3 ms·

We need to be wary of counter-productive moralising: > the rich will be relatively unaffected and can continue polluting If the tax revenue is spent on cleanu

We need to be wary of counter-productive moralising: > the rich will be relatively unaffected and can continue polluting If the tax revenue is spent on cleanup/offsetting/etc. then that doesn't matter. That's the point of the tax. In fact, if the tax is set slightly higher than the net cleanup cost, that (a) acts as a disincentive (rather than just 'cost of doing business'), and (b) we would want the rich to pollute even more, since they would be paying to clean up more than just their own mess. For comparison: I take care to avoid making a mess at home, since it would take me a lot of time and effort clean up. The rich can just throw money at cleaners. Now imagine that some Global Cleaners Union sets the price-per-hour of cleaning to cover 61 minutes of work; those extra minutes are aggregated and spent on charitable activities. In such a situation, we would want the rich to make more mess. > Such a regressive tax, levied on basic things like energy, fuel etc. that are fundamental to normal life seems incredibly likely to trigger political unrest as we saw in France. This is mentioned in the article: > In the UK, carbon dioxide emissions are less than six tonnes per person per year, plus two or three tonnes more to reflect the carbon footprint of imported goods. A £100/tonne tax that covered those emissions would raise the cost of living by just over £2 a day, and cover more than 5 per cent of UK tax revenue. That’s not nothing: the government would be wise to send everyone a monthly lump sum in compensation.

lozenge 5y ago
Note, offsets don't clean up. They are just reducing emissions in our future compared to some other hypothetical future. For example, giving out gas burning stoves to replace wood burning ones in a developing country can generate offsets. But who's to say we accurately forecast the chopped wood demand that was reduced by the program, and the gas demand that was increased by the program? Can we say 100% the recipients were not going to purchase these stoves themselves in their future? All incentives go to biasing the assumptions and printing as many offset certificates as possible. To actually clean up we would need Direct Air Capture. The cost is 100+x higher than the usual cost of carbon offsets, and supply is very limited. The DAC industry would need to grow to a similar size (in terms of tonnes of product produced) as our current fossil fuel industry. But the output product, such as carbonate rock, would be useless, unlike fossil fuels. Its only use would be how it removed carbon from the air. I don't see anybody paying for that. Source on the carbonate rock and scale of DAC industry: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... Info on offsets accounting: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/12/11/10-myths-net-zero-targets-carbon-offsetting-busted/ https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/12/11/10-myths-net-ze...
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  I'm not too versed in the terminology, but my intent with 'offset' was to mean e.g. planting X amount of trees to counter the exhaust of a long-haul flight (or other such activities which can't easily be decarbonised) I agree that the wood->gas stove example creates perverse incentives. It can certainly be a good investment, but the costs/risks/rewards need to be distributed to the appropriate stakeholders. In this example, I could imagine a setup like: - Country levies a flat tax on carbon emissions - Country pays out a flat/progressive dividend, to prevent the carbon tax making the poor worse off - We can imagine the above balance out, such that person A with a wood-burning stove doesn't notice any cost difference - Person A now has an incentive to switch to a gas-powered stove (reducing their tax without affecting their dividend) - Person A can purchase such a gas-burning stove using a loan, paid for by their dividend saving (with some dividend left over to incentivise the switch) Such a setup would be essentially the same as giving away gas-burning stoves, but the incentive structure is different: the 'potential future emissions' question has to be answered by the people who stand to gain. In the above example, Person A knows how much they spend on wood fuel (including tax); they decide whether a particular gas-stove loan is worth taking; and they gain the dividend savings during and after the loan's repaid. I'm always iffy when it comes to loans for the most economically vulnerable; but the state can still play a role, by reducing predatory lending practices, etc. > To actually clean up we would need Direct Air Capture. The cost is 100+x higher than the usual cost of carbon offsets, and supply is very limited. Whenever I see such schemes I always like to see what happens if we incrementally simplify the setup. For example, we might start with: - Extract oil -> burn oil -> synthesise carbonate rock (DAC) -> bury carbonate rock If we use a different DAC system, we can synthesis hydrocarbons instead of carbonate rock: - Extract oil -> burn oil -> synthesise oil (DAC) -> bury oil The burning and DAC steps cancel out, saving money and energy: - Extract oil -> bury oil The extraction of fossil oil cancels out with the burying of (fossil or synthetic) oil: - Do nothing In other words, the simplest, cheapest form of carbon capture is to leave the oil in the ground. In that sense, DAC has two roles: - Cancel out the burning we've already done - Decouple energy usage from energy availability, e.g. if some remote location is great for hydro/geothermal/etc., but there's no local demand, we could use that energy for DAC. However, the majority of the time it would be even more efficient to just run electricity cables (e.g. HVDC).

lozenge 5y ago

Note, offsets don't clean up. They are just reducing emissions in our future compared to some other hypothetical future. For example, giving out gas burning stoves to replace wood burning ones in a developing country can generate offsets. But who's to say we accurately forecast the chopped wood demand that was reduced by the program, and the gas demand that was increased by the program? Can we say 100% the recipients were not going to purchase these stoves themselves in their future? All incentives go to biasing the assumptions and printing as many offset certificates as possible. To actually clean up we would need Direct Air Capture. The cost is 100+x higher than the usual cost of carbon offsets, and supply is very limited. The DAC industry would need to grow to a similar size (in terms of tonnes of product produced) as our current fossil fuel industry. But the output product, such as carbonate rock, would be useless, unlike fossil fuels. Its only use would be how it removed carbon from the air. I don't see anybody paying for that. Source on the carbonate rock and scale of DAC industry: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... Info on offsets accounting: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/12/11/10-myths-net-zero-targets-carbon-offsetting-busted/ https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/12/11/10-myths-net-ze...

chriswarbo 5y ago
I'm not too versed in the terminology, but my intent with 'offset' was to mean e.g. planting X amount of trees to counter the exhaust of a long-haul flight (or other such activities which can't easily be decarbonised) I agree that the wood->gas stove example creates perverse incentives. It can certainly be a good investment, but the costs/risks/rewards need to be distributed to the appropriate stakeholders. In this example, I could imagine a setup like: - Country levies a flat tax on carbon emissions - Country pays out a flat/progressive dividend, to prevent the carbon tax making the poor worse off - We can imagine the above balance out, such that person A with a wood-burning stove doesn't notice any cost difference - Person A now has an incentive to switch to a gas-powered stove (reducing their tax without affecting their dividend) - Person A can purchase such a gas-burning stove using a loan, paid for by their dividend saving (with some dividend left over to incentivise the switch) Such a setup would be essentially the same as giving away gas-burning stoves, but the incentive structure is different: the 'potential future emissions' question has to be answered by the people who stand to gain. In the above example, Person A knows how much they spend on wood fuel (including tax); they decide whether a particular gas-stove loan is worth taking; and they gain the dividend savings during and after the loan's repaid. I'm always iffy when it comes to loans for the most economically vulnerable; but the state can still play a role, by reducing predatory lending practices, etc. > To actually clean up we would need Direct Air Capture. The cost is 100+x higher than the usual cost of carbon offsets, and supply is very limited. Whenever I see such schemes I always like to see what happens if we incrementally simplify the setup. For example, we might start with: - Extract oil -> burn oil -> synthesise carbonate rock (DAC) -> bury carbonate rock If we use a different DAC system, we can synthesis hydrocarbons instead of carbonate rock: - Extract oil -> burn oil -> synthesise oil (DAC) -> bury oil The burning and DAC steps cancel out, saving money and energy: - Extract oil -> bury oil The extraction of fossil oil cancels out with the burying of (fossil or synthetic) oil: - Do nothing In other words, the simplest, cheapest form of carbon capture is to leave the oil in the ground. In that sense, DAC has two roles: - Cancel out the burning we've already done - Decouple energy usage from energy availability, e.g. if some remote location is great for hydro/geothermal/etc., but there's no local demand, we could use that energy for DAC. However, the majority of the time it would be even more efficient to just run electricity cables (e.g. HVDC).