4 ms·

There's nothing moralistic about a carbon tax - it's a Pigouvian tax, not a sin tax. The point of a Pigouvian tax isn't to say "I don't like that thing so let's

There's nothing moralistic about a carbon tax - it's a Pigouvian tax, not a sin tax. The point of a Pigouvian tax isn't to say "I don't like that thing so let's tax it so other people do less of it," it's to say "Do what you want but don't make me or my children pay for the externalities it creates."

GhettoComputers 5y ago
A decrease of carbon would many lower crop yields, could I sue for my lowered crop yields? The issue of a carbon tax is basically that politicians are only too happy to give more taxes, and would support carbon taxes regardless of it being good or bad.
- tfehring 5y ago
  Not sure about the potential for a private entity to sue another private entity for those damages - but sure, to the extent that beef production creates positive externalities, the value of those externalities should also be priced in. Though most of the warming potential from cattle farming comes from methane, not carbon dioxide, so I'd be surprised if it actually had a nonnegligible impact on crop yields, let alone an impact that came anywhere close to offsetting the negative externalities elsewhere. Empirically, most politicians don't support carbon taxes. Market-consistent pricing of climate-related externalities is broadly opposed by politicians on both sides of the aisle in the US. For example, look at the massive subsidies to dairy farms in my home state of Wisconsin - they get over 40% of their revenue from direct subsidies in a typical year, and if you exclude those subsidies the industry hasn't made a profit for at least several decades, but no one dares to even suggest reducing or eliminating them, let alone going the other way and taxing the negative externalities they create.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Does the existance of a carbon tax in parts of Europe and usage of carbon credits show it is not that unpopular? California's electronics tax I always saw as a carbon tax in disguise. It would be labeled as moral code but in effect are taxes.
    - tfehring 5y ago
      Not familiar with European politics but wasn’t a carbon tax one of the principal reasons for the yellow vest protests? In the US, the vast majority are unwilling to do pretty much anything to fight climate change. ~70% oppose a $0.25/gallon gasoline tax; note that a true Pigouvian tax would be something like 20x higher than that based on the current cost of carbon removal. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-will https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-wi...
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        What kind of normal person wants to pay more for gas, especially when most of the population isn't in the upper income bracket in the US and mismanagement of tax funds is so common? I can't imagine why a teenage mother or person struggling with minimum wage desiring these extra costs or more taxes. The usage of the taxes is big issue, it is likely to just be pocketed by the politicians or as subsidies for large corporations that will have a disproportionate pollution effect. Taxes should be properly utilized and be proven through proof or as a fund like social security for the environment, rather than pay more for less and let them decide how to use the money if even its implimented. Nothing stops them from subsidizing gas companies with the taxes.
        tfehring 5y ago
        It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Young people in the western world today are quick to (accurately) accuse older generations of severely messing up the environment (as well as housing markets, government budgets, etc.) to enrich themselves at the expense of future generations. Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. The poll cited in the article I linked explicitly mentioned that the revenue would be used for policies to support greenhouse gas reduction. I'm skeptical that the respondents cared that much about how the money would get spent, since the vast majority did support policies that would tax the wealthy and/or companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions - the only difference is where they perceive the money to be coming from, not how it would be spent.
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  Lower it compared to when? CO2 levels are much higher now than they were even 100 years ago. If we somehow managed to move CO2 levels back to 1950 levels is that really a problem? Another problem. Say a given crop might do better with increased CO2 given all other factors remain unchanged. But that boost of CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm also came with changes to the environment, so all other factors are not unchanged. OK, CO2 levels have gone up 35%, but if the likelihood of experiencing a rain-free period of more than 30 days in that region has doubled, having more CO2 isn't worth the cost. *I made up the claim as an illustrative example. I'm sure there are myriad co-factors that come with the increase in CO2.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    If the carbon is much higher today, then could the conclusion be that they are not the factor, or that they are beneficial? Heres some stats, many factors make up the efficiency, but as plants are carbon sinks, it would be a bold claim to make that it has not helped crop yields. https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-have-changed-agriculture-last-50-years https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-h... Localized effects are easier to calculate, but there are many factor. For example soybeans grow better under less sunlight, so the effect of a darker sky is higher yields. You are correct that is isn't a single effect its very dynamic and has many effects.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

A decrease of carbon would many lower crop yields, could I sue for my lowered crop yields? The issue of a carbon tax is basically that politicians are only too happy to give more taxes, and would support carbon taxes regardless of it being good or bad.

tfehring 5y ago
Not sure about the potential for a private entity to sue another private entity for those damages - but sure, to the extent that beef production creates positive externalities, the value of those externalities should also be priced in. Though most of the warming potential from cattle farming comes from methane, not carbon dioxide, so I'd be surprised if it actually had a nonnegligible impact on crop yields, let alone an impact that came anywhere close to offsetting the negative externalities elsewhere. Empirically, most politicians don't support carbon taxes. Market-consistent pricing of climate-related externalities is broadly opposed by politicians on both sides of the aisle in the US. For example, look at the massive subsidies to dairy farms in my home state of Wisconsin - they get over 40% of their revenue from direct subsidies in a typical year, and if you exclude those subsidies the industry hasn't made a profit for at least several decades, but no one dares to even suggest reducing or eliminating them, let alone going the other way and taxing the negative externalities they create.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Does the existance of a carbon tax in parts of Europe and usage of carbon credits show it is not that unpopular? California's electronics tax I always saw as a carbon tax in disguise. It would be labeled as moral code but in effect are taxes.
  - tfehring 5y ago
    Not familiar with European politics but wasn’t a carbon tax one of the principal reasons for the yellow vest protests? In the US, the vast majority are unwilling to do pretty much anything to fight climate change. ~70% oppose a $0.25/gallon gasoline tax; note that a true Pigouvian tax would be something like 20x higher than that based on the current cost of carbon removal. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-will https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-wi...
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      What kind of normal person wants to pay more for gas, especially when most of the population isn't in the upper income bracket in the US and mismanagement of tax funds is so common? I can't imagine why a teenage mother or person struggling with minimum wage desiring these extra costs or more taxes. The usage of the taxes is big issue, it is likely to just be pocketed by the politicians or as subsidies for large corporations that will have a disproportionate pollution effect. Taxes should be properly utilized and be proven through proof or as a fund like social security for the environment, rather than pay more for less and let them decide how to use the money if even its implimented. Nothing stops them from subsidizing gas companies with the taxes.
      - tfehring 5y ago
        It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Young people in the western world today are quick to (accurately) accuse older generations of severely messing up the environment (as well as housing markets, government budgets, etc.) to enrich themselves at the expense of future generations. Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. The poll cited in the article I linked explicitly mentioned that the revenue would be used for policies to support greenhouse gas reduction. I'm skeptical that the respondents cared that much about how the money would get spent, since the vast majority did support policies that would tax the wealthy and/or companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions - the only difference is where they perceive the money to be coming from, not how it would be spent.
tasty_freeze 5y ago
Lower it compared to when? CO2 levels are much higher now than they were even 100 years ago. If we somehow managed to move CO2 levels back to 1950 levels is that really a problem? Another problem. Say a given crop might do better with increased CO2 given all other factors remain unchanged. But that boost of CO2 from 300 ppm to 420 ppm also came with changes to the environment, so all other factors are not unchanged. OK, CO2 levels have gone up 35%, but if the likelihood of experiencing a rain-free period of more than 30 days in that region has doubled, having more CO2 isn't worth the cost. *I made up the claim as an illustrative example. I'm sure there are myriad co-factors that come with the increase in CO2.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  If the carbon is much higher today, then could the conclusion be that they are not the factor, or that they are beneficial? Heres some stats, many factors make up the efficiency, but as plants are carbon sinks, it would be a bold claim to make that it has not helped crop yields. https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-have-changed-agriculture-last-50-years https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-h... Localized effects are easier to calculate, but there are many factor. For example soybeans grow better under less sunlight, so the effect of a darker sky is higher yields. You are correct that is isn't a single effect its very dynamic and has many effects.