5 ms·

>>> We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased p

>>> We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. Free market will sort the rest out Sarcasm?

gambiting 5y ago
I don't see why you think this is sarcasm. Sounds very reasonable to me.
- cyphertruck 5y ago
  How will taxes improve the environment? They will give politicians more power to oppress, snd since governments are the largest polluters in the world the environment will get worse. Which they will use as an excuse for more taxes. See the pattern? —— This comment has two further comments, both of which ask questions. But since this comment is heavily downvoted, I cannot reply to the replies to answer the questions. In short: no such thing as “negative externalities”, thats just make-believe to whitewash oppression and poverty creation. Taxes are not a market signal by definition. Its interesting how blithely people accept using violence to force others to comply with their wishes. If you really wanted to reduce CO2 you would support safe clean nuclear. But CO2 isnt causing warming- its historically low, earth started at %100 CO2. Plants evolved to need levels 5 times higher than present. Increased CO2 would improve the environment. We had an ICE AGE at 10 times higher CO2 then now. ETC. Unfortunately Government propaganda has replace science education.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Taxes infom the market about externalities. Taxing carbon emission significantly sends price signal to every actor in the market that uses products and services that have carbon emission upstream to maybe reduce usage of such products and services or switch to another.
  - ogogmad 5y ago
    Governments have a role in taxing negative externalities. What alternative do libertarians like you have? Forgetting whether or not you believe in climate change, if it does indeed exist as a possibility, what would libertarians like you do about it? Your comment is blatant virtue signalling -- it's taking a moral high ground without providing any alternatives. [edit] At least you've provided an alternative now: nuclear energy. Then again, you only did it when pushed to.
- espadrine 5y ago
  I also don’t think it is sarcasm, but I don’t think it is reasonable. > We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. So far so good. > Free market will sort the rest out Under free market, the basic income will cause a further price increase, rendering the effort moot. Subsidizing energy, as Kosovo and Kazakhstan have been doing (resulting in the same consequences on coin mining and crackdown), is necessary, and thus so are the consequences.
  - hectormalot 5y ago
    No it doesn’t. Example, imagine you currently have a energy bill of $1000p.a. With the proposal above, we’ll move you to a $3000p.a. bill with CO2 taxes. And, we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? The payback period on solar panels just went *0.3, batteries just became a affordable option for day/night balancing, many alternative investments in renewable energy just became profitable. Many people will use that opportunity to get ahead financially. I think that’s what GP meant with “the free market will sort out the rest”
    - espadrine 5y ago
      I’m not exactly sure we are disagreeing. > we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? In the suggested policy I was replying to, the $2k would decrease if I (and many others) switched to renewable. That loss would muddy the gains, discouraging the switch. Besides, the methods you are describing tend to have high upfront costs. Hence, the need for subsidizing instead, something very close, but without a negative-feedback-loop incentive. To be fair, while that is a reasonable policy (and why so many countries enact it), I would favor requiring each company to be individually carbon-neutral, with an exponential penalty. As a result, it is not a tax which could weaken the vulnerable, and yet it forces companies to choose between reducing their negative externalities, and bankruptcy. But computing carbon-neutrality is hard.
- sigmaprimus 5y ago
  Well it is either sarcasm or ignorance to say that Taxes, UBI and a Free Market could ever exist in the same economy or be part any economic device. I'm thinking probably ignorance as the comment also thinks that raising the costs of energy used to produce BTC will somehow make it less profitable to mine when in fact it will simply increase commodity value and most likely drive more interest and increase speculation thus consuming more energy.
imtringued 5y ago
You give everyone equal amounts of co2 tokens. CO2 pollution costs tokens. You have now democratized CO2 pollution. Every single person gets to decide how much pollution they want in the world. Replace pollution tokens with dollars and taxes and you have the same democratic system.
- qsort 5y ago
  https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...

gambiting 5y ago

I don't see why you think this is sarcasm. Sounds very reasonable to me.

cyphertruck 5y ago
How will taxes improve the environment? They will give politicians more power to oppress, snd since governments are the largest polluters in the world the environment will get worse. Which they will use as an excuse for more taxes. See the pattern? —— This comment has two further comments, both of which ask questions. But since this comment is heavily downvoted, I cannot reply to the replies to answer the questions. In short: no such thing as “negative externalities”, thats just make-believe to whitewash oppression and poverty creation. Taxes are not a market signal by definition. Its interesting how blithely people accept using violence to force others to comply with their wishes. If you really wanted to reduce CO2 you would support safe clean nuclear. But CO2 isnt causing warming- its historically low, earth started at %100 CO2. Plants evolved to need levels 5 times higher than present. Increased CO2 would improve the environment. We had an ICE AGE at 10 times higher CO2 then now. ETC. Unfortunately Government propaganda has replace science education.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Taxes infom the market about externalities. Taxing carbon emission significantly sends price signal to every actor in the market that uses products and services that have carbon emission upstream to maybe reduce usage of such products and services or switch to another.
- ogogmad 5y ago
  Governments have a role in taxing negative externalities. What alternative do libertarians like you have? Forgetting whether or not you believe in climate change, if it does indeed exist as a possibility, what would libertarians like you do about it? Your comment is blatant virtue signalling -- it's taking a moral high ground without providing any alternatives. [edit] At least you've provided an alternative now: nuclear energy. Then again, you only did it when pushed to.
espadrine 5y ago
I also don’t think it is sarcasm, but I don’t think it is reasonable. > We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. So far so good. > Free market will sort the rest out Under free market, the basic income will cause a further price increase, rendering the effort moot. Subsidizing energy, as Kosovo and Kazakhstan have been doing (resulting in the same consequences on coin mining and crackdown), is necessary, and thus so are the consequences.
- hectormalot 5y ago
  No it doesn’t. Example, imagine you currently have a energy bill of $1000p.a. With the proposal above, we’ll move you to a $3000p.a. bill with CO2 taxes. And, we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? The payback period on solar panels just went *0.3, batteries just became a affordable option for day/night balancing, many alternative investments in renewable energy just became profitable. Many people will use that opportunity to get ahead financially. I think that’s what GP meant with “the free market will sort out the rest”
  - espadrine 5y ago
    I’m not exactly sure we are disagreeing. > we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? In the suggested policy I was replying to, the $2k would decrease if I (and many others) switched to renewable. That loss would muddy the gains, discouraging the switch. Besides, the methods you are describing tend to have high upfront costs. Hence, the need for subsidizing instead, something very close, but without a negative-feedback-loop incentive. To be fair, while that is a reasonable policy (and why so many countries enact it), I would favor requiring each company to be individually carbon-neutral, with an exponential penalty. As a result, it is not a tax which could weaken the vulnerable, and yet it forces companies to choose between reducing their negative externalities, and bankruptcy. But computing carbon-neutrality is hard.
sigmaprimus 5y ago
Well it is either sarcasm or ignorance to say that Taxes, UBI and a Free Market could ever exist in the same economy or be part any economic device. I'm thinking probably ignorance as the comment also thinks that raising the costs of energy used to produce BTC will somehow make it less profitable to mine when in fact it will simply increase commodity value and most likely drive more interest and increase speculation thus consuming more energy.

imtringued 5y ago

You give everyone equal amounts of co2 tokens. CO2 pollution costs tokens. You have now democratized CO2 pollution. Every single person gets to decide how much pollution they want in the world. Replace pollution tokens with dollars and taxes and you have the same democratic system.

qsort 5y ago
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-sy...