4 ms·

Carbon 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

• dymk 4y ago
  Air 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 ago
    Or 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 ago
      We agree that that’s a huge amount, right?
      • TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
        In gross tonnage, yes sure. I don't agree that 3.5% is a huge fraction.
  • Raidion 4y ago
    My 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 ago
      Naive question: Are airliner emissions more harmful because they are further up in the atmosphere?
      • vkou 4y ago
        Yes, they are, but not vastly. Air travel is still a small fraction of the average westerner's carbon footprint.
        • edmundsauto 4y ago
          But aren't some of the emissions (sulfur based ones) significantly more harmful than pure CO2 released, and (from what I remember about Nathan Myhrvold's work) much more impactful when released at 40k feet? Just wondering if measuring the CO2 volume is less relevant when talking about releasing sulfurs at altitude.
        • criddell 4y ago
          Is that because the average westerner doesn’t fly every year? How does it change if you only look at people who fly?
          • vkou 4y ago
            I'm talking about average, not median. Ground transportation and home energy use and industrial energy use all dwarf the average flight emissions.
            • criddell 4y ago
              I’m asking about individuals. I’ve flown a couple times this year. I’ve been airborne for about 20 hours. Are you saying my portion of the emissions from those flights is likely negligible compared to the emissions from owning a home and car?
              • 4y ago
• truckerbill 4y ago
  You could tax the products on import though too
• Gravityloss 4y ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    it'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 ago
      That'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 ago
  A carbon tax with border adjustments already works if a couple of rich countries agree to do it.