4 ms·

Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. Or even energy production directly. The US is the second larges

Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. Or even energy production directly. The US is the second largest polluter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_person#/media/File:20210626_Variwide_chart_of_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita_by_country.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
The third per capita by your link.
- mkl 4y ago
  Only in the graph, which shows a subset of countries. In the main list it's 11th by the 2018 column.
- danuker 4y ago
  If you look at area (pollution per capita x population), it's the second.
lettergram 4y ago
> Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. I mean, that would mean exponentially more expensive food… https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty. Plus cheaper energy means improved quality of life and technological advancement. We have centuries of known fuel sources and can move to nuclear any time we wish. A carbon tax effectively increases human suffering for the hope of reduced temperatures. In reality, the cost is passed to consumers and there’s no indication it will reduce global temperatures.
- freshpots 4y ago
  "My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty." Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position Having worked on climate models and read many papers I have become skeptical we know the manner or degree humans have an effect. Those with a statistics background should look at the data honestly. We have relatively poor data (very sparse, unknown error rate, high variance, measurements taken with different mechanisms, etc) that can’t be validated. With correlations abounding in every which way. We also have a precision problem when we look at global temperatures in the past, we simply don’t know when we are taking a 1-5% change in temp. You cannot prove carbon does absolutely anything. We have a correlation not causation. It could be natural carbon increases with temperatures. It could be our measurement mechanism is just wrong. It could be plant growth will expand to meet a new homeostasis with the carbon (imo highly likely). From the same measurements we use to show the Earth is warming we can show carbon levels have been higher previously on Earth. > CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. North America was covered in a sheet of ice until a few thousand years ago. The largest desert in Africa was a full of life during the same time period. Both disappeared before the industrial revolution and we have been seeing carbon increase exponentially ever since; as visible in the linked website https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Now once we cover that, the question is what too do? We know cheap energy directly correlates with quality of life. Easy thought exercise - is your life easier walking or driving a car? Is it easier with a wood burning stove or a gas oven? The argument we should reduce something that we know improves life and remove it requires a high level of proof. The threshold hasn’t been met. Even if it had, is China going to cut emissions? Do you really think wealthy will? No. They won’t. China will expand and continue to produce more overtaking the US in every category - they’ll use the cheap energy we aren’t using. The US will be destitute due to us cutting all energy production. Now what? Is the world better off? Germany is doing that right now, let’s check back in a couple years and see how that goes… My point is that (1) we don’t have solid enough evidence to reduce the quality of life in our civilization and (2) even if we had said evidence, we couldn’t meaningfully make an impact- tax or no tax. So you’ll have all the downside, with no gain.
eli 4y ago
What if you tax them based on the ratio of greenhouse gas to utility of the product? So still ban bitcoin in other words, but let people hear their homes.
hx833001 4y ago
Carbon dioxide is not pollution.
- blooalien 4y ago
  It is, and isn't. Climate is a complex system, and CO² interacts with that system in a myriad of interesting ways. One of those ways is contributing to the whole "climate change" issue that so many climate scientists are concerned about, and that's a big honkin' part of what's causing the increased extreme weather issues, droughts, floods, etc, and directly contributing to wildfire dangers, among other fun stuff it's a big part of… On the other hand, if not for the drought issue affecting plant life in really negative ways, CO² is a thing plants happen to like, so there can be some benefits (to plants … in places not prone to drought). Still, in this particular case, the benefits do not appear to outweigh the dangers of continuing with "business as usual" as humans are so fond of doing.
  - hx833001 4y ago
    Carbon dioxide is the source of all life on Earth.
eric_cc 4y ago
Yes! Give more money to the government! Letting the government steal more money to spend on their agenda is always a fantastic idea!
- blooalien 4y ago
  My problem with exactly that is that governments in general seem to be keen to spend money quite freely on making, participating in, and/or funding various wars and other military spending, yet are loathe to spend more than they absolutely must on things like education, infrastructure, and other things which most directly benefit their own people. It's the people's money they're spending, so logically they should be spending it most freely "at home" to it's own citizens' direct benefit instead of abroad. Not to say that we shouldn't support our allies in times of need, but … priorities?
- ahtihn 4y ago
  The federal government's budget is completely unrelated to tax income. If the government wants to spend more money, it doesn't need to raise taxes it can just increase the deficit. More taxes just means less deficit.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    Or just print more money...
- danuker 4y ago
  You could cut other taxes. Or you could remove the received funds from existence (such as by paying down government debt). But fact is, greenhouse gases have the potential to end humanity, and the US is not addressing them enough.
  - AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago

The third per capita by your link.

mkl 4y ago
Only in the graph, which shows a subset of countries. In the main list it's 11th by the 2018 column.
danuker 4y ago
If you look at area (pollution per capita x population), it's the second.

lettergram 4y ago

> Even better would be to tax all industries fairly, according to their greenhouse gas emissions. I mean, that would mean exponentially more expensive food… https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty. Plus cheaper energy means improved quality of life and technological advancement. We have centuries of known fuel sources and can move to nuclear any time we wish. A carbon tax effectively increases human suffering for the hope of reduced temperatures. In reality, the cost is passed to consumers and there’s no indication it will reduce global temperatures.

freshpots 4y ago
"My take is we need to allow unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen (reduction in other stuff though actually toxic). It increases food growth (plants love carbon) and arable land and decreases poverty." Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Your take is so misinformed that we all have to wonder how you could have twisted yourself into such a position Having worked on climate models and read many papers I have become skeptical we know the manner or degree humans have an effect. Those with a statistics background should look at the data honestly. We have relatively poor data (very sparse, unknown error rate, high variance, measurements taken with different mechanisms, etc) that can’t be validated. With correlations abounding in every which way. We also have a precision problem when we look at global temperatures in the past, we simply don’t know when we are taking a 1-5% change in temp. You cannot prove carbon does absolutely anything. We have a correlation not causation. It could be natural carbon increases with temperatures. It could be our measurement mechanism is just wrong. It could be plant growth will expand to meet a new homeostasis with the carbon (imo highly likely). From the same measurements we use to show the Earth is warming we can show carbon levels have been higher previously on Earth. > CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and will do far more harm to these plants/crops that 'love' excess CO2 than you seem to understand. North America was covered in a sheet of ice until a few thousand years ago. The largest desert in Africa was a full of life during the same time period. Both disappeared before the industrial revolution and we have been seeing carbon increase exponentially ever since; as visible in the linked website https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Now once we cover that, the question is what too do? We know cheap energy directly correlates with quality of life. Easy thought exercise - is your life easier walking or driving a car? Is it easier with a wood burning stove or a gas oven? The argument we should reduce something that we know improves life and remove it requires a high level of proof. The threshold hasn’t been met. Even if it had, is China going to cut emissions? Do you really think wealthy will? No. They won’t. China will expand and continue to produce more overtaking the US in every category - they’ll use the cheap energy we aren’t using. The US will be destitute due to us cutting all energy production. Now what? Is the world better off? Germany is doing that right now, let’s check back in a couple years and see how that goes… My point is that (1) we don’t have solid enough evidence to reduce the quality of life in our civilization and (2) even if we had said evidence, we couldn’t meaningfully make an impact- tax or no tax. So you’ll have all the downside, with no gain.

eli 4y ago

What if you tax them based on the ratio of greenhouse gas to utility of the product? So still ban bitcoin in other words, but let people hear their homes.

hx833001 4y ago

Carbon dioxide is not pollution.

blooalien 4y ago
It is, and isn't. Climate is a complex system, and CO² interacts with that system in a myriad of interesting ways. One of those ways is contributing to the whole "climate change" issue that so many climate scientists are concerned about, and that's a big honkin' part of what's causing the increased extreme weather issues, droughts, floods, etc, and directly contributing to wildfire dangers, among other fun stuff it's a big part of… On the other hand, if not for the drought issue affecting plant life in really negative ways, CO² is a thing plants happen to like, so there can be some benefits (to plants … in places not prone to drought). Still, in this particular case, the benefits do not appear to outweigh the dangers of continuing with "business as usual" as humans are so fond of doing.
- hx833001 4y ago
  Carbon dioxide is the source of all life on Earth.

eric_cc 4y ago

Yes! Give more money to the government! Letting the government steal more money to spend on their agenda is always a fantastic idea!

blooalien 4y ago
My problem with exactly that is that governments in general seem to be keen to spend money quite freely on making, participating in, and/or funding various wars and other military spending, yet are loathe to spend more than they absolutely must on things like education, infrastructure, and other things which most directly benefit their own people. It's the people's money they're spending, so logically they should be spending it most freely "at home" to it's own citizens' direct benefit instead of abroad. Not to say that we shouldn't support our allies in times of need, but … priorities?
ahtihn 4y ago
The federal government's budget is completely unrelated to tax income. If the government wants to spend more money, it doesn't need to raise taxes it can just increase the deficit. More taxes just means less deficit.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  Or just print more money...
danuker 4y ago
You could cut other taxes. Or you could remove the received funds from existence (such as by paying down government debt). But fact is, greenhouse gases have the potential to end humanity, and the US is not addressing them enough.
- AndrewUnmuted 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]