5 ms·

Of course they work. Fuels have historically been taxed quite highly in some countries. EVs are doing well in those countries and these countries tend to be a b

Of course they work. Fuels have historically been taxed quite highly in some countries. EVs are doing well in those countries and these countries tend to be a bit ahead of the curve in terms of adoption. Financial incentives help so they are a useful tool. One caveat here is that governments also hand out subsidies and a much more effective way to penalize carbon emissions is simply to stop subsidizing it and then add the carbon tax on top. Yes, EVs get subsidized too. But it's peanuts to the many billions the oil and gas companies still continue to get their hands on to perpetuate the problem. Whenever you hear oil companies defend blue hydrogen what they are really talking about is getting payed (with tax money) for the process of pumping insane amounts of natural gas for the next few decades so they can use that to produce hydrogen. That's "the hydrogen economy": pumping yet more gas to speed up how quickly our planet heats up. They'll emphasize how important that is and how green it is (or could be). Never mind that it is completely unprofitable to capture carbon at scale and of course tax payers are going pay for them pretending that it's going to be meaningful amounts. That's the game right now in terms of handouts. We're talking tens of billions being allocated for this madness. Companies often double dip even and get also get subsidies for cleaning up their act (or pretending to) while also taking full advantage of governments wielding their power on their behalf, public spending on their infrastructure (e.g. pipelines), leniency when it comes to environmental issues, permits, and public money generally being used to clean up their mess. A carbon tax would go towards balancing that; but only a little bit. Eliminating subsidies for carbon producers would cost the worst offenders the hardest and actually level the playing field in terms of cost for the alternatives that they've been allowed to unfairly undercut in pricing. The irony is that getting rid of the subsidies is somehow more controversial than carbon taxes. That's how messed up our world is. We're actively paying to destroy it quicker currently. Every time you pay your taxes.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Energy runs the world. It isn’t as one dimensional as you paint it. Governments don’t simply subsidize burning coal. . . They do so as a means to meet the growing demand of their people for electricity. India for example, has one of the most expensive fuels sold in the world thanks to immense taxation. Even with one of the lower per capital incomes in the world, they are a massive energy market because ENERGY IS NEEDED FOR SUSTENANCE. We need to realize that what sounds like a great idea on paper to minimize one dimension is actually counter productive when we factor in many more.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  I wasn't talking about Indian (I'll assume we are talking about India) coal plants, who are indeed benefiting from quite a bit of foreign subsidized manufacturing and coal exports by various countries. All I'm saying is that there's no need for any of these countries to subsidize or support that in any way. The Indians of course have some difficult choices to make regarding how they grow their economy and energy sector. Global warming sucks and it is going to hit them hard. There's no need to sugar coat that. We'd like them to stop burning coal and we'd especially like the Australians to stop subsidizing the process of supplying it to them. Less subsidies would make coal less attractive for India. That kind of is the point. It's only attractive because we subsidize it. They'll need to find cheaper and cleaner solutions. Lots of countries are squeezing the coal sector hard now and it is rapidly disappearing. India will have to adapt. So will China. The new German government for example intends to move forward the closure of remaining coal plants to 2030 apparently. As I'm writing this, I'm literally looking at one from the train window. It will stop smoking between now and 2030. Lots of wind mills around it. Good riddance.
  - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    Wait, it’s hard to take you seriously if you think India pays below market rate for coal from Australia. Is that really your stance or am I misreading that? They have domestic production that accounts for a significant portion of domestic electricity generation that is bought at market value and then sold commercially through government supported subsidy to help their economic needs. This isn’t a question of “they’re getting it for cheap because of subsidies” - if indeed that’s what you’re saying, it’s a rather uninformed position on the matter. Also, I don’t care what the new German government “intends” to do. The old one “intended” to turn off the bulk of their Nuclear sources leading to coal use surging at peak (which is happening all the more frequently now with the winter energy mix being thrown off) You seem to have a stock position for increasing the cost of dirty sources without a care for what compels economies to use them in the first place. That is precisely the point I’m trying to get you to see. They aren’t used one dimensionally because they’re dirty and no one has prioritized clean energy sources yet, but because they are necessary and the alternatives don’t fit the bill for the need of the hour. Adding a carbon tax in this context is a very arrogant way of saying “Fuck your needs, if you have to pay more, you’ll learn to live with less” When the point is we want to innovate so we get the economic value that modern technology such as SMRs produce without needing to subject a billion people to continue living with powercuts that stretch hours a day because the “civilized” world thinks the pollution from them wanting a better life is too dangerous for the world.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago

Energy runs the world. It isn’t as one dimensional as you paint it. Governments don’t simply subsidize burning coal. . . They do so as a means to meet the growing demand of their people for electricity. India for example, has one of the most expensive fuels sold in the world thanks to immense taxation. Even with one of the lower per capital incomes in the world, they are a massive energy market because ENERGY IS NEEDED FOR SUSTENANCE. We need to realize that what sounds like a great idea on paper to minimize one dimension is actually counter productive when we factor in many more.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I wasn't talking about Indian (I'll assume we are talking about India) coal plants, who are indeed benefiting from quite a bit of foreign subsidized manufacturing and coal exports by various countries. All I'm saying is that there's no need for any of these countries to subsidize or support that in any way. The Indians of course have some difficult choices to make regarding how they grow their economy and energy sector. Global warming sucks and it is going to hit them hard. There's no need to sugar coat that. We'd like them to stop burning coal and we'd especially like the Australians to stop subsidizing the process of supplying it to them. Less subsidies would make coal less attractive for India. That kind of is the point. It's only attractive because we subsidize it. They'll need to find cheaper and cleaner solutions. Lots of countries are squeezing the coal sector hard now and it is rapidly disappearing. India will have to adapt. So will China. The new German government for example intends to move forward the closure of remaining coal plants to 2030 apparently. As I'm writing this, I'm literally looking at one from the train window. It will stop smoking between now and 2030. Lots of wind mills around it. Good riddance.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Wait, it’s hard to take you seriously if you think India pays below market rate for coal from Australia. Is that really your stance or am I misreading that? They have domestic production that accounts for a significant portion of domestic electricity generation that is bought at market value and then sold commercially through government supported subsidy to help their economic needs. This isn’t a question of “they’re getting it for cheap because of subsidies” - if indeed that’s what you’re saying, it’s a rather uninformed position on the matter. Also, I don’t care what the new German government “intends” to do. The old one “intended” to turn off the bulk of their Nuclear sources leading to coal use surging at peak (which is happening all the more frequently now with the winter energy mix being thrown off) You seem to have a stock position for increasing the cost of dirty sources without a care for what compels economies to use them in the first place. That is precisely the point I’m trying to get you to see. They aren’t used one dimensionally because they’re dirty and no one has prioritized clean energy sources yet, but because they are necessary and the alternatives don’t fit the bill for the need of the hour. Adding a carbon tax in this context is a very arrogant way of saying “Fuck your needs, if you have to pay more, you’ll learn to live with less” When the point is we want to innovate so we get the economic value that modern technology such as SMRs produce without needing to subject a billion people to continue living with powercuts that stretch hours a day because the “civilized” world thinks the pollution from them wanting a better life is too dangerous for the world.