7 ms·

The money going towards carbon offsets would be better spent on lobbying in favor of carbon taxes, and establishing Enhanced Weathering: https://en.wikipedia.or

The money going towards carbon offsets would be better spent on lobbying in favor of carbon taxes, and establishing Enhanced Weathering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
> lobbying in favor of carbon taxes This is deeply unpopular with the electorate, and for very good reason. When the only "solution" to "fighting" global warming is to levy more taxes on the middle class, increase food and construction costs, and cripple developing nations' ability to build industry -- when elites fly around the world on private jets (that spew more CO2 in 6 hours than I will create in 10 years), and "researchers" rake in grant money based on promoting apocalyptic levels of fear -- well... put it like this: If you want right-wing populist governments, that's how you're going to get them.
- wmf 3y ago
  The populists may enjoy sticking it to the rich with a carbon tax and dividend.
- labster 3y ago
  And yet that’s still better than carbon credits
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The right way to do a carbon tax is to refund 100% of the money to the population. Everyone gets a check every month for the entire amount collected, divided by the number of citizens. This way it costs you nothing unless you emit more carbon than the average person, and you can even come out ahead if you emit less. On top of that, it ends up being a net transfer from corporations to individuals, because corporations still pay the tax but only individuals get the checks. It would also be a very informative trial run for a UBI (though in this case the amount would be smaller). The "problem" with this is strictly politics: a) It would actually work, so the fossil fuel energy companies hate it; b) There is no opportunity for graft because the money is distributed to everyone and not just the politically connected, so there is no special interest lobby trying to make it happen.
  - 9dev 3y ago
    This is a very interesting idea. Actually, it's also the only solution I can think of that would incentivise people to emit less carbon, using selfishness as a lever to achieve cooperation - similar to capitalism itself.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    This sounds cool. What would be the cost of administering this tax?
    - wmf 3y ago
      The cost would probably be similar to the COVID stimulus. Maybe they can require the dividend to be distributed using FedNow to drive down the cost somewhat.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      We already collect federal excise tax on fuel. Changing the amount has a trivial cost. We already collect withholding tax from individuals. Changing the amount has a trivial cost (your boss adds money to your paycheck every week instead of removing it if your tax rate is now negative, retirees and people on disability/unemployment have the amount added to their existing social security/benefits check). There would be a minor one-time cost for the small minority people none of that applies to, to fill out a form specifying where you want the money to be deposited or the check mailed. But the fundamental process of distributing the money would be a transfer of a fixed amount to each citizen with a social security number, which is easily computerized.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        This misses embodied carbon in imports and much of the emissions from domestic agricultural and industrial processes, which are surely large enough to not be ignorable. If you want to only tax fuels, that's a start.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cagenut 3y ago
  nobodies raking in grant money, and if you're in ethiopia or south sudan or niger then the apocalypse is already here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_TS_007a.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR...
- postmodest 3y ago
  > "researchers" rake in grant money based on promoting apocalyptic levels of fear This is a bad take. We are currently living in apocalyptic levels of REALITY. The people saying what you just said, but twenty, thirty, fifty years ago, were speaking out against the warnings that--if we'd acted in them instead of attacking the messenger as you did-- could've kept us from global wildfire and heat domes.
  - quixoticelixer- 3y ago
    The world isn't actually going to end.
    - gattilorenz 3y ago
      No, but I'd prefer not to have to deal with more and more extreme weather events, increased sea levels, etc. The planet will survive, we as a species probably too, but it's going to get shittier for many of us.
    - panarchy 3y ago
      No, but our quality of life sure will (and already has for some people)
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > The world isn't actually going to end. The world didn't end after the Black death and it did not end after WW2. And it will not end after a nuclear war. So we should never do anything because the world is never going to end.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        no no, actually the sun will swallow the earth in a few million years so thats why we should do nothing. (/s but there certainly is a strain of the media/public that blasted right past “it’s not real” to “welp it’s real and it’s too late to do anything about it, let’s do nothing”.)
    - InSteady 3y ago
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  My more colorful language is beating poor people and the middle class with a rubber hose and hope that solves the problem while ignoring the large frictions present in those people lives. You want poor people to switch to an electric car? Do what California is doing with car buybacks and grants for new and used EV's. A low income person in some counties can get a couple of grand to trade in his old gas car for a used EV's like a Bolt. That's better because instead of feeling attacked people feel like they got a decent deal.
  - shipman05 3y ago
    Electric cars are an optimization something we shouldn't be doing in the first place. E-bikes and trains can save the world.
- finite_depth 3y ago
  [dead]
- Aerroon 3y ago
  Many other countries already have excise taxes on things like gasoline though. Gasoline costs more per liter/gallon in Lithuania even though people earn 2-3x less money. I think this is part of the reason why the EU economy is pretty stagnant, but it is livable. Unfortunately, it also shows that it doesn't make people cut back too much on gasoline use.
Nifty3929 3y ago
I would be happy to support a carbon tax, as long as the proceeds are held off-books and distributed annually to all citizens equally, with no income or other qualification criteria. Basically a carbon funded pure UBI.
- ecshafer 3y ago
  So the guy working in a kitchen that makes $20k a year and bikes to work should be taxed the same as the ceo with a private jet when it comes to carbon production?
  - jfim 3y ago
    A carbon tax just puts a price on carbon emissions. So if the guy bikes to work and doesn't buy gas, he's not paying taxes on carbon emissions, while the CEO in a private jet pays more. If the carbon tax proceeds are redistributed, the guy in the kitchen comes ahead, actually.
    - transcriptase 3y ago
      Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price. Implementing a carbon tax that increases that cost along every step of a supply chain increases the price of everything, not just gasoline. See: Price of groceries (and all other CPG) in Canada. People will blame the retailers and lazy headlines about record profits, but if you look at their actual margins, the value of CAD, and the fact that the government is increasing the population faster than anything else can catch up… it’s not surprising that they’re posting record numbers. People need to eat. The oligopoly issue definitely plays a part but that’s another can of worms.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        > Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price. Ye, and CEO consumes more of everything, so anyone lower income will receive more from re-distrubtion than they wil pay in tax.
WicWacWok 3y ago
I mean better late than never, but somehow I don't see this reducing carbon emissions so much as slowing them.
tito 3y ago
I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?
- tzs 3y ago
  You put the carbon tax on the makers of fossil fuels and the importers of fossil fuels. Everyone else just sees it indirectly due to the increased cost for fossil fuels. It shouldn't require a lot of accounting.
asu_thomas 3y ago
That doesn't sound profitable to me.

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

> lobbying in favor of carbon taxes This is deeply unpopular with the electorate, and for very good reason. When the only "solution" to "fighting" global warming is to levy more taxes on the middle class, increase food and construction costs, and cripple developing nations' ability to build industry -- when elites fly around the world on private jets (that spew more CO2 in 6 hours than I will create in 10 years), and "researchers" rake in grant money based on promoting apocalyptic levels of fear -- well... put it like this: If you want right-wing populist governments, that's how you're going to get them.

wmf 3y ago
The populists may enjoy sticking it to the rich with a carbon tax and dividend.
labster 3y ago
And yet that’s still better than carbon credits
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The right way to do a carbon tax is to refund 100% of the money to the population. Everyone gets a check every month for the entire amount collected, divided by the number of citizens. This way it costs you nothing unless you emit more carbon than the average person, and you can even come out ahead if you emit less. On top of that, it ends up being a net transfer from corporations to individuals, because corporations still pay the tax but only individuals get the checks. It would also be a very informative trial run for a UBI (though in this case the amount would be smaller). The "problem" with this is strictly politics: a) It would actually work, so the fossil fuel energy companies hate it; b) There is no opportunity for graft because the money is distributed to everyone and not just the politically connected, so there is no special interest lobby trying to make it happen.
- 9dev 3y ago
  This is a very interesting idea. Actually, it's also the only solution I can think of that would incentivise people to emit less carbon, using selfishness as a lever to achieve cooperation - similar to capitalism itself.
- nine_k 3y ago
  This sounds cool. What would be the cost of administering this tax?
  - wmf 3y ago
    The cost would probably be similar to the COVID stimulus. Maybe they can require the dividend to be distributed using FedNow to drive down the cost somewhat.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    We already collect federal excise tax on fuel. Changing the amount has a trivial cost. We already collect withholding tax from individuals. Changing the amount has a trivial cost (your boss adds money to your paycheck every week instead of removing it if your tax rate is now negative, retirees and people on disability/unemployment have the amount added to their existing social security/benefits check). There would be a minor one-time cost for the small minority people none of that applies to, to fill out a form specifying where you want the money to be deposited or the check mailed. But the fundamental process of distributing the money would be a transfer of a fixed amount to each citizen with a social security number, which is easily computerized.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      This misses embodied carbon in imports and much of the emissions from domestic agricultural and industrial processes, which are surely large enough to not be ignorable. If you want to only tax fuels, that's a start.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cagenut 3y ago
nobodies raking in grant money, and if you're in ethiopia or south sudan or niger then the apocalypse is already here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_TS_007a.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR...
postmodest 3y ago
> "researchers" rake in grant money based on promoting apocalyptic levels of fear This is a bad take. We are currently living in apocalyptic levels of REALITY. The people saying what you just said, but twenty, thirty, fifty years ago, were speaking out against the warnings that--if we'd acted in them instead of attacking the messenger as you did-- could've kept us from global wildfire and heat domes.
- quixoticelixer- 3y ago
  The world isn't actually going to end.
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    No, but I'd prefer not to have to deal with more and more extreme weather events, increased sea levels, etc. The planet will survive, we as a species probably too, but it's going to get shittier for many of us.
  - panarchy 3y ago
    No, but our quality of life sure will (and already has for some people)
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > The world isn't actually going to end. The world didn't end after the Black death and it did not end after WW2. And it will not end after a nuclear war. So we should never do anything because the world is never going to end.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      no no, actually the sun will swallow the earth in a few million years so thats why we should do nothing. (/s but there certainly is a strain of the media/public that blasted right past “it’s not real” to “welp it’s real and it’s too late to do anything about it, let’s do nothing”.)
  - InSteady 3y ago
Gibbon1 3y ago
My more colorful language is beating poor people and the middle class with a rubber hose and hope that solves the problem while ignoring the large frictions present in those people lives. You want poor people to switch to an electric car? Do what California is doing with car buybacks and grants for new and used EV's. A low income person in some counties can get a couple of grand to trade in his old gas car for a used EV's like a Bolt. That's better because instead of feeling attacked people feel like they got a decent deal.
- shipman05 3y ago
  Electric cars are an optimization something we shouldn't be doing in the first place. E-bikes and trains can save the world.
finite_depth 3y ago
[dead]
Aerroon 3y ago
Many other countries already have excise taxes on things like gasoline though. Gasoline costs more per liter/gallon in Lithuania even though people earn 2-3x less money. I think this is part of the reason why the EU economy is pretty stagnant, but it is livable. Unfortunately, it also shows that it doesn't make people cut back too much on gasoline use.

Nifty3929 3y ago

I would be happy to support a carbon tax, as long as the proceeds are held off-books and distributed annually to all citizens equally, with no income or other qualification criteria. Basically a carbon funded pure UBI.

ecshafer 3y ago
So the guy working in a kitchen that makes $20k a year and bikes to work should be taxed the same as the ceo with a private jet when it comes to carbon production?
- jfim 3y ago
  A carbon tax just puts a price on carbon emissions. So if the guy bikes to work and doesn't buy gas, he's not paying taxes on carbon emissions, while the CEO in a private jet pays more. If the carbon tax proceeds are redistributed, the guy in the kitchen comes ahead, actually.
  - transcriptase 3y ago
    Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price. Implementing a carbon tax that increases that cost along every step of a supply chain increases the price of everything, not just gasoline. See: Price of groceries (and all other CPG) in Canada. People will blame the retailers and lazy headlines about record profits, but if you look at their actual margins, the value of CAD, and the fact that the government is increasing the population faster than anything else can catch up… it’s not surprising that they’re posting record numbers. People need to eat. The oligopoly issue definitely plays a part but that’s another can of worms.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price. Ye, and CEO consumes more of everything, so anyone lower income will receive more from re-distrubtion than they wil pay in tax.

WicWacWok 3y ago

I mean better late than never, but somehow I don't see this reducing carbon emissions so much as slowing them.

tito 3y ago

I'm pretty sure all a carbon tax does is solve for the "demand" side of the equation. Fundamentally you would still need an accounting system for carbon, thus carbon credits of different sorts. Or am I missing something?

tzs 3y ago
You put the carbon tax on the makers of fossil fuels and the importers of fossil fuels. Everyone else just sees it indirectly due to the increased cost for fossil fuels. It shouldn't require a lot of accounting.

asu_thomas 3y ago

That doesn't sound profitable to me.