6 ms·
We just need to tax CO2 (and perhaps methane). Accounting for CO2 intensity is all squishy-squashy. But if we tax the actual emissions then the true energy im
by mlyle 4y ago
We just need to tax CO2 (and perhaps methane).
Accounting for CO2 intensity is all squishy-squashy. But if we tax the actual emissions then the true energy impact will be reflected in prices and the market will adapt to whatever actually really is optimum--whatever lends the most utils of resource use.
- lend000 4y ago+1 but generalize to all major pollutants, with the taxes levied being theoretically equal to the cost to "undo" that pollution.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoSo who gets to define "pollutant" and "cost"? That kind of exercise is far more likely to get kinetic than defining "truth" (or whatever) because it is more directly linked to peoples livelihoods and standards of living.
- lend000 4y agoPollution is probably the most objectively measurable of externalities. Much more so than say economic externalities/deciding what the exact values should be for tax brackets. We could just start with the easiest case, which is a product/process that inherently releases pollutants (anything that releases gases) that may have some negative effects on others or the environment (the threshold should be low), then determine the market rate for capturing that pollution back from the environment and tax accordingly. This would also apply to medicines and lotions that don't get metabolized by the users and are inherently are going to end up in the ocean. It gets trickier when we consider things that directly harm some people nearby, like smoking, and at a certain level of harm, these things should just be banned outright (i.e. you can't really undo lung cancer or mercury poisoning). Or things that aren't inherently pollutants (plastic containers), but in practice end up causing a lot of pollution. Our government is too incompetent to approach the problem in a first-principles based way like this, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Banning individual things after they get out of control and doing complex mental gymnastics like cap and trade are much worse solutions.
- ericd 4y agoWell, the US has a government agency that's normally supposed to work on that question. You're right that not everyone is pleased that they do that.
- efitz 4y agoWhat if a homeless person can’t afford the tax on their exhalations, does the government make them stop breathing?
- yowlingcat 4y agoIs this an argument for or against "meat" consumption?
- azertykeys 4y agoI think this is a pretty silly argument, considering how many taxes don't apply to poor people at large.
- hattmall 4y agoThey apply by keeping them poor, you may not pay them while poor, but they put a large weight on becoming not poor.
- er4hn 4y agoThe tax will be based on the amount of CO2 you emit. High cardio jobs such as construction, delivery and politiciking will get tax credits to cover the cost. CrossFit practitioners will pay full cost, possibly even an excessive penalty. There will be a standard amount, but any smartwatch meeting the appropriate govt standard can be used to itemize if you are more sedentary. Under this tax regime as long as the homeless person makes sure to promptly file the appropriate forms each year they should not be at risk of jail time. ( Being the internet, this is all a joke )
- chitowneats 4y agoIn 2022 we are very serious here on the internet. But welcome back! You must've been gone for quite some time.
- refurb 4y agoThey will be sacrificed to appease the god Gaia and prevent future climate change catastrophies?
- refurb 4y agoThat is unlikely to happen. Hell, when gas prices went up (which should be viewed as a good thing? to discourage driving) governments jumped in to either drop taxes or give rebates back.