30 ms·

So, a robust carbon tax.

IncRnd 5y ago
That is economic today for people who rent out the credits that arise by purchasing land then not harvesting the trees. That is economic today for people who claim carbon credits for purchasing new equipment, where the old was at EOL anyway. And so on. The existence of brokers for carbon credit sales should tell you something. For real economic viability that isn't scam-based, something based in reality is needed.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  You're talking about carbon credits, not a carbon tax.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    I've noticed a trend of people trying to suggest we already have a carbon tax via carbon credits. I'm not sure if they're just confused, or trying to sow misinformation.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      You're inventing things out of whole cloth. I simply misread.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I read that wrong. Thanks!
BurningFrog 5y ago
That is the way. It is however politically impossible in most places.
joe_the_user 5y ago
A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do, tax or not. And plenty of rich people could ignore the tax and keep driving. And the political impact would be angry people ready to listen climate deniers. What's needed is a plan to eventually give everyone an electric car or some choice, any choice, that lets them do their daily business with much lower carbon consumption. Maybe taxes can change the behavior of industrial users but for consumers, this is totally daft solution.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The average person is also getting hit hard by high energy prices for fossil fuels regardless of tax rate.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    Yes, average person gets hit by rising energy prices. Some portion of average people (especially small business owners) support demagogue who artificially lowers these at heavy costs. Rinse and repeat.
- Maarten88 5y ago
  > A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary. Saying that something will hit the poor/average person/working family is an argument about wealth/cost distribution, which is separate from the actual problem. When we, as humanity, have the natural resources, the technology and the labor required to do something that is objectively necessary, the only thing that can stand in the way is cost/wealth distribution: who gets to pay the bill. So when objectively necessary changes do not happen, the only possible reason for that is that maintaining wealth/power are more important than suffering the consequences of not implementing the change.
  - dcow 5y ago
    Furthermore, it’s not one dimensional. Society would respond to a carbon tax. Maybe if your manager or director really really needs a team/department on site, the company would foot the bill to have you as a carbon consuming commuter. We would all adjust behavior in response to the tax. Things that obviously are bad for the environment are now obviously bad for your wallet and need to be justified. At least there aren't that many wealthy people so if they want to pay the tax and fly around in jets, so be it.

That is economic today for people who rent out the credits that arise by purchasing land then not harvesting the trees. That is economic today for people who claim carbon credits for purchasing new equipment, where the old was at EOL anyway. And so on. The existence of brokers for carbon credit sales should tell you something. For real economic viability that isn't scam-based, something based in reality is needed.

ryukafalz 5y ago
You're talking about carbon credits, not a carbon tax.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  I've noticed a trend of people trying to suggest we already have a carbon tax via carbon credits. I'm not sure if they're just confused, or trying to sow misinformation.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    You're inventing things out of whole cloth. I simply misread.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I read that wrong. Thanks!

BurningFrog 5y ago

That is the way. It is however politically impossible in most places.

joe_the_user 5y ago

A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do, tax or not. And plenty of rich people could ignore the tax and keep driving. And the political impact would be angry people ready to listen climate deniers. What's needed is a plan to eventually give everyone an electric car or some choice, any choice, that lets them do their daily business with much lower carbon consumption. Maybe taxes can change the behavior of industrial users but for consumers, this is totally daft solution.

imtringued 5y ago
The average person is also getting hit hard by high energy prices for fossil fuels regardless of tax rate.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Yes, average person gets hit by rising energy prices. Some portion of average people (especially small business owners) support demagogue who artificially lowers these at heavy costs. Rinse and repeat.
Maarten88 5y ago
> A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary. Saying that something will hit the poor/average person/working family is an argument about wealth/cost distribution, which is separate from the actual problem. When we, as humanity, have the natural resources, the technology and the labor required to do something that is objectively necessary, the only thing that can stand in the way is cost/wealth distribution: who gets to pay the bill. So when objectively necessary changes do not happen, the only possible reason for that is that maintaining wealth/power are more important than suffering the consequences of not implementing the change.
- dcow 5y ago
  Furthermore, it’s not one dimensional. Society would respond to a carbon tax. Maybe if your manager or director really really needs a team/department on site, the company would foot the bill to have you as a carbon consuming commuter. We would all adjust behavior in response to the tax. Things that obviously are bad for the environment are now obviously bad for your wallet and need to be justified. At least there aren't that many wealthy people so if they want to pay the tax and fly around in jets, so be it.