3 ms·
I used to be a huge fan of carbon taxes, but I think for them to be effective they would have needed to be adopted back in the 90s or early 2000s. The speed at
by epistasis 4y ago
I used to be a huge fan of carbon taxes, but I think for them to be effective they would have needed to be adopted back in the 90s or early 2000s.
The speed at which the market adapts to small price changes is not fast enough. Additionally, we need to take quick action in ways that have very different costs for different industries.
For example, steel and concrete have large process emissions, and are industries with extremely low margins, high capital costs, and long capital lifetimes. Decarbonization of these industries is unlikely to happen even with high carbon taxes of $200/ton, because not only is the successor tech not yet understood, there's no guarantee that an investment in a potential carbon-less concrete will have a market.
A much better approach is to guarantee the market, at any price, but let it be a competitive market for that carbon-free steel or carbon-free concrete. E.g. a small number of customers that band together and state that they will only buy carbon-free concrete for construction, that needs X million tons in the next 5 years. This will allow entrepeneurs to raise money, because they have a guaranteed market where they only compete with the new tech, rather than having to compete with the general market plus a price. Let those initial businesses get going, iterate, and drive down costs.
Carbon taxes are great if you view the economy as a series of interacting spherical cows, which is how economists are the macro level must envision it in order to get their models to work.
We, as entrepreneurs, can start to de-spherify the cows and see where the models fail, and reality must be substituted.
- Gibbon1 4y agoI'm against carbon taxes which I see it as your typical neoliberal designed to be easily foiled non-solution. Really this isn't something where the 'free market' and 'magic hand' will magically fix things. Everything that needs to be done is clear as day. Want to reduce emission from people driving? Implement work from home, not too far from home polices. Provide for buy backs for older fossil fueled cars and steep excise taxes on new ones. Soften the pain for working class people with down payment assistance and grants for electric cars, heat pumps, etc. Pass laws requiring utilities to sunset fossil fuel plants. None of this is hard it's just willful stupidity and ideology in the way.
- WalterBright 4y agoThis all will happen if the cost of burning carbon increases. Your proposals will all be much more expensive and less effective. For example, taxing CO2 will immediately spur transitioning coal to natural gas, which emits half the CO2 per joule. It will also make geothermal home heating systems much more attractive.
- Gibbon1 4y agoProblem is simply taxing CO2 punishes people for decisions they made years ago. Going to punish some working guy making $20/hr because he bought a used Crown Victoria in 2010? Or offer to buy it back and give them a down payment grant to put them in a newer hybrid/electric? Lot less blow back in the latter option. It's also what California is doing right now.
- WalterBright 4y agoIt's a fantasy that green energy is not going to punish people, including some working guy. It's already happening. See gas prices, natural gas prices. With a CO2 tax, the revenue can be used to reduce the sales tax.
- WalterBright 4y agoThere's no way to reduce CO2 emissions without making it more expensive to emit CO2. The current green policy is to fire off a blunderbuss at random at the fossil fuel industry, like trying to choke off bank loans to it, and blocking permits for natural gas. These silly things are both expensive and actually increase CO2 emissions by making it cheaper to burn filthy coal.