3 ms·

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

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
      If I'm understanding the numbers in this thread, wouldn't the idea that the carbon tax funds some UBI program mean that poor families would see a net benefit. Taking the numbers from parent posts and assuming a Google search saying the US puts out 5bn tons of CO2 a year is right, each person would be looking at around $250/year. With an additional 19¢/gal that UBI would cover the tax of 1'300 gallons of gas. Unless you travel 40'000+ miles a year it should be a net positive there. Entirely back of the napkin of course, other costs will skew the numbers. But so long as we have both the tax and the redistribution in place it should balance year over year.
      - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
        Those are good calculations. The bill says people will get monthly payments, so cash flow will be a small issue for most people. I think the biggest issue will be manufactured opposition. The green new deal had majority conservative support until Fox News lambasted it down to 35% support [1], and if conservative outlets pound on gas prices going up, carbon dividends will face stiff opposition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Environmental_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mo...
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.

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
    If I'm understanding the numbers in this thread, wouldn't the idea that the carbon tax funds some UBI program mean that poor families would see a net benefit. Taking the numbers from parent posts and assuming a Google search saying the US puts out 5bn tons of CO2 a year is right, each person would be looking at around $250/year. With an additional 19¢/gal that UBI would cover the tax of 1'300 gallons of gas. Unless you travel 40'000+ miles a year it should be a net positive there. Entirely back of the napkin of course, other costs will skew the numbers. But so long as we have both the tax and the redistribution in place it should balance year over year.
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      Those are good calculations. The bill says people will get monthly payments, so cash flow will be a small issue for most people. I think the biggest issue will be manufactured opposition. The green new deal had majority conservative support until Fox News lambasted it down to 35% support [1], and if conservative outlets pound on gas prices going up, carbon dividends will face stiff opposition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Environmental_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mo...

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.