5 ms·

I'd prefer that governments invested directly in carbon sequestration, and climate change mitigation if necessary, as well as sensible nuclear and renewable ene

I'd prefer that governments invested directly in carbon sequestration, and climate change mitigation if necessary, as well as sensible nuclear and renewable energy. Carbon tax is artificial, unsustainable, bureaucratic, and ripe for gaming. Accepting that CO2 production is for now a shared burden of modern life and working to mitigate it, rather than setting up some wealth distribution scheme, is more realistic, and more likely to succeed imo. I think it's an important debate to have though

midoridensha 4y ago
I agree; I think it's better to just enact some sensible regulation. A carbon tax isn't going to magically produce more carbon-free energy (solar/wind/nuclear); only regulation can improve that situation.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Carbon tax is the least bureaucratic and hardest to game mechanism. Sequestration is the opposite. Plant a tree and claim 2 tons of credit, then chop it down and claim it again next year. LOL.
- ajuc 4y ago
  If you want to incentivize carbon capture you shouldn't focus on PLANTING trees (it's automatic - trees can plant themselves perfectly well without us). The reason there are no trees somewhere is never "nobody planted them". It's either "somebody cut them and does something to prevent them growing back" or "the land isn't good for trees". So planting the trees is never the solution. Buying farming land and reserving it for forest (that will grow by itself) is much more efficient.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Carbon tax is the least bureaucratic and hardest to game mechanism. Do you really think that in a world where every law is rife with carve outs and loopholes for specific industries, a world where states peddle liquor and gambling because sin taxes fund things they like, that a carbon tax would not be gamed? Of course not. The societal cohesion and political process to produce results that are not highly gamed, tilted or rigged simply does not exist, or at least it doesn't exist. Your opinion that a carbon tax will "just work" in reality as it does in theory is predicated on sufficient amounts of ignorance that the distinction between ignorance and malice is no longer meaningful.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Exactly, that's why a carbon tax is so efficient. It's very simple, and there's a direct link between what is taxed and the desired output. Everything is gamed, so you try and make your incentives as simple and direct as possible. If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, you tax carbon emissions. Any other incentive is more indirect, less efficient and more gamable.
    - version_five 4y ago
      I posted at the top of this thread. Just want to clarify that I don't advocate for "incentives" like carbon credits or something, I advocate for government treating carbon removal as infrastructure, the way we build roads etc
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        That's how you end up with $20B NASA rockets that are inferior to $100M SpaceX rockets.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      If you were king, I'm sure the carbon tax would be efficient, simple, and fair. But we live in representative democracies beset with special interests and ulterior motives, which means any carbon tax that our systems of government would actually end up implementing would not be efficient, simple, or fair.
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        No it won't be. But every other alternative to it would be worse.
        philwelch 4y ago
        I think you're underestimating just how badly a carbon tax could be implemented. If you don't account for the carbon emissions of e.g. imported goods, or carve out enough exceptions for specific influential special interests, you just end up accomplishing nothing other than regressively taxing the entire population.
hedora 4y ago
The trick is to use the carbon tax to fund direct air capture and permanent sequestration of CO2. Current startups are targeting $100 / ton (within a factor of two), which translates to $1/gallon of gas. Personally, I think the carbon tax should be 2x that until we are back to preindustrial levels.

midoridensha 4y ago

I agree; I think it's better to just enact some sensible regulation. A carbon tax isn't going to magically produce more carbon-free energy (solar/wind/nuclear); only regulation can improve that situation.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Carbon tax is the least bureaucratic and hardest to game mechanism. Sequestration is the opposite. Plant a tree and claim 2 tons of credit, then chop it down and claim it again next year. LOL.

ajuc 4y ago
If you want to incentivize carbon capture you shouldn't focus on PLANTING trees (it's automatic - trees can plant themselves perfectly well without us). The reason there are no trees somewhere is never "nobody planted them". It's either "somebody cut them and does something to prevent them growing back" or "the land isn't good for trees". So planting the trees is never the solution. Buying farming land and reserving it for forest (that will grow by itself) is much more efficient.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Carbon tax is the least bureaucratic and hardest to game mechanism. Do you really think that in a world where every law is rife with carve outs and loopholes for specific industries, a world where states peddle liquor and gambling because sin taxes fund things they like, that a carbon tax would not be gamed? Of course not. The societal cohesion and political process to produce results that are not highly gamed, tilted or rigged simply does not exist, or at least it doesn't exist. Your opinion that a carbon tax will "just work" in reality as it does in theory is predicated on sufficient amounts of ignorance that the distinction between ignorance and malice is no longer meaningful.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Exactly, that's why a carbon tax is so efficient. It's very simple, and there's a direct link between what is taxed and the desired output. Everything is gamed, so you try and make your incentives as simple and direct as possible. If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, you tax carbon emissions. Any other incentive is more indirect, less efficient and more gamable.
  - version_five 4y ago
    I posted at the top of this thread. Just want to clarify that I don't advocate for "incentives" like carbon credits or something, I advocate for government treating carbon removal as infrastructure, the way we build roads etc
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      That's how you end up with $20B NASA rockets that are inferior to $100M SpaceX rockets.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    If you were king, I'm sure the carbon tax would be efficient, simple, and fair. But we live in representative democracies beset with special interests and ulterior motives, which means any carbon tax that our systems of government would actually end up implementing would not be efficient, simple, or fair.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      No it won't be. But every other alternative to it would be worse.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        I think you're underestimating just how badly a carbon tax could be implemented. If you don't account for the carbon emissions of e.g. imported goods, or carve out enough exceptions for specific influential special interests, you just end up accomplishing nothing other than regressively taxing the entire population.

hedora 4y ago

The trick is to use the carbon tax to fund direct air capture and permanent sequestration of CO2. Current startups are targeting $100 / ton (within a factor of two), which translates to $1/gallon of gas. Personally, I think the carbon tax should be 2x that until we are back to preindustrial levels.