3 ms·

There is absolutely no way to set a fair price for something like that. We have no way of knowing the cost, if there is any at all.

by iqanq 5y ago

cube2222 5y ago
Sure there is. The cost of emitting a ton of carbon should ideally be the cost of capturing a ton of carbon. Managed in a free market kind of way. Same way you pay i.e. for electricity. If you can get somebody to capture it for 1$, well, good for you. If there are only buyers for -10000$, then that's your problem. We're not there yet as far as carbon capture goes, but I do think we'll get there.
- iqanq 5y ago
  Which is exactly what I said. We don't know how much it will cost to capture that carbon, so we can't set a price, so it's unfair to set any price. What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from?
  - cube2222 5y ago
    Currently we deem it not desirable, so it's alright to me if we price it very high, thus stimulating investment in this area to bring the cost down or even make it profitable.
  - chollida1 5y ago
    > What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from? Well consider this. We have these things called taxes. Everyone pays them. Sometimes we change the tax rate. Once we change the tax rate we don't go back years and give people refunds for the new rates. Nor do we retroactively go back and charge people more if we raise their tax rates. Carbon taxes would, perhaps not surprisingly, work the same. At the moment we consider adding carbon to the environment to be a negative event and well tax is as such. If at some point in the future we decide we really want more carbon in the atmosphere then we can incentivize people to do that, but we generally don't go back and retroactively give people refunds for their old taxes:)
  - orwin 5y ago
    We know the price with current methods though. It is prohibitively expensive, so no one will agree with it. And for the second question: no. Why would we? You pay for the pollution you emit. If a company agree to provide you the means for free, or even pay you to emit this pollution, all the power to you. What happen in the present should have no impact on current taxes.

There is absolutely no way to set a fair price for something like that. We have no way of knowing the cost, if there is any at all.

by iqanq 5y ago

There is absolutely no way to set a fair price for something like that. We have no way of knowing the cost, if there is any at all.

cube2222 5y ago

Sure there is. The cost of emitting a ton of carbon should ideally be the cost of capturing a ton of carbon. Managed in a free market kind of way. Same way you pay i.e. for electricity. If you can get somebody to capture it for 1$, well, good for you. If there are only buyers for -10000$, then that's your problem. We're not there yet as far as carbon capture goes, but I do think we'll get there.

iqanq 5y ago
Which is exactly what I said. We don't know how much it will cost to capture that carbon, so we can't set a price, so it's unfair to set any price. What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from?
- cube2222 5y ago
  Currently we deem it not desirable, so it's alright to me if we price it very high, thus stimulating investment in this area to bring the cost down or even make it profitable.
- chollida1 5y ago
  > What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from? Well consider this. We have these things called taxes. Everyone pays them. Sometimes we change the tax rate. Once we change the tax rate we don't go back years and give people refunds for the new rates. Nor do we retroactively go back and charge people more if we raise their tax rates. Carbon taxes would, perhaps not surprisingly, work the same. At the moment we consider adding carbon to the environment to be a negative event and well tax is as such. If at some point in the future we decide we really want more carbon in the atmosphere then we can incentivize people to do that, but we generally don't go back and retroactively give people refunds for their old taxes:)
- orwin 5y ago
  We know the price with current methods though. It is prohibitively expensive, so no one will agree with it. And for the second question: no. Why would we? You pay for the pollution you emit. If a company agree to provide you the means for free, or even pay you to emit this pollution, all the power to you. What happen in the present should have no impact on current taxes.