5 ms·

Totally agree, Carbon taxes will push free economy faster. Reducing consumption will never solve 100% the problem. It will only postpone bad things for few year

• bryanlarsen 5y ago
  If we started reducing emissions in the 90s it might have worked, but at this stage we need to go down to net zero emissions to succeed. And we can't reduce to zero.
  • maxdo 5y ago
    It's all adjustable. Just make Carbon Tax progressive. Until 2025 anything dirty - tax is 3% for import 2028 tax is 6% 2030 - 12% etc... Also rollout new target for next Phases. To get rid of coal first, Gas after, ICE cars, inefficient heating, metal production... You can make it more complex to include coal in formula etc. So if energy production contains 15% of coal then tax this economy. If that doesn't work in few years double the tax. Very simple and efficient. it make sense to make it social, and invest this tax into low income homes upgrades for electricity(solar), heat production(geotermal). That basically makes the Carbon/dirty production a luxury.
    • bee_rider 5y ago
      Tangential, but is that a conventional use of 'progressive?' I'm more familiar with seeing it used to describe the idea of having a tax rate that increases with higher, well, income most often. I like the idea of smoothly ramping up taxes over time, in general. It seems to be the most obvious solution to the objection "this will shock the market," and that sort of thing. But due to the lack of a better term, I always want to call it "adiabatic taxation" (stealing the word from physics), but I think this is just a me thing.
      • somebodythere 5y ago
        You are right, in tax policy "progressive" has a specific meaning, which is to increase with increasing income or consumption. Starting a tax low and increasing it over time would be considered a "phase-in".
    • redleader55 5y ago
      > That basically makes the Carbon/dirty production a luxury Unfortunately this is very far from the reality. It's the rich that own Teslas, and the poor that need to use a diesel car to commute to work because they can't afford to live in the city center. Carbon taxes affect the poor more than the rich.
      • rich_sasha 5y ago
        There’s plenty of much cheaper electric cars made in Europe. Though I agree, this works with incentives added from governments. But then there will be carbon taxes to spend so that works I think.
        • fogihujy 5y ago
          Most poor people rarely have new cars; until you can buy a used but functional 400€ EV, carbon taxes will be harder on the working poor. Public transport is nice, and it could cover some of that, but it will never be available everywhere and at all times.
          • rich_sasha 5y ago
            I quite like the idea of progressive carbon taxes btw. Everyone has an annual allowance for basic living necessities-this may include eg driving their old car to work or hearing their house. Anything on top - air travel, second homes, big cars etc - you pay for the carbon. Maybe doesn’t sound like it’s converting to 0, but at least it differentiates between optional and essential fossil fuel use (or socialises the cost of carbon removal if you prefer).
            • fogihujy 5y ago
              The basic idea isn't bad, assuming it's implemented in a sensible way. However, the most likely result will be higher fuel prices -- until the lack of income starts hurting governments and "carbon taxes" are added on top of electricity prices instead, regardlessif the energy is green or not.
  • wmf 5y ago
    It should be possible to reduce emissions by 90% and capture the rest by 2050. After that we may be able to go net negative.