4 ms·

1) Tax carbon at the source - yes, that means every oil well and coal mine pays a whopping great tax before any fossil energy leaves the front gate. Prices will

by flooow 5y ago

1) Tax carbon at the source - yes, that means every oil well and coal mine pays a whopping great tax before any fossil energy leaves the front gate. Prices will adjust all the way down the supply chain 2) Use this huge income source as global helicopter money, the dividend every person in the world gets from allowing other people to destroy their global shared ecosystem 3) Create various green energy projects into which citizens can invest their dividend 4) Planet does not become unliveable mad-max hell within our lifetimes?

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Sounds like a way to end up with women forced into having children they do not want.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Concentration camps full of women and children so the dictator can collect all that sweet carbon money.
- flooow 5y ago
  Nah, you don't get your dividend until you are 16.
fuoqi 5y ago
>Prices will adjust all the way down the supply chain Hitting the poorest most, since rise in energy prices has a cumulative effect on everyday spending. Also "adjustments" can very easily lead to shocks if not done carefully. And don't forget, we are talking about it in a highly inflationary environment. To summarize: small mistakes in introducing such policy can easily lead to a sizable civil unrest. >Use this huge income source as global helicopter money So effectively you pay back money to people which they additionally spend due to the increased prices. In the best case scenario, additional spending and such UBI may equalize each other, but more realistically I think the former will be bigger than the latter. And I am not even touching the matter of exports becoming less competitive on global markets against countries which do not implement such policies. So I don't think that most people magically will be able to invest into green projects en masse. Yes, eventually everything will stabilize and we will have an economy with properly taxed carbon externalities, but my point is that it's very easy to make mistakes on this path with very drastic consequences. And I would advice against magic hand-wavy thinking.
- flooow 5y ago
  We are in drastic damage-limitation mode. Every option is unappealing. Many will result in mass suffering and death. Pick one. (And yes, the current strategy, 'doing nothing', is picking one, probably the worst one). The above strategy at least has the benefits that 1) it is fair 2) it will actually work. Incidentally, 1) is also the reason that it will never get implemented.
- MaurizioPz 5y ago
  Not OP, but... > And I am not even touching the matter of exports becoming less competitive on global markets against countries which do not implement such policies. So I don't think that most people magically will be able to invest into green projects en masse. you tax imports in the same way >Hitting the poorest most, since rise in energy prices has a cumulative effect on everyday spending Every person will get the same share, so with no behavior change there's no reason to have a greater impact then current system, but the incentives align to go green, and poor people can definitely act on that

by flooow 5y ago

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Sounds like a way to end up with women forced into having children they do not want.

Jensson 5y ago
Concentration camps full of women and children so the dictator can collect all that sweet carbon money.
flooow 5y ago
Nah, you don't get your dividend until you are 16.

fuoqi 5y ago

>Prices will adjust all the way down the supply chain Hitting the poorest most, since rise in energy prices has a cumulative effect on everyday spending. Also "adjustments" can very easily lead to shocks if not done carefully. And don't forget, we are talking about it in a highly inflationary environment. To summarize: small mistakes in introducing such policy can easily lead to a sizable civil unrest. >Use this huge income source as global helicopter money So effectively you pay back money to people which they additionally spend due to the increased prices. In the best case scenario, additional spending and such UBI may equalize each other, but more realistically I think the former will be bigger than the latter. And I am not even touching the matter of exports becoming less competitive on global markets against countries which do not implement such policies. So I don't think that most people magically will be able to invest into green projects en masse. Yes, eventually everything will stabilize and we will have an economy with properly taxed carbon externalities, but my point is that it's very easy to make mistakes on this path with very drastic consequences. And I would advice against magic hand-wavy thinking.

flooow 5y ago
We are in drastic damage-limitation mode. Every option is unappealing. Many will result in mass suffering and death. Pick one. (And yes, the current strategy, 'doing nothing', is picking one, probably the worst one). The above strategy at least has the benefits that 1) it is fair 2) it will actually work. Incidentally, 1) is also the reason that it will never get implemented.
MaurizioPz 5y ago
Not OP, but... > And I am not even touching the matter of exports becoming less competitive on global markets against countries which do not implement such policies. So I don't think that most people magically will be able to invest into green projects en masse. you tax imports in the same way >Hitting the poorest most, since rise in energy prices has a cumulative effect on everyday spending Every person will get the same share, so with no behavior change there's no reason to have a greater impact then current system, but the incentives align to go green, and poor people can definitely act on that