5 ms·

Introduce tax for citizens but reduce taxes for companies that would be affected by it? Does that sound idiotic only to me? You reduce taxes for these companie

by bserge 5y ago

Introduce tax for citizens but reduce taxes for companies that would be affected by it? Does that sound idiotic only to me? You reduce taxes for these companies... so they can afford to keep polluting the same as before, and place the burden on the end consumer? Uhh, what?

slownews45 5y ago
Fantastic move by Austria, finally someone get's it, and is going to do it in a fair way instead of crap gimmicks!
- bserge 5y ago
  Sometimes I think Russia has it right. No one can push them into stupid decisions, like the EU does with neighbouring countries. That's for Europe, of course. The US is king of pollution per capita and they don't give a flying fuck.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    Actually, a lot of US enviro spending is wildly market distorting and of dubious benefit. Ethanol from corn. Tons on the "hydrogen superhighways". etc
vages 5y ago
Any well run company will reduce its emissions if it’s cost effective, independent of whether the cost of pollution has been neutralised by a tax break.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Seems like it is serving the loud voter base - climate activists, meanwhile the real impact of climate change through power generation, agriculture, construction industry, aviation, etc. is being swept under the rug. In California, the last nuclear powerplant was shutdown this week. I am going to do what I can as a responsible citizen for climate change but I am not a fan of this asymmetry.
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > In California, the last nuclear powerplant was shutdown this week. I am going to do what I can as a responsible citizen for climate change but I am not a fan of this asymmetry. Do you realize how myopic it is to have nuclear power-plants along the San Andreas fault line? Have you lived in California for very long? Do you not realize that CA is in a very unique position when it comes to renewable energy? And for what 9% of CA's energy needs? More could and should be done to increase it's reliance on renewables (~33% but growing). San Onofre was the most dangerous of all nuclear plants in the US and was left operational only due to industry standard vow of secrecy, and it had tons of violations prior to it being decommissioned. Diablo Canyon couldn't keep it's emergency cooling system operational for extended periods of time [0]. This should be a major red flag if you understand what occurred in Fukushima and caused not just the melt-down, but the melt-through and how they had to rely on external water sources to continuously douse the reactors then inevitably ended up in the Pacific Ocean. I am anti-nuclear, or better said, I'm anti 20th Century Nuclear plants, because of how incredibly bad things get when they do go wrong. Not to mention the profoundly stupid approach entities like the NRC have taken towards incredibly inept nuclear waste storage policy--paying NC to store it, and leaving what they can't send out in canisters along the Pacific Ocean or in the decommissioned pools. 0: https://calcoastnews.com/2016/12/pge-cited-cooling-system-failure-diablo-canyon/ https://calcoastnews.com/2016/12/pge-cited-cooling-system-fa...
masswerk 5y ago
I guess, it sounds much like what it is: a compromise between a conservative party and the Green party acting as the junior partner in the coalition.
jlmorton 5y ago
This is exactly how we would want to structure it. The point is not to punish anyone. The point is to simply increase the cost of the unwanted carbon emissions, and then let microeconomics take over. If you pass a new tax that causes a wave of corporate bankruptcies, job losses, unemployment, and other disruptions, that's a great way to ensure the policy is unpopular.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  A carbon tax will not cause corporate bankruptcies. It will just make large polluters pull their weight financially.
rjknight 5y ago
The point is presumably to phase out existing taxes on energy usage, or generic corporation taxes, in favour of new taxes on carbon emissions. What this means is that if there are two businesses which both consume lots of energy, but business A emits less carbon than business B, then A pays less tax than B. Under the current system they would both pay the same amount of tax. This means that shifting to a lower-carbon strategy can be a competitive advantage as it reduces the tax burden of the business. Starting up a new operation which will emit high levels of carbon is now _less_ profitable too.

by bserge 5y ago

slownews45 5y ago

Fantastic move by Austria, finally someone get's it, and is going to do it in a fair way instead of crap gimmicks!

bserge 5y ago
Sometimes I think Russia has it right. No one can push them into stupid decisions, like the EU does with neighbouring countries. That's for Europe, of course. The US is king of pollution per capita and they don't give a flying fuck.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Actually, a lot of US enviro spending is wildly market distorting and of dubious benefit. Ethanol from corn. Tons on the "hydrogen superhighways". etc

vages 5y ago

Any well run company will reduce its emissions if it’s cost effective, independent of whether the cost of pollution has been neutralised by a tax break.

systemvoltage 5y ago

Seems like it is serving the loud voter base - climate activists, meanwhile the real impact of climate change through power generation, agriculture, construction industry, aviation, etc. is being swept under the rug. In California, the last nuclear powerplant was shutdown this week. I am going to do what I can as a responsible citizen for climate change but I am not a fan of this asymmetry.

Melting_Harps 5y ago
> In California, the last nuclear powerplant was shutdown this week. I am going to do what I can as a responsible citizen for climate change but I am not a fan of this asymmetry. Do you realize how myopic it is to have nuclear power-plants along the San Andreas fault line? Have you lived in California for very long? Do you not realize that CA is in a very unique position when it comes to renewable energy? And for what 9% of CA's energy needs? More could and should be done to increase it's reliance on renewables (~33% but growing). San Onofre was the most dangerous of all nuclear plants in the US and was left operational only due to industry standard vow of secrecy, and it had tons of violations prior to it being decommissioned. Diablo Canyon couldn't keep it's emergency cooling system operational for extended periods of time [0]. This should be a major red flag if you understand what occurred in Fukushima and caused not just the melt-down, but the melt-through and how they had to rely on external water sources to continuously douse the reactors then inevitably ended up in the Pacific Ocean. I am anti-nuclear, or better said, I'm anti 20th Century Nuclear plants, because of how incredibly bad things get when they do go wrong. Not to mention the profoundly stupid approach entities like the NRC have taken towards incredibly inept nuclear waste storage policy--paying NC to store it, and leaving what they can't send out in canisters along the Pacific Ocean or in the decommissioned pools. 0: https://calcoastnews.com/2016/12/pge-cited-cooling-system-failure-diablo-canyon/ https://calcoastnews.com/2016/12/pge-cited-cooling-system-fa...

masswerk 5y ago

I guess, it sounds much like what it is: a compromise between a conservative party and the Green party acting as the junior partner in the coalition.

jlmorton 5y ago

This is exactly how we would want to structure it. The point is not to punish anyone. The point is to simply increase the cost of the unwanted carbon emissions, and then let microeconomics take over. If you pass a new tax that causes a wave of corporate bankruptcies, job losses, unemployment, and other disruptions, that's a great way to ensure the policy is unpopular.

Bancakes 5y ago
A carbon tax will not cause corporate bankruptcies. It will just make large polluters pull their weight financially.

rjknight 5y ago

The point is presumably to phase out existing taxes on energy usage, or generic corporation taxes, in favour of new taxes on carbon emissions. What this means is that if there are two businesses which both consume lots of energy, but business A emits less carbon than business B, then A pays less tax than B. Under the current system they would both pay the same amount of tax. This means that shifting to a lower-carbon strategy can be a competitive advantage as it reduces the tax burden of the business. Starting up a new operation which will emit high levels of carbon is now _less_ profitable too.