3 ms·

Instead of banning things you don't like, pass a carbon tax then to account for externalities. As a bonus, it could be revenue neutral so that your average pers

by jrpt 3y ago

Instead of banning things you don't like, pass a carbon tax then to account for externalities. As a bonus, it could be revenue neutral so that your average person actually ends up ahead (while frequent fliers or polluting industries end up paying more).

Timon3 3y ago
Doing so would increase negative feelings in the population about these things being reserved for rich people only.
raffraffraff 3y ago
Externalities never really get covered because there isn't somebody using that money to actually capture that CO² and reverse the damage. It's just a hairshirt that affects the poor most. Rich people still won't care. You could quadruple the price of a flight and affluent people wouldn't notice. Moderately wealthy people would, and they'd bitch about it, but still fly. Actually, if carbon taxes kept poor people off planes, rich folks could network! "Hey, I'm Jonathan. I work for one of the big four." How about allocating carbon credits to people, annually? No trading. You have to budget. From the poorest hobo to Jeff Besos, everybody gets the same. But even that doesn't work. People will use their carbon! It would be like allocated PTO: none will be left on the table at the end of the year. So by setting a budget you are simultaneously ensuring that it becomes the minimum carbon emissions per person, unless you let people cash in unused carbon credits! The hobo gets a Christmas bonus from the CO² man! But the whole system would be impossible to track and police. This thing the French are doing, works.
- DirkH 3y ago
  This just highlights an earlier point I made which is I don't get why people think the flights being banned is "over-regulating" Its efficient and simple and enforceable. Carbon taxes on the other hand would be a bureaucratic nightmare as you've pointed out. It would require far more oversight, would be harder to enforce, require so much tax dollars spent to just manage the system taxing short flights etc etc. It reeks of inefficiency and overregulation when I think about it.

by jrpt 3y ago

Timon3 3y ago

Doing so would increase negative feelings in the population about these things being reserved for rich people only.

raffraffraff 3y ago

Externalities never really get covered because there isn't somebody using that money to actually capture that CO² and reverse the damage. It's just a hairshirt that affects the poor most. Rich people still won't care. You could quadruple the price of a flight and affluent people wouldn't notice. Moderately wealthy people would, and they'd bitch about it, but still fly. Actually, if carbon taxes kept poor people off planes, rich folks could network! "Hey, I'm Jonathan. I work for one of the big four." How about allocating carbon credits to people, annually? No trading. You have to budget. From the poorest hobo to Jeff Besos, everybody gets the same. But even that doesn't work. People will use their carbon! It would be like allocated PTO: none will be left on the table at the end of the year. So by setting a budget you are simultaneously ensuring that it becomes the minimum carbon emissions per person, unless you let people cash in unused carbon credits! The hobo gets a Christmas bonus from the CO² man! But the whole system would be impossible to track and police. This thing the French are doing, works.

DirkH 3y ago
This just highlights an earlier point I made which is I don't get why people think the flights being banned is "over-regulating" Its efficient and simple and enforceable. Carbon taxes on the other hand would be a bureaucratic nightmare as you've pointed out. It would require far more oversight, would be harder to enforce, require so much tax dollars spent to just manage the system taxing short flights etc etc. It reeks of inefficiency and overregulation when I think about it.