5 ms·
Nitpick but how would that be a perverse incentive? That would just be an unintended consequence.
by blueblisters 3y ago
Nitpick but how would that be a perverse incentive? That would just be an unintended consequence.
- standyro 3y agoSounds like the same thing to me. Incentivizing something that is unintended.
- InitialLastName 3y agoA perverse incentive (like what our ancestor is correctly noting) involves incentivizing something that is antithetical to the goal (not just a side effect). In this case, a policy whose goal is "reduce carbon in the atmosphere" leads to an outcome of "increase carbon in the atmosphere". An unintended effect could just be "makes all the buildings weaker" or "bridges smell like coffee".
- noodle 3y agoBecause the intent of such a hypothetical law would be to reduce/capture C02, but the end result of it is that it financially incentivizes generating more C02 through some unexpended/unanticipated means. An unintended consequence might be that yes companies do correctly follow the law and adding carbon to concrete is successful, but also adding carbon to concrete in high enough volumes makes the lifetime of the concrete lesser when exposed to rainwater for long enough, or something like that, resulting in the need to replace the concrete more frequently. Its the difference between people acting in good faith vs neutral/bad faith with respect to the intent of the law/regulation/etc..
- nvader 3y agoNitpick: The O in CO2 stands for Oxygen, and is the letter O. It looks like you've used the numeral zero, which looks similar but is not interchangeable.
- eru 3y agoThat's why your regulation should just directly tax what you don't like (like CO2 emissions), instead of going via some weird proxy that's prone to being gamed.
- noodle 3y agoThe potential to game things exists everywhere. Tax CO2 and people will want to find ways to technically reduce CO2. For example, what if it becomes cheap enough to just convert all the CO2 to CO and we dump masses of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere instead? Or if its cheaper to convert CO2 to CO3 which imminently degrades back to CO2 in the atmosphere - would we be confident that the tax law would correctly handle this scenario where the emissions are technically a different substance? Etc..
- eru 3y agoThe U.S. Sulphur Dioxide Cap and Trade Programme seems to be working pretty well. Our CO2 taxation programme only has to be as good as that one. Yes, loopholes need patching up. The law doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough that complying with the law is simpler and cheaper than looking for loopholes.
- mgrund 3y agoYou just tax on CO2e (CO2 equivalent) for any greenhouse gas emission. Same way emission accounting is already being done.
- rolandog 3y agoWell, you gotta compare the cost-per-kilo of setting up a coffee grounds collection program that gathers X% of the 30+ billion ton/yr of concrete that is used each year. If the regulations are not properly written, they could be an incentive to start cutting down trees to turn to charcoal as a carbon filler. Companies are sometimes heartless like that.
- Kerb_ 3y agoIt would still probably be a better carbon capture plan than capturing it for temporary use in the fuel supply as ethanol. But worse of a measure than just burying the trees
- xapata 3y agoIf tree cutting were also taxed appropriately, that specific example wouldn't be a problem.
- rolandog 3y agoAgreed, that's why we need properly written regulations that don't leave ambiguities to be debated after the law is written. And also, we should probably normalize amendments to laws, instead of canonizing them.
- _8j50 3y agoNo, because they don't get paid for adding carbon, they get penalized for not adding it. It is a disincentive instead if an incentive.