10 ms·
This is why we need a net carbon tax. Behavior won’t change unless people start paying the real cost of emitting carbon.
by dymk 4y ago
This is why we need a net carbon tax. Behavior won’t change unless people start paying the real cost of emitting carbon.
- sfe22 4y agoMaybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue doesn’t go to to the monopoly that injected people with plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.
- belval 4y agoCarbon tax only works if everyone agrees which is the actual crux of the issue. If you enforce new legislation to tax carbon-emitting industries in the US, all you are doing is offshoring that manufacturing to some place where the tax does not exist. Not saying that it's inherently a bad idea, but there are no silver bullets on that issue. I'd like to see more work done on point source capture of carbon/methane. https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture
- dymk 4y agoAir travel isn't something that can be offshored - if somebody in America wants to fly, they're getting on a plane in America, where an American carbon tax would apply. Sure, it doesn't fix industries which can offshore, but it's a good place to start. Commercial air is a major source of carbon emissions.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y agoOr would in data claims air travel accounts for about 3.5% of carbon emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
- dymk 4y agoWe agree that that’s a huge amount, right?
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y agoIn gross tonnage, yes sure. I don't agree that 3.5% is a huge fraction.
- Raidion 4y agoMy quick google says it's 2.5% of carbon emissions (for both passengers and cargo). If we add a carbon tax, do you consider the prime benefit to be the reduction in demand (if it means 20% less air travel, that's .5% total global carbon emissions reduction) Or do you feel like the prime benefit is to spur/incentivize more carbon neutral strategies (like electric aircraft?)? Or, do you feel like the primary benefit would be the "offsets" (like protecting trees, carbon capture technology, etc) I see a lot of talk about reducing carbon emissions, but it seems like there are a lot of things a "carbon tax" could change, and I feel like deciding on what one of those is the primary benefit is a harder problem than leveraging the tax in the first place.
- edmundsauto 4y agoNaive question: Are airliner emissions more harmful because they are further up in the atmosphere?
- vkou 4y agoYes, they are, but not vastly. Air travel is still a small fraction of the average westerner's carbon footprint.
- truckerbill 4y agoYou could tax the products on import though too
- Gravityloss 4y agoYes, we need to have have international agreements negotiated in the united nations. But it doesn't work if some of the most powerful countries think climate change does not even exist.
- arbitrage 4y agoit's not that they don't believe in climate change -- that's a bit naive, tbh. it's that it's an incredibly weak bargaining position. the thinking goes like this: you care about the earth so much? then you cut back on your emissions. go ahead. that's the US's stance. it's the same stance Brazil uses re: deforestation & agricultural sprawl. they're negotiating in bad faith; they're not stupid. the US in effect wants to be the last person to exit the room and turn off the lights. do you want them to move faster? then you need to get out of the room first. the smaller players need to stop pretending that they're the same size as the US, China, and India. That's just foolish wishful thinking. nobody's going to hold them accountable to environmental treaties or any carbon targets. when everyone small leaves the room, then the US will shove the last remaining countries out before it, too. because it can. because you care more about the "environment" than they do, collectively.
- Gravityloss 4y agoThat's exactly what negotiations and agreements are for. Nobody wants to cut emissions if the others are not chipping in too. Paying taxes is annoying. Yet we need things like law enforcement or defense. So to make it happen, we agree on rules and then we enforce them on everyone. It wouldn't be possible if it was based on just altruism. But we will never get there if leaders don't even admit it's a real thing happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq2L_49PBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq2L_49PBQ
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 4y agoA carbon tax with border adjustments already works if a couple of rich countries agree to do it.
- rgrieselhuber 4y agoBest way to do it would be to tax anyone flying on PJs. You could buy an annual private jet license and it would be very expensive.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoAbsolutely and utterly fictional. Carbon credit schemes are a way to push cost off and allow for corporations to pollute. Look at industrial pollutants and carbon is one of the least concerning. It's a political talking point why? Because lobbyists tell politicians they need it and hand them money. Investigate a little deeper. You will find that the entire world must agree to participate for something like carbon tax to work... the world is not on board with hobbling industry