3 ms·

Let's just have a CO2 tax already. Revenues given back to the people directly split evenly per person.

samatman 4y ago
No, put all of it into core decarbonization of (first) electricity. This is driven by policy goals, not market forces, and the gap between profitable behavior and ecological responsibility calls for money.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  The policy goals are better served by being aligned with market forces. A carbon tax which is fully refunded can be larger without causing economic damage, because it nets to zero for the average customer. Meanwhile you eliminate the overhead and corruption opportunity on the decarbonization side. If you have a meaningful carbon tax, the incentive to decarbonize exists in proportion to the size of the tax, but people can do it however is most efficient rather than according to the way specified by the companies with the best lobbyists.
  - evandijk70 4y ago
    I am in favour of a carbon tax, but why do you think a carbon tax is less vulnerable to corruption?
    - njarboe 4y ago
      I might be if you have lots of exceptions and exemptions to the tax, but you should set it up as a tax of $$/ton of CO2 emitted (with credits for sequestration). You can change the tax rate but you don't have all of these piece meal subsidies and tax credits (wind, solar, electric cars, plug in hybrids, etc.) that can extract donations from various industries to get their specific business subsidized. Pay a small campaign donation for a huge payoff, ie. corruption.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  Why wouldn't a high carbon tax drive decarbonization of electricity sufficiently well?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    People seem to think that the carbon dividend makes saving CO2 pointless for the average consumer but they forgot that the consumer isn't actually in charge of deciding how much CO2 pollution a production process should result in. The business sees a cost on its balance sheet and it has an incentive to minimize its costs, which also is an incentive to minimize pollution even if the average consumer doesn't give a rat's ass.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
      Which is also the reason why a $100/ton carbon tax won't raise the price of a laptop that currently causes 0.3 t to be emitted by $30: Some of the components will (somewhere along the value chain!) be replaced with less carbon intensive alternatives that were just slightly too expensive to be worth bothering with. That's how carbon taxes achieve most of their benefit - not by shifting consumption or pricing consumers out! The above numbers are realistic examples for the magnitude of carbon taxes typically discussed and the manufacturing carbon footprint of a laptop, btw.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

No, put all of it into core decarbonization of (first) electricity. This is driven by policy goals, not market forces, and the gap between profitable behavior and ecological responsibility calls for money.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The policy goals are better served by being aligned with market forces. A carbon tax which is fully refunded can be larger without causing economic damage, because it nets to zero for the average customer. Meanwhile you eliminate the overhead and corruption opportunity on the decarbonization side. If you have a meaningful carbon tax, the incentive to decarbonize exists in proportion to the size of the tax, but people can do it however is most efficient rather than according to the way specified by the companies with the best lobbyists.
- evandijk70 4y ago
  I am in favour of a carbon tax, but why do you think a carbon tax is less vulnerable to corruption?
  - njarboe 4y ago
    I might be if you have lots of exceptions and exemptions to the tax, but you should set it up as a tax of $$/ton of CO2 emitted (with credits for sequestration). You can change the tax rate but you don't have all of these piece meal subsidies and tax credits (wind, solar, electric cars, plug in hybrids, etc.) that can extract donations from various industries to get their specific business subsidized. Pay a small campaign donation for a huge payoff, ie. corruption.
tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
Why wouldn't a high carbon tax drive decarbonization of electricity sufficiently well?
- imtringued 4y ago
  People seem to think that the carbon dividend makes saving CO2 pointless for the average consumer but they forgot that the consumer isn't actually in charge of deciding how much CO2 pollution a production process should result in. The business sees a cost on its balance sheet and it has an incentive to minimize its costs, which also is an incentive to minimize pollution even if the average consumer doesn't give a rat's ass.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
    Which is also the reason why a $100/ton carbon tax won't raise the price of a laptop that currently causes 0.3 t to be emitted by $30: Some of the components will (somewhere along the value chain!) be replaced with less carbon intensive alternatives that were just slightly too expensive to be worth bothering with. That's how carbon taxes achieve most of their benefit - not by shifting consumption or pricing consumers out! The above numbers are realistic examples for the magnitude of carbon taxes typically discussed and the manufacturing carbon footprint of a laptop, btw.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]