that single trip by car to replace that flight, if the car is used for other trips, too? The same calculus goes for time as it does for price. An airport to airport travel time cannot be directly compared to a door-to-door car trip. You'd have to include trips from and to the airports as well as the boarding/security/checkin stuff, as well as a safety buffer not needed for car trips. Not to mention the experience differences, which are difficult to value. Should a plane ticket be compared to a taxi, because it includes the price of the chauffeur in both cases? Obviously not, yet we also can't just ignore the cost of having to drive concentrated for hours yourself versus sitting in a plane. In short, while raising the price by 12 euro tax of course does have an impact, but it may not get the impact an economist or policy-maker would expect. It may just go into a very muddy calculated comparison between car/plane (or otherwise). Second, the tax shouldn't even be such a granular thing. Domestic flights have far greater greenhouse gas emissions than bus, train or car travel. If air was say 30% more poluting than a train, then nudges with taxes would help. But if it's the equivalent of 250gr of Co2 per km travelled [0], and the Eurostar train is 6gr and coach is 27gr then banning seems to be the quickest solution. There's good reasons to say that if mobility option A pollutes 40x more than option B, that you ban A instead of trying to nudge consumption via taxes. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566