7 ms·

Why mandate how emissions are cut, instead of heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?

jeromegv 5y ago
Voilà.
eloff 5y ago
In general I agree with you. Simply taxing things with negative externalities enough to cover the true cost would simply and conclusively fix a lot of things we struggle with, faster and without relying on politicians. I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  I really hope liquid democracy can someday become a thing. The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.
  - chii 5y ago
    > an idea can be both good and unpopular communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say. The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!
    - seph-reed 5y ago
      I should note, that I don't think massive political shifts should be tested in production. So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess. Similar with taxing damages to Earth.
      - eloff 5y ago
        > So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation. Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor. On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.
        nemothekid 5y ago
        Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? It would help to have a grounding on what communism is before repeating tired talking points. >with not a single example in favor. Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.
        eloff 5y ago
        > Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? I didn't say they were. Go back and read it again. > Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. No, it already was a totalitarian government from the start. Also Soviet Russia is an excellent example of the failures of communism, citing it in support is not helping your argument.
    - eloff 5y ago
      > communism is a good idea Is that a troll? See my comment below.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Communism is unpopular because it says people on average are unimportant and the "greater good" is more important. Most people aren't going to glom onto that when they realize that's the real result as easily demonstrated in any number of failed communist countries, even China gave it up and moved to a more totalitarian one party system that allows some free market ideas in. apparently they're even moving to a dictatorship steadily rather than communism.
  - paholg 5y ago
    Even worse, some ideas are both good and popular, and politicians still don't get behind them.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      Yuup. 80% of democrats (and a majority of Americans) support Medicare for All but the DNC rejected it from their 2020 platform. Sadly, lobbyists are running our party system to a much greater extent than the citizenry. https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/ https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...
- asdff 5y ago
  If you priced everything according to the negative externalities they cause, you would have poor people unable to afford $10/gal milk and probably pay more than the dairy farmer subsidy in healthcare costs related to poor nutrition for this entire class of people. I think nuance is needed, but the danger is that this nuance is where industries see opportunities for regulatory capture. Sometimes I think the American political system is too brittle with too much of a focus on who has the most money in the room to perform needed change. Everything in recent decades seems to be a half measure that comes too little too late.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I think the problem of poor people not being able to afford adequate nutrition has to be tackled separately. You're right that there will be all kinds of unintended effects. You're also right (in my opinion) that the US political system seems incapable of solving those kinds of hard problems anyway.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Mostly because it makes the poors even more poor and when you live in a democracy that's a hard feat to overcome because they're going to vote for candidates who promise to make them not more poor.
WhompingWindows 5y ago
That sounds nice in theory, but it'll be years until it could pass through actual legislative channels in the US federal government. Neither side wants it, the GOP hates new taxes and loves fossil fuel companies; the Dems hate anything that looks regressive, which a gas tax would at first before the pay-back checks come (if it's a neutral scheme, who's to say how the carbon tax would be used).
KineticLensman 5y ago
> heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution? Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now. Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.
  - KineticLensman 5y ago
    > If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now. Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change. (Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)
- 5y ago

jeromegv 5y ago

Voilà.

eloff 5y ago

In general I agree with you. Simply taxing things with negative externalities enough to cover the true cost would simply and conclusively fix a lot of things we struggle with, faster and without relying on politicians. I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.

seph-reed 5y ago
I really hope liquid democracy can someday become a thing. The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.
- chii 5y ago
  > an idea can be both good and unpopular communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say. The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    I should note, that I don't think massive political shifts should be tested in production. So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess. Similar with taxing damages to Earth.
    - eloff 5y ago
      > So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation. Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor. On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.
      - nemothekid 5y ago
        Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? It would help to have a grounding on what communism is before repeating tired talking points. >with not a single example in favor. Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.
        eloff 5y ago
        > Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? I didn't say they were. Go back and read it again. > Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. No, it already was a totalitarian government from the start. Also Soviet Russia is an excellent example of the failures of communism, citing it in support is not helping your argument.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > communism is a good idea Is that a troll? See my comment below.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Communism is unpopular because it says people on average are unimportant and the "greater good" is more important. Most people aren't going to glom onto that when they realize that's the real result as easily demonstrated in any number of failed communist countries, even China gave it up and moved to a more totalitarian one party system that allows some free market ideas in. apparently they're even moving to a dictatorship steadily rather than communism.
- paholg 5y ago
  Even worse, some ideas are both good and popular, and politicians still don't get behind them.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Yuup. 80% of democrats (and a majority of Americans) support Medicare for All but the DNC rejected it from their 2020 platform. Sadly, lobbyists are running our party system to a much greater extent than the citizenry. https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/ https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...
asdff 5y ago
If you priced everything according to the negative externalities they cause, you would have poor people unable to afford $10/gal milk and probably pay more than the dairy farmer subsidy in healthcare costs related to poor nutrition for this entire class of people. I think nuance is needed, but the danger is that this nuance is where industries see opportunities for regulatory capture. Sometimes I think the American political system is too brittle with too much of a focus on who has the most money in the room to perform needed change. Everything in recent decades seems to be a half measure that comes too little too late.
- eloff 5y ago
  I think the problem of poor people not being able to afford adequate nutrition has to be tackled separately. You're right that there will be all kinds of unintended effects. You're also right (in my opinion) that the US political system seems incapable of solving those kinds of hard problems anyway.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Mostly because it makes the poors even more poor and when you live in a democracy that's a hard feat to overcome because they're going to vote for candidates who promise to make them not more poor.

WhompingWindows 5y ago

That sounds nice in theory, but it'll be years until it could pass through actual legislative channels in the US federal government. Neither side wants it, the GOP hates new taxes and loves fossil fuel companies; the Dems hate anything that looks regressive, which a gas tax would at first before the pay-back checks come (if it's a neutral scheme, who's to say how the carbon tax would be used).

KineticLensman 5y ago

> heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution? Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now. Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now. Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change. (Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)
5y ago