4 ms·

If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program

If I can hazard a reason for why this is: an asteroid heading to earth is a problem you can project manage your way out of, you can allocate funds to a program and have dedicated professionals work in isolation to address it. Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society, it will change who the winners and losers are, which affects politicians and their donors.

kdmdmsk 5y ago
> Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...
beebmam 5y ago
Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular
- jpgvm 5y ago
  Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
  - alpha_squared 5y ago
    With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      Right, and we also don’t have options and infrastructure because we haven’t had incentives to create it in the first place. It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Carbon pricing would fall disproportionately on the poor, as most changes to society do. But then again, the effects of climate change would also fall disproportionately on the poor. What’s going to be worse?
      - Cycl0ps 5y ago
- rhino369 5y ago
  There is no world government to levy a global carbon tax.
  - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
    So you get a bunch of nations together, sign an agreement implementing a carbon tax within each country and imposing tariffs on countries that don't sign on.
    - zo1 5y ago
      Don't think we can even get 50% of our populace to agree to it. Much less a bunch of countries.
      - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
        According to Pew research 73% of Americans already support some form of carbon tax. Even 55% or Republicans support it! Time to listen to the people. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      This is the most reasonable way forward if the IPCC continues on the path is it on. Calculating other Countries carbon emmissions is going to be a very difficult problem. There will be some intense negotiations between treaty members to determine suitable methodologies.
- dTal 5y ago
  Something not often mentioned in the context of a carbon tax - it needs to be taxed at extraction, not consumption. The problem isn't burning petroleum as such - the problem is where it comes from. We will go carbon-neutral much more quickly if the economy is incentivized to produce "green oil". And if it's still being dug up, it doesn't matter how you tax consumption, someone's getting that oil and burning it, possibly for cheaper than they were before. Unfortunately, the top 5 oil producing companies are based in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, Iran, and China respectively. It's going to be a challenge to persuade them all to stop digging.
  - Kuinox 5y ago
    I don't agree. You prefer burning your coal in a last-gen coal plant that capture some of the CO2 it emit than a 30 year old inefficient coal plant.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Immediately after carbon tax comes carbon credits, and carbon futures, so you can keep doing the same because someone else promises to lower their carbon emission in the future. What is desperately needed is carbon reduction, not financial maneuvers.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  Given that most of the emissions come from a minority of wealthy people, what stops a super wealthy person from continuing to emit collosal volumes of co2? Let's say a billionaire had enough money to build a vanity project rocket so they could go to the stratosphere just for kicks. I know, I know... Who the fuck would do such a thing. But if... What if a huge corporation wants to buy up millions of acres of rainforest to flatten it and grow cash crops or worse, farm cattle? Would the carbon tax put them off? Or would it be like those paltry fines that they pay after they "woops" and spill a million gallons of oil? I don't think there should be carbon tax. I think there should be a carbon budget per person, and a similar arrangement for corporations. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you take 3 helicopter rides you better pay for a clement winter.
varelse 5y ago
Except that's not how it's going to play out. I suspect it plays out by China going fully nuclear and renewable in the next decade. They'll make mistakes, they'll kill people in accidents, but they will get there. That will eliminate the most idiotic talking point in the world against the West doing anything about climate change so there's that. But also, China having done so, the West will undergo a horrendous sense of FOMO, and dig itself out of its own ditch to catch up. Without a competitor, western nations are just crabs in the crab pot, pulling each other deeper into the increasingly boiling water IMO.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  That would be an interesting turn of events. China currently has a goal of being carbon neutral by 2060. Going full nuclear would accelerate progress on that goal. However, even with that commitment, China is bringing more fossil fuel energy online, instead of taking it offline [1]. What information do you have that indicates China will pursue faster climate change mitigation? [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-cranks-up-carbon-intensive-projects-climate-crisis-grows-research-shows-2021-08-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-...
  - varelse 5y ago
    That makes sense. They need that electricity now not later. But as soon as they have an alternative* they will decommission. They continue to have a lower per capita footprint than the West. And I could be wrong but it would be consistent with everything else I've seen them do in the past decade - I spent part of the year over there every year for the past decade until the pandemic and that's just my take. YMMV. *https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclear-reactor https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclea...
    - coryrc 5y ago
      There are two Chinas. One has comparable per-capita emissions as the US. The other is very poor. They have moved hundreds of millions from the latter to the former. They have hundreds of millions left to go and are making excellent progress.

kdmdmsk 5y ago

> Climate change requires us to change our energy sources, which will require changes in the incentive structures of society This is a massive understatement. If the claims of climate activists are to be believed, the only way to beat climate change is to have the entire industrialized world return to a pre-industrialized state[0]. Since not everyone will want to adopt the living standards of Zambia[0], effecting such a change also would inevitably involve killing anyone who refused. Every American would need to cut their energy usage by 90%[0] or up against the wall! This is about a lot more than the politicians and their donors, this is about reversing the clock on progress two hundred years 0 https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/ https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-america...

beebmam 5y ago

Climate change has a very simple and efficient solution, that can even be popular: a Carbon tax, where all revenue generated from it is redistributed through a UBI or negative income tax. Carbon taxes are the best economic solution, and UBIs are extremely popular

jpgvm 5y ago
Popular with the people. Not popular with the interests that oppose climate change or the politicians they own.
vegetablepotpie 5y ago
That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.
- alpha_squared 5y ago
  With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    Right, and we also don’t have options and infrastructure because we haven’t had incentives to create it in the first place. It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Carbon pricing would fall disproportionately on the poor, as most changes to society do. But then again, the effects of climate change would also fall disproportionately on the poor. What’s going to be worse?
    - Cycl0ps 5y ago
rhino369 5y ago
There is no world government to levy a global carbon tax.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
  So you get a bunch of nations together, sign an agreement implementing a carbon tax within each country and imposing tariffs on countries that don't sign on.
  - zo1 5y ago
    Don't think we can even get 50% of our populace to agree to it. Much less a bunch of countries.
    - jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
      According to Pew research 73% of Americans already support some form of carbon tax. Even 55% or Republicans support it! Time to listen to the people. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    This is the most reasonable way forward if the IPCC continues on the path is it on. Calculating other Countries carbon emmissions is going to be a very difficult problem. There will be some intense negotiations between treaty members to determine suitable methodologies.
dTal 5y ago
Something not often mentioned in the context of a carbon tax - it needs to be taxed at extraction, not consumption. The problem isn't burning petroleum as such - the problem is where it comes from. We will go carbon-neutral much more quickly if the economy is incentivized to produce "green oil". And if it's still being dug up, it doesn't matter how you tax consumption, someone's getting that oil and burning it, possibly for cheaper than they were before. Unfortunately, the top 5 oil producing companies are based in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kuwait, Iran, and China respectively. It's going to be a challenge to persuade them all to stop digging.
- Kuinox 5y ago
  I don't agree. You prefer burning your coal in a last-gen coal plant that capture some of the CO2 it emit than a 30 year old inefficient coal plant.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
Immediately after carbon tax comes carbon credits, and carbon futures, so you can keep doing the same because someone else promises to lower their carbon emission in the future. What is desperately needed is carbon reduction, not financial maneuvers.
raffraffraff 5y ago
Given that most of the emissions come from a minority of wealthy people, what stops a super wealthy person from continuing to emit collosal volumes of co2? Let's say a billionaire had enough money to build a vanity project rocket so they could go to the stratosphere just for kicks. I know, I know... Who the fuck would do such a thing. But if... What if a huge corporation wants to buy up millions of acres of rainforest to flatten it and grow cash crops or worse, farm cattle? Would the carbon tax put them off? Or would it be like those paltry fines that they pay after they "woops" and spill a million gallons of oil? I don't think there should be carbon tax. I think there should be a carbon budget per person, and a similar arrangement for corporations. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you take 3 helicopter rides you better pay for a clement winter.

varelse 5y ago

Except that's not how it's going to play out. I suspect it plays out by China going fully nuclear and renewable in the next decade. They'll make mistakes, they'll kill people in accidents, but they will get there. That will eliminate the most idiotic talking point in the world against the West doing anything about climate change so there's that. But also, China having done so, the West will undergo a horrendous sense of FOMO, and dig itself out of its own ditch to catch up. Without a competitor, western nations are just crabs in the crab pot, pulling each other deeper into the increasingly boiling water IMO.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
That would be an interesting turn of events. China currently has a goal of being carbon neutral by 2060. Going full nuclear would accelerate progress on that goal. However, even with that commitment, China is bringing more fossil fuel energy online, instead of taking it offline [1]. What information do you have that indicates China will pursue faster climate change mitigation? [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-cranks-up-carbon-intensive-projects-climate-crisis-grows-research-shows-2021-08-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-...
- varelse 5y ago
  That makes sense. They need that electricity now not later. But as soon as they have an alternative* they will decommission. They continue to have a lower per capita footprint than the West. And I could be wrong but it would be consistent with everything else I've seen them do in the past decade - I spent part of the year over there every year for the past decade until the pandemic and that's just my take. YMMV. *https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclear-reactor https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-closing-in-on-thorium-nuclea...
  - coryrc 5y ago
    There are two Chinas. One has comparable per-capita emissions as the US. The other is very poor. They have moved hundreds of millions from the latter to the former. They have hundreds of millions left to go and are making excellent progress.