3 ms·

We need a CO2 tax to account for this devastation. Folks that want to save money today by not introducing a CO2 tax ought to consider what precious little that

We need a CO2 tax to account for this devastation. Folks that want to save money today by not introducing a CO2 tax ought to consider what precious little that saved money will buy if crop land turns to desert and the world is aflame. Folks can’t spend money if they end up in an early grave. So put the CO2 tax money toward EV credits, solar, wind, batteries, carbon capture and power-to-gas tech, etc... This isn’t a consequence free world we live in. If we forsake the earth, I’m afraid we will be forsaken.

perl4ever 5y ago
>So put the CO2 tax money toward EV credits, solar, wind, batteries, carbon capture and power-to-gas tech, etc... It's a pretty well known meme that "the government shouldn't pick winners and losers" (specific technologies). Sure, maybe it's not always true, maybe you disagree, but couldn't you at least address how/why? Why can't we have a CO2 tax and not choose what to subsidize, because we (some would say) will surely get it wrong and if anything matters, that matters.
- state_less 5y ago
  I think a tax should be added to discourage the behavior and the money put toward cleanup (CO2 reduction) in order to remove the risk of further damages. I don’t think much of the clean tech spending is speculative at this point. I’m not as worried about us getting it wrong because I think we are already well wide of the mark and have plenty of opportunities for improvement. We’ve continued down the cheap and easy route of fossil fuel extraction and haven’t been looking to make the seemingly more painful choices. It’s not too hard to imagine how we could ween off a good quantity of fossil fuels. One could justify the spent tax money with high expected CO2 reduction choices. This would, in my view, gets us to a better outcome faster. Here’s my opinion on a some of the consumer side products that can help today. The tax money could go towards credits for purchase of products like 30-50% off EV, solar, battery, insulation purchases. Government side decisions like replacing coal plants are also high expected CO2 removal projects. We might ramp up more speculative tech based on the needs (e.g. carbon capture and power to gas). Hope that helps explain where I’m coming from. With any luck we have more margin for error, though I’m not wanting to count on it.

perl4ever 5y ago

>So put the CO2 tax money toward EV credits, solar, wind, batteries, carbon capture and power-to-gas tech, etc... It's a pretty well known meme that "the government shouldn't pick winners and losers" (specific technologies). Sure, maybe it's not always true, maybe you disagree, but couldn't you at least address how/why? Why can't we have a CO2 tax and not choose what to subsidize, because we (some would say) will surely get it wrong and if anything matters, that matters.

state_less 5y ago
I think a tax should be added to discourage the behavior and the money put toward cleanup (CO2 reduction) in order to remove the risk of further damages. I don’t think much of the clean tech spending is speculative at this point. I’m not as worried about us getting it wrong because I think we are already well wide of the mark and have plenty of opportunities for improvement. We’ve continued down the cheap and easy route of fossil fuel extraction and haven’t been looking to make the seemingly more painful choices. It’s not too hard to imagine how we could ween off a good quantity of fossil fuels. One could justify the spent tax money with high expected CO2 reduction choices. This would, in my view, gets us to a better outcome faster. Here’s my opinion on a some of the consumer side products that can help today. The tax money could go towards credits for purchase of products like 30-50% off EV, solar, battery, insulation purchases. Government side decisions like replacing coal plants are also high expected CO2 removal projects. We might ramp up more speculative tech based on the needs (e.g. carbon capture and power to gas). Hope that helps explain where I’m coming from. With any luck we have more margin for error, though I’m not wanting to count on it.