3 ms·

Carbon credits and related offset "products" are going to cost a whole lot more once they become mandated by legislation. Same goes for supply chain costs and

Carbon credits and related offset "products" are going to cost a whole lot more once they become mandated by legislation. Same goes for supply chain costs and retail products downstream of companies subject to those mandates.

rsj_hn 5y ago
This is why they aren't going to be mandated in the US. There just isn't popular support for costly measures such as this[1], and this complaint (I wouldn't really call it "news") shows the cognitive dissonance that happens when you confuse agreement with a particular cause for commitment to that cause. Neither the US public nor the US government is sufficiently concerned about carbon output to hurt their bottom line, nor is there a willingness to do so. There is, however, great willingness to subsidize various businesses, give out loans, rebates, and other benefits. So knowing that the public has no interest in the stick but always wants carrots, you are better off advocating for research on energy breakthroughs rather than fantasizing about some strict regime of carbon mandates in the US. [1]https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=households%20only%20willing%20to%20spend%20one%20dollar%20per%20day%20on%20climate https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=households%20only%20willin...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I don't understand what people think they're saying when they use this weird factoid. People don't want to spend much money dealing with climate change? Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to deal with it, so we institute a carbon tax and use the full power of modern capitalism to generate solutions cheaply. No wait, it seems we're actually arguing that people do want to spend more money than that on climate change, as long as you don't use it to apply price incentives but instead tax it in some non carbon related manner and hand it out as subsidies? Though in this specific case, Apple is arguing to not fund it through corporate tax rises, which could be seen as a generic tax on everything, which I'd kind of agree with. I want the corporations releasing fossil carbon (equivalents) into the air to pay more, not some random company, because then they have an incentive to stop doing so.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to .. [do what people are strongly opposed to doing] Not sure why this is so hard to understand, but people don't support these types of taxes and if you try to force them on people, you will be thrown out of power and all of your policies reversed by the blowblack, including the subsidies. In fact you will find even extra taxes piled onto "clean" power by the blowback. You can't just unleash a personal inner-dictator and try to force people to do something they have no desire to do. In a democracy, that is quite difficult. There is a reason why, despite 20 years of trying, the green movement has not been able to get this legislation passed. There is no reason to believe that merely with the passage of time, highly unpopular policies will become popular. What has gotten passed is subsidies for green energy. Subsidies are popular. And in a low IR environment, it's great opportunity to heavily invest in nuclear, hydro, and R&D for cheaper, cleaner energy sources that increase, rather than decrease, people's standard of living. The future is one of cheap, abundant power and increasing energy usage per capita, as has been the historical trend. Moreover historically power has always been subsidized, not taxed (on net). There is no future in an agenda of taxing or rationing energy.

rsj_hn 5y ago

This is why they aren't going to be mandated in the US. There just isn't popular support for costly measures such as this[1], and this complaint (I wouldn't really call it "news") shows the cognitive dissonance that happens when you confuse agreement with a particular cause for commitment to that cause. Neither the US public nor the US government is sufficiently concerned about carbon output to hurt their bottom line, nor is there a willingness to do so. There is, however, great willingness to subsidize various businesses, give out loans, rebates, and other benefits. So knowing that the public has no interest in the stick but always wants carrots, you are better off advocating for research on energy breakthroughs rather than fantasizing about some strict regime of carbon mandates in the US. [1]https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=households%20only%20willing%20to%20spend%20one%20dollar%20per%20day%20on%20climate https://google.com/search?hl=en&q=households%20only%20willin...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I don't understand what people think they're saying when they use this weird factoid. People don't want to spend much money dealing with climate change? Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to deal with it, so we institute a carbon tax and use the full power of modern capitalism to generate solutions cheaply. No wait, it seems we're actually arguing that people do want to spend more money than that on climate change, as long as you don't use it to apply price incentives but instead tax it in some non carbon related manner and hand it out as subsidies? Though in this specific case, Apple is arguing to not fund it through corporate tax rises, which could be seen as a generic tax on everything, which I'd kind of agree with. I want the corporations releasing fossil carbon (equivalents) into the air to pay more, not some random company, because then they have an incentive to stop doing so.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > Well, that seems reasonable, so we should use the most effective and efficient methods to .. [do what people are strongly opposed to doing] Not sure why this is so hard to understand, but people don't support these types of taxes and if you try to force them on people, you will be thrown out of power and all of your policies reversed by the blowblack, including the subsidies. In fact you will find even extra taxes piled onto "clean" power by the blowback. You can't just unleash a personal inner-dictator and try to force people to do something they have no desire to do. In a democracy, that is quite difficult. There is a reason why, despite 20 years of trying, the green movement has not been able to get this legislation passed. There is no reason to believe that merely with the passage of time, highly unpopular policies will become popular. What has gotten passed is subsidies for green energy. Subsidies are popular. And in a low IR environment, it's great opportunity to heavily invest in nuclear, hydro, and R&D for cheaper, cleaner energy sources that increase, rather than decrease, people's standard of living. The future is one of cheap, abundant power and increasing energy usage per capita, as has been the historical trend. Moreover historically power has always been subsidized, not taxed (on net). There is no future in an agenda of taxing or rationing energy.