3 ms·
How good is the bang for the buck in reducing CO2 emissions compared eg on the CO2 credit prices on the EU carbon trading market? Apparently this program cost
by fulafel 4y ago
How good is the bang for the buck in reducing CO2 emissions compared eg on the CO2 credit prices on the EU carbon trading market?
Apparently this program cost 2.5 billion (https://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/public-transport-in-germany/about-germanys-9-euro-ticket/ https://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/public-transpo...)
Edit: so 2.5 B / 1.8 M is 1400€/ton. Credits have been about 80€/ton this year according to https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon - so direct emission reduction cost of this program are about 18x vs buying and sequestering credits from market. (Both ways have second order emissions effects of course, eg getting people to give up cars if this is continued, increasing carbon credit market costs for industry etc.)
- fabian2k 4y agoReducing CO2 emissions was not the primary purpose of this program. The goal was to financially support people because prices, especially energy have increased considerably.
- tcfhgj 4y agoThe program made mobility accessible to many more people as well, so it's not like you can divide the cost by co2 savings
- fulafel 4y agoI agree the other benefits justify it independent of the CO2 picture. But given the headline, the cost effectiveness wrt CO2 would be a good perspective to have as well, and to evaluate this aspect you can just divide it like that. Trains are so fixed cost heavy that I think it would always be worth it to price them for maximum utilization of capacity. It probably makes sense to subsidize them this way for that reason. The marginal cost of more passangers is so small.
- giuliomagnifico 4y agoThis program was made to help the German people with the rising price of fuel for the Russian war. Not to cut the emissions, this is only a consequence.