5 ms·

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequence

by CM30 5y ago

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires just fly to conferences in private jets at a whim, and waste such resources at an immense scale anyway? Plus... saying things is easy. Actually doing things differently are not.

dane-pgp 5y ago
Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the top 1% care about what the rest of us want, so their only incentive will be to reduce their tax burden.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars. Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money. But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      It's worth noting that there's no international mechanism where countries can be "given a quota" unless they voluntarily agree to the quota, and there is no mechanism for enforcing compliance to that quota unless countries voluntarily choose to accept some consequences. It's not realistic to expect that such a tax would be paid across borders - by default, every country would pay net zero tax even if they are not net zero on carbon emissions; IIRC all the major emitters have explicitly refused to have climate solutions that involve significant wealth transfers from them to other countries, and there's nothing (IMHO even including extreme violence like WW3) that is likely to force them to do so. It is somewhat realistic (though difficult) to have most countries agree that they will tax polluters under a comparable rules & rates. It's not realistic to expect that they will use that tax revenue on someone else's citizens instead of their own. Also, 5% of gross product is a LOT. For a comparison, that is more than the global spending on education. I have a hard time believing that countries will choose to spend on carbon capture more than what they currently (or ever) invested in developing their citizens' skills.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Pollution doesn't happen because some "top 1%" want it, it happens because it is a byproduct of goods and services consumed by all of us. A small tax won't change behavior, but a large tax will impact consumer prices of the relevant goods. Who do you think the "top 1% of polluters" are with respect to greenhouse gases? If USA adds a heavy tax to imports from Saudi Aramco and other oil companies, gas prices will jump and that will be the "unwilling change to lifestyle" that voters will complain about. If Coal India, the world's largest manufacturer of coal, gets heavily taxed then people's electricity costs will rise significantly and they will riot. If you tax producers of carbon-heavy commodities like concrete and steel, the tax will directly be passed on to those using concrete and steel, that's how commodities work. The same applies for all other industries relying on carbon emissions - to significantly reduce usage, the taxes need to be so high that people actually can't afford these "carbon-heavy" services any more and start using them much less. It's not just about the willingness to voluntarily unilaterally change your own lifestyle, it's about the willingness to tolerate your government implementing measures that de facto force you (and others in your country) to change your lifestyles. While, as the article states, "Most (76%) of those surveyed across the 10 countries said they would accept stricter environmental rules and regulations", I believe that this is said with an implicit assumption that these stricter environmental rules and regulations will mostly affect "someone else" i.e. "top 1% polluters" without requiring any noticeable change in the goods and services they use.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer. So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an extra tax to the people who use 10xN joules. However, there are going to be cases where it makes sense to tax cheap-but-polluting products to give a dividend to help people buy more-expensive but less-polluting products, even if that means that prices go up slightly. That's just capturing the externalities of the polluting products, though.
bamboozled 5y ago
Couldn’t agree more.It’s like asking individuals not to eat meat to stop climate change… What about stopping companies fracking, mining coal, selling combustion engines first ?
- brianwawok 5y ago
  Why not both :)
  - ehvatum 5y ago
    Because the meat fracking industry pays its proxies in underground beef, it’s hard to identify steakholders.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Because meat is healthy, not everyone is great at being g vegetarian for several reasons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by CM30 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago

Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the top 1% care about what the rest of us want, so their only incentive will be to reduce their tax burden.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 trillion dollars. Wow are we in trouble. Even if we only tried to get half of it out and get neutral, that is a massive amount of money. But the thing is, globally, there does exist probably 10 trillion dollars we can devote to fixing the problem (4 to stop the current bleeding, 6 to start drawing down the existing "debt"). Hopefully we find something cheaper.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > 4 trillion per year. For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient. Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    It's worth noting that there's no international mechanism where countries can be "given a quota" unless they voluntarily agree to the quota, and there is no mechanism for enforcing compliance to that quota unless countries voluntarily choose to accept some consequences. It's not realistic to expect that such a tax would be paid across borders - by default, every country would pay net zero tax even if they are not net zero on carbon emissions; IIRC all the major emitters have explicitly refused to have climate solutions that involve significant wealth transfers from them to other countries, and there's nothing (IMHO even including extreme violence like WW3) that is likely to force them to do so. It is somewhat realistic (though difficult) to have most countries agree that they will tax polluters under a comparable rules & rates. It's not realistic to expect that they will use that tax revenue on someone else's citizens instead of their own. Also, 5% of gross product is a LOT. For a comparison, that is more than the global spending on education. I have a hard time believing that countries will choose to spend on carbon capture more than what they currently (or ever) invested in developing their citizens' skills.
PeterisP 5y ago
Pollution doesn't happen because some "top 1%" want it, it happens because it is a byproduct of goods and services consumed by all of us. A small tax won't change behavior, but a large tax will impact consumer prices of the relevant goods. Who do you think the "top 1% of polluters" are with respect to greenhouse gases? If USA adds a heavy tax to imports from Saudi Aramco and other oil companies, gas prices will jump and that will be the "unwilling change to lifestyle" that voters will complain about. If Coal India, the world's largest manufacturer of coal, gets heavily taxed then people's electricity costs will rise significantly and they will riot. If you tax producers of carbon-heavy commodities like concrete and steel, the tax will directly be passed on to those using concrete and steel, that's how commodities work. The same applies for all other industries relying on carbon emissions - to significantly reduce usage, the taxes need to be so high that people actually can't afford these "carbon-heavy" services any more and start using them much less. It's not just about the willingness to voluntarily unilaterally change your own lifestyle, it's about the willingness to tolerate your government implementing measures that de facto force you (and others in your country) to change your lifestyles. While, as the article states, "Most (76%) of those surveyed across the 10 countries said they would accept stricter environmental rules and regulations", I believe that this is said with an implicit assumption that these stricter environmental rules and regulations will mostly affect "someone else" i.e. "top 1% polluters" without requiring any noticeable change in the goods and services they use.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer. So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an extra tax to the people who use 10xN joules. However, there are going to be cases where it makes sense to tax cheap-but-polluting products to give a dividend to help people buy more-expensive but less-polluting products, even if that means that prices go up slightly. That's just capturing the externalities of the polluting products, though.

bamboozled 5y ago

Couldn’t agree more.It’s like asking individuals not to eat meat to stop climate change… What about stopping companies fracking, mining coal, selling combustion engines first ?

brianwawok 5y ago
Why not both :)
- ehvatum 5y ago
  Because the meat fracking industry pays its proxies in underground beef, it’s hard to identify steakholders.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Because meat is healthy, not everyone is great at being g vegetarian for several reasons.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]