4 ms·

It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants

It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen.

mcny 5y ago
» It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen. I am completely with you. We aren't even able/willing to remove all existing subsidies/tax breaks for coal. We know what we need to do. We can't wait for developing nations to freeze/starve to death before we cut subsidies on our own coal and gas industry. Even people at Brookings (which I'd call right wing) can't support subsidies and tax breaks for coal and gas: » To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments. » This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... If we can't even remove direct subsidies and tax breaks (including accounting hijinks) from our domestic coal and gas industry, what moral authority do we have to ask other (less affluent) countries to reduce their subsidies?
kodah 5y ago
> make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate Any ideas on what groups this would affect most?
- scottcodie 5y ago
  It's very important to consider the impact on marginalized groups and offset any impact through transfers.
  - scottcodie 5y ago
    Here are some options: - Provide relocation subsidies to areas with public transit - Increase public transit - Treat bike lanes as first class infrastructure - Provide direct gas assistance and carbon tax rebates for low income earners
    - kodah 5y ago
      This tracks for cities and looks good, but also looks like just a start. What about rural areas? They have higher logistical costs, so cost of goods would go up. Things being sold to rural businesses also require someone to traffic their way out there. Point of reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-...
      - scottcodie 5y ago
        There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.
        kodah 5y ago
        Sounds like a policy that won't pass muster then. Making things work for marginalized groups and rural areas is pretty top priority, unless significant and warranted backlash is to be expected.

mcny 5y ago

» It's easier than that, simply make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate. It's just no country wants to take a hit on their economy to force the transition to happen. I am completely with you. We aren't even able/willing to remove all existing subsidies/tax breaks for coal. We know what we need to do. We can't wait for developing nations to freeze/starve to death before we cut subsidies on our own coal and gas industry. Even people at Brookings (which I'd call right wing) can't support subsidies and tax breaks for coal and gas: » To lead global subsidy reforms, the United States will have to strengthen these commitments by actively dismantling its own substantial production subsidies. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute reported that direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry totaled $20 billion per year, with 80% going toward oil and gas. In addition, from 2019 to 2023, tax subsidies are expected to reduce federal revenue by around $11.5 billion. Considering that production subsidies grew 28% between 2017 and 2019, the United States will be under a lot of scrutiny from other countries wanting to see evidence of reform before making their own commitments. » This is a challenging task for the United States because production subsidies are embedded in the tax code and promote fossil fuels in a variety of ways. For example, producers can deduct a fixed percentage of gross revenue instead of their actual costs as capital expenses, deduct exploration and development costs, amortize geological and geophysical expenditures, and benefit from accelerated depreciation of natural gas infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are also permitted to use the Last In, First Out (LIFO) accounting method to sell their most recent and expensive reserves first, thereby reducing the value of their inventory. Other incentives include foreign tax credits and energy production credits. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... If we can't even remove direct subsidies and tax breaks (including accounting hijinks) from our domestic coal and gas industry, what moral authority do we have to ask other (less affluent) countries to reduce their subsidies?

kodah 5y ago

> make carbon neutral transit cheap and carbon intensive transit expensive then the market will innovate Any ideas on what groups this would affect most?

scottcodie 5y ago
It's very important to consider the impact on marginalized groups and offset any impact through transfers.
- scottcodie 5y ago
  Here are some options: - Provide relocation subsidies to areas with public transit - Increase public transit - Treat bike lanes as first class infrastructure - Provide direct gas assistance and carbon tax rebates for low income earners
  - kodah 5y ago
    This tracks for cities and looks good, but also looks like just a start. What about rural areas? They have higher logistical costs, so cost of goods would go up. Things being sold to rural businesses also require someone to traffic their way out there. Point of reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-...
    - scottcodie 5y ago
      There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.
      - kodah 5y ago
        Sounds like a policy that won't pass muster then. Making things work for marginalized groups and rural areas is pretty top priority, unless significant and warranted backlash is to be expected.