3 ms·

An alternative to taxing or fees, is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capab

An alternative to taxing or fees, is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities. The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario.

anigbrowl 3y ago
We've tried that approach. It doesn't work because many people are greedy and will redirect capital towards marketing efforts to increase their own profit in the short term.
Jeff_Brown 3y ago
Taxes on pollution are by far the most direct and effective way to motivate the free market to work on the pollution problem. It shouldn't be a collection of ad-hoc taxes and subusidies; it should be a flat carbon tax equal to the global harm that the carbon does, coupled with a market in offsets. Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place.
- ghastmaster 3y ago
  > Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place. Humans inherently seek technological advancements. We have been extracting CO2 from the environment from our very beginnings. Cheap energy allows us to do more research and development to escape the carbon dependency. Fees could potentially incentivize the right person at the right time to develop an escape. Depending on that is as much a hope as I have for free market incentives. We're both hoping here.
mgkimsal 3y ago
> is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities What was stopping the 'free market' from utilizing that capital to further advance our understanding and capabilities? Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2?
- ghastmaster 3y ago
  >Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2? Here is one example: >Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    From the same article: And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008. Another quote that ages well: We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.” I don’t think that we should trust companies to act against their best interest just because “capitalism” is a magic word. Why didn’t they spend more profits on research? Why did they lobby against pollution reduction if they’re so advanced? Why did they invent emission reduction technology in 1960, but in 2023 we have a massive pollution problem? The last 60 years could be a thesis to prove your entire premise as flawed. This is proof that they can’t be trusted with their profits, nor their research results.
    - ghastmaster 3y ago
      Are we talking about pollution or CO2? Pollution from vehicles is largely controlled. It is not perfect by any means. CO2 is not pollution. It is a necessary component of plant growth and animal life. > Why did they lobby against pollution reduction For the same reasons I mentioned previously. Arbitrary fees and regulations can stifle the natural advancement. The patent in this case shows that they were working on reducing CO2 emissions which would benefit them in the long run as ICE engines would be cleaner. As such, they would be better competition to future electric competitors. Hence, more oil being purchased for their bottom line. If they spend money and time lobbying and paying fees, that is money that is not spent on productive activities. Furthermore, it costs consumers more to purchase their product. This cost to consumers restricts their ability to invest in themselves and their future. Little Johnny wants to go to school to study clean nuclear fusion? Too bad, Ma & Pa have been paying more for goods and services for 18 years. Little Johnny will have to flip burgers instead.
anonymousab 3y ago
> The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario This seems quite backwards. If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus, then there is no reason for any company to invest it research anything outside of what makes them the most money. We already know that these companies will not spend capital in those ways, because they already did not do so in the time periods before the associated taxes and fees existed. And to do so without be dereliction of what their shareholders expected and wanted them to do.
- ghastmaster 3y ago
  >If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? They will not last forever. In the grand scheme of things it is a small amount of time before we have to convert to nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind or start burning trees en masse again. As the resources are depleted, the price will go up due to limited supply. That price increase will spur R&D.
  - svachalek 3y ago
    Absolutely not. We've got at least 50 years before that's an issue. 200 quarterly reports.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? No, because the problems that face a commons do not create an incentive for the individual. You need to learn this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
    - ghastmaster 3y ago
      Tragedy of the commons is precisely what I have used to argue that prices will go up because the resources are being depleted. In this case, oil/gas is being over harvested by the individual. However, other energy sources are relatively infinite. Oil/gas happens to be cheap right now, but in the future it will not be. As the price rises, there becomes a greater incentive to seek other sources.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 3y ago

We've tried that approach. It doesn't work because many people are greedy and will redirect capital towards marketing efforts to increase their own profit in the short term.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago

Taxes on pollution are by far the most direct and effective way to motivate the free market to work on the pollution problem. It shouldn't be a collection of ad-hoc taxes and subusidies; it should be a flat carbon tax equal to the global harm that the carbon does, coupled with a market in offsets. Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place.

ghastmaster 3y ago
> Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place. Humans inherently seek technological advancements. We have been extracting CO2 from the environment from our very beginnings. Cheap energy allows us to do more research and development to escape the carbon dependency. Fees could potentially incentivize the right person at the right time to develop an escape. Depending on that is as much a hope as I have for free market incentives. We're both hoping here.

mgkimsal 3y ago

> is to allow the free market to utilize the capital that would have gone to fees to further advance our understanding and capabilities What was stopping the 'free market' from utilizing that capital to further advance our understanding and capabilities? Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2?

ghastmaster 3y ago
>Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2? Here is one example: >Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  From the same article: And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008. Another quote that ages well: We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.” I don’t think that we should trust companies to act against their best interest just because “capitalism” is a magic word. Why didn’t they spend more profits on research? Why did they lobby against pollution reduction if they’re so advanced? Why did they invent emission reduction technology in 1960, but in 2023 we have a massive pollution problem? The last 60 years could be a thesis to prove your entire premise as flawed. This is proof that they can’t be trusted with their profits, nor their research results.
  - ghastmaster 3y ago
    Are we talking about pollution or CO2? Pollution from vehicles is largely controlled. It is not perfect by any means. CO2 is not pollution. It is a necessary component of plant growth and animal life. > Why did they lobby against pollution reduction For the same reasons I mentioned previously. Arbitrary fees and regulations can stifle the natural advancement. The patent in this case shows that they were working on reducing CO2 emissions which would benefit them in the long run as ICE engines would be cleaner. As such, they would be better competition to future electric competitors. Hence, more oil being purchased for their bottom line. If they spend money and time lobbying and paying fees, that is money that is not spent on productive activities. Furthermore, it costs consumers more to purchase their product. This cost to consumers restricts their ability to invest in themselves and their future. Little Johnny wants to go to school to study clean nuclear fusion? Too bad, Ma & Pa have been paying more for goods and services for 18 years. Little Johnny will have to flip burgers instead.

anonymousab 3y ago

> The technological advances lost due to onerous fees across industries could be keeping us in a CO2 producing scenario This seems quite backwards. If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus, then there is no reason for any company to invest it research anything outside of what makes them the most money. We already know that these companies will not spend capital in those ways, because they already did not do so in the time periods before the associated taxes and fees existed. And to do so without be dereliction of what their shareholders expected and wanted them to do.

ghastmaster 3y ago
>If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? They will not last forever. In the grand scheme of things it is a small amount of time before we have to convert to nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind or start burning trees en masse again. As the resources are depleted, the price will go up due to limited supply. That price increase will spur R&D.
- svachalek 3y ago
  Absolutely not. We've got at least 50 years before that's an issue. 200 quarterly reports.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? No, because the problems that face a commons do not create an incentive for the individual. You need to learn this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - ghastmaster 3y ago
    Tragedy of the commons is precisely what I have used to argue that prices will go up because the resources are being depleted. In this case, oil/gas is being over harvested by the individual. However, other energy sources are relatively infinite. Oil/gas happens to be cheap right now, but in the future it will not be. As the price rises, there becomes a greater incentive to seek other sources.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]