7 ms·

This. A 200% value-added tax on fossil fuels that rises by 10% every year would provide the capital. EDIT: To clarify, this is not a suggestion to raise capit

This. A 200% value-added tax on fossil fuels that rises by 10% every year would provide the capital. EDIT: To clarify, this is not a suggestion to raise capital from the tax as much as it's to raise capital from the use of fossil fuels. It's a suggestion for an increasingly punitive financial cost to force behavioural changes.

throwaway744678 5y ago
Wow, nice realistic solution! This will definitely not cause a major financial crisis. You should run for office.
- headmelted 5y ago
  I do see your point, and I've thought about this consequence a lot. I sincerely don't think it would cause a financial collapse, as ridiculous as that might sound. 200% plus 10% compounding per annum is the lowest I think we could reasonably go in order to be in with a chance of reaching peak carbon by 2030. It forces deeply painful changes on the world, but no more painful than is necessary to avoid the collapse of civilisation. The problem until now is that people haven't been given the justification to go along with the astronomical task being asked (i.e. Stop burning fossil fuels immediately or we all die).
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    If COVID, and the 2008 crisis, have taught me anything it's that the economy is unbelievably fragile to shocks. Trying to levy huge taxes in a democracy is DOA for that reason. Most Americans will do just about anything to avoid another recession -- that's food off their tables.
    - acdha 5y ago
      One interesting question: say we tried that MIT economist's plan where you have a hefty carbon tax but give the entire thing back as a tax rebate[1]. That'd get a direct deposit/check arriving (hopefully frequently) and send a message that the faster you lower your emissions, the more other people are giving you free money. People don't like paying taxes but they allow love to get the better side of a deal. 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/econ...
      - multiplegeorges 5y ago
        This is exactly how Canada's federal carbon tax is structured. Citizens get rebates based on income, so poorer individuals get larger rebates as a percent of income and can actually come out ahead even with rising prices due to the carbon tax. More wealthy citizens will (due to lifestyle differences) pay more in taxes than they get back, but they also have the means to change their lifestyles/make different choices, so they could end up in a spot where they use less carbon and so also come out ahead. It's a very simple mechanism to modify behaviour and does do in a relatively equitable way.
    - istorical 5y ago
      Quite frankly, that is why democracy will fail us. Most Americans will do just about anything to avoid their income falling for 10-20 years but do just about nothing to avoid the global climate from torpedoing the world's biomes, food production systems, weather patterns, coastlines and coastal cities, decimating species diversity, etc. over 10-100 years. We could be saved by technological or business breakthrough from an individual, or we could be saved by authoritarianism, but the preference you just described is why we're probably fucked if we hope for a political solution in western democracies (at least the US).
      - thehappypm 5y ago
        The so-called "invisible hand" has already gotten the US on the right trajectory, with the government nudging it along. That's all we can hope for, along with 330 million people making better decisions.
    - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
      If that's true, then democracy has to go.
- alexc05 5y ago
  I mean a "financial crisis" next to extinguishing most life on earth doesn't really seem like a choice to worry about. Seeing as how the global financial system is a thing we all kind of just made up. What good is finance when we're dead?
  - headmelted 5y ago
    Further, the global financial system is based on the notion of perpetual and steady (if volatile) growth. That's the core tenet of the entire system, underpinning everything from inflation to basic employment. By implication, this requires an infinite human population on Earth on an infinite timescale. The still very young global financial system and everything in it is and always has been a Ponzi scheme.
    - Geee 5y ago
      Exactly this. There needs to more understanding about the negative consequences of inflationary monetary system. Absolutely scarce money, i.e. bitcoin, is the only solution to this problem. Scarce money forces to innovate in order to grow.
  - convolvatron 5y ago
    its also kind of not either or. how do you think the market is going to manage the kind of shocks and structural changes ahead. every year from now on is going to get worse.
- occz 5y ago
  When the world is thrown into complete chaos by the climate crisis, at least we will have saved the damn economy, right?
  - dTal 5y ago
    "Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    When will that happen? 2012?
the_lonely_road 5y ago
We have an infinite money printing machine. We don't need access to any capital. That's not what the carbon tax is about. We need to change behavior. We need everyone that uses carbon to pay for its use (including the externalities) so that they stop using it as much as they are. This is why poor people can't be exempt. This is why the rich can't just pay for it. We all need a massive increase in the cost of everything that touches carbon (read everything) so we start driving to the next city once per year instead of every weekend, so that we start eating a BLT once a month instead of twice a week (a lot of heart issues down here in the south for a reason), and the list goes on.
- altdataseller 5y ago
  Yeah, people should never say “we have no capital” when I see billions being used to buy bonds and prop up the stock market. It’s just ridiculous
  - gruez 5y ago
    >when I see billions being used to buy bonds and prop up the stock market. It’s just ridiculous Because the former doesn't really cause inflation (it just sits on the bank's balance sheets), whereas printing money for infrastructure projects is.
- guilhas 5y ago
  Wow That's exactly what carbon tax is. Some companies will be exempt, others will be issuing "carbox tax loans". Only regular people will suffer with this Do you understand you're saying give even more money to the people that have been leading the world to its destruction, so they will make it better
- snikeris 5y ago
  > We need to change behavior. We need everyone that uses carbon to pay for its use (including the externalities) so that they stop using it as much as they are. This is why poor people can't be exempt. This is why the rich can't just pay for it. We all need a massive increase in the cost of everything that touches carbon (read everything) This is a pro-climate and anti-human policy. Do you care more about human beings or the amount of CO2 in the air? There are still billions of people who have no electricity. Let's get them closer to our standard of living before we make everything more expensive for them.
jcfrei 5y ago
That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs. It's a lot of low-income households who rely most on cars because they live in remote areas due to housing costs and have to commute to city centers to find work. Such a tax would cause a huge backlash in large parts of the population in any country and the government who enacts it would be quickly disbanded. We need subsidies to pay for the transitions (pay for changing people's heating, buying them electric cars, etc.). Financing this shouldn't be a problem for most developed countries at the current interest rates.
- nradov 5y ago
  That's why to be politically viable any carbon emissions tax would have to be phased in gradually over many years. That would give people adequate time to adjust their lifestyles and purchase more efficient vehicles. The average car in the US is 12 years old so the phase in period has to be longer than that.
- dTal 5y ago
  I'm all in favor of subsidies to help the disadvantaged, as a general matter of principle. But fundamentally, disrupting people's lifestyles is the point. Yes, it's going to radically shift the economics of all kinds of things, including commuting. That's exactly what needs to happen. There's got to be a big rebalancing, which is hopefully the sort of thing that the free market is good at. What we need to do is make sure there are enough safety nets and wealth redistribution so that no one gets left behind - again, as a general principle, not just over this one issue. All change is going to disproportionately impact the disadvantaged. But I don't think we can let that be an argument against change in general.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    People would rather have their lifestyles disrupted by global warming.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Yes, rich people in temperate zones would. I’m not so sure about poor people in the tropics though.
criddell 5y ago
The chance of the electorate asking their representatives to impose punitive taxes on them has no chance of happening in the US.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Hence absent a miracle technology that had all the benefits of fossil fuels and more but none of the drawbacks was the only solution. But since that has not yet happened, the situation is kind of bleak.
  - criddell 5y ago
    It would be great if we could deal with excess CO2 at the source, but if we can't then we have to work other aspects of the problem.
mempko 5y ago
We don't need to raise capital. We don't need taxes to pay for the renewable and adaptive work we need to do. Taxes are strictly punitive and saying we need to raise taxes to raise funds is not only wrong, but delays action.

throwaway744678 5y ago

Wow, nice realistic solution! This will definitely not cause a major financial crisis. You should run for office.

headmelted 5y ago
I do see your point, and I've thought about this consequence a lot. I sincerely don't think it would cause a financial collapse, as ridiculous as that might sound. 200% plus 10% compounding per annum is the lowest I think we could reasonably go in order to be in with a chance of reaching peak carbon by 2030. It forces deeply painful changes on the world, but no more painful than is necessary to avoid the collapse of civilisation. The problem until now is that people haven't been given the justification to go along with the astronomical task being asked (i.e. Stop burning fossil fuels immediately or we all die).
- thehappypm 5y ago
  If COVID, and the 2008 crisis, have taught me anything it's that the economy is unbelievably fragile to shocks. Trying to levy huge taxes in a democracy is DOA for that reason. Most Americans will do just about anything to avoid another recession -- that's food off their tables.
  - acdha 5y ago
    One interesting question: say we tried that MIT economist's plan where you have a hefty carbon tax but give the entire thing back as a tax rebate[1]. That'd get a direct deposit/check arriving (hopefully frequently) and send a message that the faster you lower your emissions, the more other people are giving you free money. People don't like paying taxes but they allow love to get the better side of a deal. 1. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/econ...
    - multiplegeorges 5y ago
      This is exactly how Canada's federal carbon tax is structured. Citizens get rebates based on income, so poorer individuals get larger rebates as a percent of income and can actually come out ahead even with rising prices due to the carbon tax. More wealthy citizens will (due to lifestyle differences) pay more in taxes than they get back, but they also have the means to change their lifestyles/make different choices, so they could end up in a spot where they use less carbon and so also come out ahead. It's a very simple mechanism to modify behaviour and does do in a relatively equitable way.
  - istorical 5y ago
    Quite frankly, that is why democracy will fail us. Most Americans will do just about anything to avoid their income falling for 10-20 years but do just about nothing to avoid the global climate from torpedoing the world's biomes, food production systems, weather patterns, coastlines and coastal cities, decimating species diversity, etc. over 10-100 years. We could be saved by technological or business breakthrough from an individual, or we could be saved by authoritarianism, but the preference you just described is why we're probably fucked if we hope for a political solution in western democracies (at least the US).
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      The so-called "invisible hand" has already gotten the US on the right trajectory, with the government nudging it along. That's all we can hope for, along with 330 million people making better decisions.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    If that's true, then democracy has to go.
alexc05 5y ago
I mean a "financial crisis" next to extinguishing most life on earth doesn't really seem like a choice to worry about. Seeing as how the global financial system is a thing we all kind of just made up. What good is finance when we're dead?
- headmelted 5y ago
  Further, the global financial system is based on the notion of perpetual and steady (if volatile) growth. That's the core tenet of the entire system, underpinning everything from inflation to basic employment. By implication, this requires an infinite human population on Earth on an infinite timescale. The still very young global financial system and everything in it is and always has been a Ponzi scheme.
  - Geee 5y ago
    Exactly this. There needs to more understanding about the negative consequences of inflationary monetary system. Absolutely scarce money, i.e. bitcoin, is the only solution to this problem. Scarce money forces to innovate in order to grow.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  its also kind of not either or. how do you think the market is going to manage the kind of shocks and structural changes ahead. every year from now on is going to get worse.
occz 5y ago
When the world is thrown into complete chaos by the climate crisis, at least we will have saved the damn economy, right?
- dTal 5y ago
  "Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya?format=jpg
- thehappypm 5y ago
  When will that happen? 2012?

the_lonely_road 5y ago

We have an infinite money printing machine. We don't need access to any capital. That's not what the carbon tax is about. We need to change behavior. We need everyone that uses carbon to pay for its use (including the externalities) so that they stop using it as much as they are. This is why poor people can't be exempt. This is why the rich can't just pay for it. We all need a massive increase in the cost of everything that touches carbon (read everything) so we start driving to the next city once per year instead of every weekend, so that we start eating a BLT once a month instead of twice a week (a lot of heart issues down here in the south for a reason), and the list goes on.

altdataseller 5y ago
Yeah, people should never say “we have no capital” when I see billions being used to buy bonds and prop up the stock market. It’s just ridiculous
- gruez 5y ago
  >when I see billions being used to buy bonds and prop up the stock market. It’s just ridiculous Because the former doesn't really cause inflation (it just sits on the bank's balance sheets), whereas printing money for infrastructure projects is.
guilhas 5y ago
Wow That's exactly what carbon tax is. Some companies will be exempt, others will be issuing "carbox tax loans". Only regular people will suffer with this Do you understand you're saying give even more money to the people that have been leading the world to its destruction, so they will make it better
snikeris 5y ago
> We need to change behavior. We need everyone that uses carbon to pay for its use (including the externalities) so that they stop using it as much as they are. This is why poor people can't be exempt. This is why the rich can't just pay for it. We all need a massive increase in the cost of everything that touches carbon (read everything) This is a pro-climate and anti-human policy. Do you care more about human beings or the amount of CO2 in the air? There are still billions of people who have no electricity. Let's get them closer to our standard of living before we make everything more expensive for them.

jcfrei 5y ago

That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs. It's a lot of low-income households who rely most on cars because they live in remote areas due to housing costs and have to commute to city centers to find work. Such a tax would cause a huge backlash in large parts of the population in any country and the government who enacts it would be quickly disbanded. We need subsidies to pay for the transitions (pay for changing people's heating, buying them electric cars, etc.). Financing this shouldn't be a problem for most developed countries at the current interest rates.

nradov 5y ago
That's why to be politically viable any carbon emissions tax would have to be phased in gradually over many years. That would give people adequate time to adjust their lifestyles and purchase more efficient vehicles. The average car in the US is 12 years old so the phase in period has to be longer than that.
dTal 5y ago
I'm all in favor of subsidies to help the disadvantaged, as a general matter of principle. But fundamentally, disrupting people's lifestyles is the point. Yes, it's going to radically shift the economics of all kinds of things, including commuting. That's exactly what needs to happen. There's got to be a big rebalancing, which is hopefully the sort of thing that the free market is good at. What we need to do is make sure there are enough safety nets and wealth redistribution so that no one gets left behind - again, as a general principle, not just over this one issue. All change is going to disproportionately impact the disadvantaged. But I don't think we can let that be an argument against change in general.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  People would rather have their lifestyles disrupted by global warming.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Yes, rich people in temperate zones would. I’m not so sure about poor people in the tropics though.

criddell 5y ago

The chance of the electorate asking their representatives to impose punitive taxes on them has no chance of happening in the US.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Hence absent a miracle technology that had all the benefits of fossil fuels and more but none of the drawbacks was the only solution. But since that has not yet happened, the situation is kind of bleak.
- criddell 5y ago
  It would be great if we could deal with excess CO2 at the source, but if we can't then we have to work other aspects of the problem.

mempko 5y ago

We don't need to raise capital. We don't need taxes to pay for the renewable and adaptive work we need to do. Taxes are strictly punitive and saying we need to raise taxes to raise funds is not only wrong, but delays action.