3 ms·

Carbon tax gets proposed often, but it does not work on its own as a singular policy. Existing implementations of this see the money raised by the carbon tax di

Carbon tax gets proposed often, but it does not work on its own as a singular policy. Existing implementations of this see the money raised by the carbon tax diverted to equally environmentally costly ventures. There really is no easy way to incentivize a society driven by capital to be environmentally responsible because capitalism necessitates a near-sighted and self-centered approach to these things. Take the focus on quarterlies- a company may be doomed long term by the decisions made in the present, but as long as they reflect positively in the quarterlies the people making the decisions stand to gain significantly more than they will eventually lose when the company collapses. Its this mindset that we have to fight if we hope to effect any real limit to climate change. There's no real incentive when climate change occurs on the scale of decades, and anybody with the power to change it thinks (and is thus affected) on the scale of years.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
The reason carbon taxes work is because the upper echelons of society are responsible for far, far more carbon dioxide and pollution than the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Despite what we've been told, the planet won't be saved by worker-bees biking to work. It'll be saved by not having the ultra-wealthy flying everywhere in their private jets, and not spending tens of millions of dollars on multiple homes that are lavishly equipped / use massive quantities of energy to heat and cool / have armies of people keeping them clean and the grounds manicured.
- cik2e 5y ago
  I'm not here to defend the ultra-wealthy but what you're saying doesn't pass the sniff test. Aviation accounts for just 12% of global CO2 emissions and households account for 21%. Obviously, a very small percentage of that could be attributed to the ultra-wealthy flying around in private jets and owning multiple mansions. On the other hand, a reasonable argument against the wealthy elite would be that they are likely to have the most significant influence on preempting policy that could help deal with climate change. They would have the most vested interest in maintaining the status quo, due to their positions at the head of industry, and their children would suffer the fewest consequences of unmitigated climate change. But then again, there is also a significant number of voters, at least here in the United States, who aren't going to get behind any policy that may cost jobs and increase energy prices in the immediate term. And then there's China, putting out 27% of total global carbon emissions. So as convenient as it would be to just blame the rich, climate change is simply too broad an issue to put on the shoulders of any one group or entity, even China.
  - davidw 5y ago
    The nice thing about a carbon tax is we don't have to figure out exactly who is doing what. We just tax it and let things sort themselves out.
    - IntrepidWorm 5y ago
      Things don't just sort out though. Where does that money go? If it goes back into a project that is equally as environmentally destructive, you've just laundered the carbon. Given that the institutions responsible for implementing and enforcing a carbon tax are inextricably linked to the institutions producing some of the highest sources of carbon pollution, I find the proposition that a carbon tax will sort anything out to be unsettling.
ericd 5y ago
https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ Carbon tax is not being proposed on its own, it's meant to be combined with: - Paying out ~100% of the take equally per-person to make it so it helps rather than hurts the poorest, a "carbon dividend". Poor people use less carbon on average (directly+indirectly) than wealthy people, so they will usually be net beneficiaries. - Applying an equivalent tax on imports from countries that don't impose a similar tax, called a Border Carbon Adjustment, to prevent domestic manufacturing from being disadvantaged (and actually, it should give domestic manufacturing a boost, since manufacturing locally should be more efficient and hopefully include more green energy in its mix). In the cases where the carbon generation isn't known, due to being unaudited, the maximally pessimistic value can be applied, to encourage companies to audit their supply chain.
- greeneggs 5y ago
  > Paying out ~100% of the take equally per-person to make it so it helps rather than hurts the poorest, a "carbon dividend". Poor people use less carbon on average (directly+indirectly) than wealthy people, so they will usually be net beneficiaries. I think there's an argument that this is impossible to sustain, politically. Once there is a huge new tax, it will be too tempting to redirect growing portions of that funding to other projects. California, for example, has an energy rebate, but the money has also been diverted to bail out the high-speed rail project, for example, and if the state faced a fiscal crisis who knows where the money would go?
- kansface 5y ago
  > Applying an equivalent tax on imports from countries that don't impose a similar tax, called a Border Carbon Adjustment, to prevent domestic manufacturing from being disadvantaged ... to encourage companies to audit their supply chain Not that I'm opposed to the cause or aligning incentives in general, but practically, this just seems flat out impossible to implement in any way that has teeth. Do we punish poor countries to not destroy our local business, or do we let them pollute to not further impoverish them (in which case they will just start doing carbon tax arbitrage)? Both solutions suck, but with different US demographics which makes the local politics tricky even when everyone agrees on terminal values. Of course, the real elephant in the room is China! China will never let auditors hurt a local business besides occasionally destroying a Jack Ma. The company doing the manufacturing has an enormous incentive to lie since they get to pocket the difference (minus payoffs), the auditor has an incentive to lie as otherwise they would be fired/imprisoned/social-decredited, and the government has and will continue to lie/cheat/steal to protect domestic business. When we inevitably have incontrovertible, unignorable proof they are lying and lied for the last N years, do we start a trade war after local manufacturing has been destroyed and we are fully reliant on their goods? Do we just start a trade war up front to price in the lying from the get go which looks indistinguishable from massive tariffs... in any case, China won't retaliate for what reason? > ...the maximally pessimistic value can be applied Consider how truly feckless the US/WHO has been in addressing China on the now probably probable lab leak! There have been no consequences for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of the origins of a disease that has done trillions of dollars in damages and killed 5 million people (China threatened to withhold medical supplies at the start of the pandemic, so it goes, and its probably not within the interests of our own elites, either). Even if you think China has the same goal of reducing climate change, they will still keep two sets of books (or more!). Anyway, this is a sort of visibility/legibility problem into other countries that feels really hard to solve politically. Every local actor is strongly incentivized to defect which makes the system untenable locally. It reminds me of tax collectors in medieval Europe, except, you know, it would be for the whole world.
phicoh 5y ago
Carbon tax works fine if politians are willing to stick to it. First set some goals and make sure that those goals need to be met. For example, 0 net CO2 emissions in 2050, 50% less than 1990 emissions in 2030. Then announce that each year, CO2 tax will be set to have effect. I.e., plot how to go from today to 2050, how much CO2 emission is allowed for each year and an estimate what to CO2 tax will be. The CO2 can just be a general tax, and income tax can be reduced to compensate. No need for the government to spend all of it on new technology. Of course, some programs to develop markets may help. When CO2 costs are more or less predictable, companies will quickly figure out ways to avoid CO2 emissions. There is one big if, if the government cannot find a way to grand permits for green energy, transmission of green energy, etc. then the standard of living may quickly go down.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

The reason carbon taxes work is because the upper echelons of society are responsible for far, far more carbon dioxide and pollution than the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Despite what we've been told, the planet won't be saved by worker-bees biking to work. It'll be saved by not having the ultra-wealthy flying everywhere in their private jets, and not spending tens of millions of dollars on multiple homes that are lavishly equipped / use massive quantities of energy to heat and cool / have armies of people keeping them clean and the grounds manicured.

cik2e 5y ago
I'm not here to defend the ultra-wealthy but what you're saying doesn't pass the sniff test. Aviation accounts for just 12% of global CO2 emissions and households account for 21%. Obviously, a very small percentage of that could be attributed to the ultra-wealthy flying around in private jets and owning multiple mansions. On the other hand, a reasonable argument against the wealthy elite would be that they are likely to have the most significant influence on preempting policy that could help deal with climate change. They would have the most vested interest in maintaining the status quo, due to their positions at the head of industry, and their children would suffer the fewest consequences of unmitigated climate change. But then again, there is also a significant number of voters, at least here in the United States, who aren't going to get behind any policy that may cost jobs and increase energy prices in the immediate term. And then there's China, putting out 27% of total global carbon emissions. So as convenient as it would be to just blame the rich, climate change is simply too broad an issue to put on the shoulders of any one group or entity, even China.
- davidw 5y ago
  The nice thing about a carbon tax is we don't have to figure out exactly who is doing what. We just tax it and let things sort themselves out.
  - IntrepidWorm 5y ago
    Things don't just sort out though. Where does that money go? If it goes back into a project that is equally as environmentally destructive, you've just laundered the carbon. Given that the institutions responsible for implementing and enforcing a carbon tax are inextricably linked to the institutions producing some of the highest sources of carbon pollution, I find the proposition that a carbon tax will sort anything out to be unsettling.

ericd 5y ago

https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ Carbon tax is not being proposed on its own, it's meant to be combined with: - Paying out ~100% of the take equally per-person to make it so it helps rather than hurts the poorest, a "carbon dividend". Poor people use less carbon on average (directly+indirectly) than wealthy people, so they will usually be net beneficiaries. - Applying an equivalent tax on imports from countries that don't impose a similar tax, called a Border Carbon Adjustment, to prevent domestic manufacturing from being disadvantaged (and actually, it should give domestic manufacturing a boost, since manufacturing locally should be more efficient and hopefully include more green energy in its mix). In the cases where the carbon generation isn't known, due to being unaudited, the maximally pessimistic value can be applied, to encourage companies to audit their supply chain.

greeneggs 5y ago
> Paying out ~100% of the take equally per-person to make it so it helps rather than hurts the poorest, a "carbon dividend". Poor people use less carbon on average (directly+indirectly) than wealthy people, so they will usually be net beneficiaries. I think there's an argument that this is impossible to sustain, politically. Once there is a huge new tax, it will be too tempting to redirect growing portions of that funding to other projects. California, for example, has an energy rebate, but the money has also been diverted to bail out the high-speed rail project, for example, and if the state faced a fiscal crisis who knows where the money would go?
kansface 5y ago
> Applying an equivalent tax on imports from countries that don't impose a similar tax, called a Border Carbon Adjustment, to prevent domestic manufacturing from being disadvantaged ... to encourage companies to audit their supply chain Not that I'm opposed to the cause or aligning incentives in general, but practically, this just seems flat out impossible to implement in any way that has teeth. Do we punish poor countries to not destroy our local business, or do we let them pollute to not further impoverish them (in which case they will just start doing carbon tax arbitrage)? Both solutions suck, but with different US demographics which makes the local politics tricky even when everyone agrees on terminal values. Of course, the real elephant in the room is China! China will never let auditors hurt a local business besides occasionally destroying a Jack Ma. The company doing the manufacturing has an enormous incentive to lie since they get to pocket the difference (minus payoffs), the auditor has an incentive to lie as otherwise they would be fired/imprisoned/social-decredited, and the government has and will continue to lie/cheat/steal to protect domestic business. When we inevitably have incontrovertible, unignorable proof they are lying and lied for the last N years, do we start a trade war after local manufacturing has been destroyed and we are fully reliant on their goods? Do we just start a trade war up front to price in the lying from the get go which looks indistinguishable from massive tariffs... in any case, China won't retaliate for what reason? > ...the maximally pessimistic value can be applied Consider how truly feckless the US/WHO has been in addressing China on the now probably probable lab leak! There have been no consequences for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of the origins of a disease that has done trillions of dollars in damages and killed 5 million people (China threatened to withhold medical supplies at the start of the pandemic, so it goes, and its probably not within the interests of our own elites, either). Even if you think China has the same goal of reducing climate change, they will still keep two sets of books (or more!). Anyway, this is a sort of visibility/legibility problem into other countries that feels really hard to solve politically. Every local actor is strongly incentivized to defect which makes the system untenable locally. It reminds me of tax collectors in medieval Europe, except, you know, it would be for the whole world.

phicoh 5y ago

Carbon tax works fine if politians are willing to stick to it. First set some goals and make sure that those goals need to be met. For example, 0 net CO2 emissions in 2050, 50% less than 1990 emissions in 2030. Then announce that each year, CO2 tax will be set to have effect. I.e., plot how to go from today to 2050, how much CO2 emission is allowed for each year and an estimate what to CO2 tax will be. The CO2 can just be a general tax, and income tax can be reduced to compensate. No need for the government to spend all of it on new technology. Of course, some programs to develop markets may help. When CO2 costs are more or less predictable, companies will quickly figure out ways to avoid CO2 emissions. There is one big if, if the government cannot find a way to grand permits for green energy, transmission of green energy, etc. then the standard of living may quickly go down.