4 ms·

Since there is no way currently of removing CO2, and we don't even know how that technology would work, there is no fair tax amount. Any amount you set will jus

by jiofj 3y ago

Since there is no way currently of removing CO2, and we don't even know how that technology would work, there is no fair tax amount. Any amount you set will just be a robbery. Might as well make it a cent per ton, or a gorillion dollars per ton.

the_cramer 3y ago
Well trees are a technology to capture co2, are they not?
- rtpg 3y ago
  I think there’s some stats about the amount of co2 captured by planting an absurd amount of trees is pretty negligible There are other reasons to plant trees (well, plant plants in general), notably around rehabilitating land that is on the verge of desertification or the like.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Trees also cool their environments through evapotranspiration as well as literally converting sunlight into sugars. There's more benefit than just carbon capture per se.
    - rtpg 3y ago
      Yes! I like trees a lot. I’m just commenting about how carbon captures scale is not aligned with trees capabilities on this front
      - uoaei 3y ago
        To be fair, all other carbon capture technologies are still net-positive emissions-wise, after accounting for (what's typically dismissed as mere) externalities. The fact that trees, ie forests, are net-negative and also have other benefits (QoL for lots of organisms, increased biodiversity leading to resilience, etc.) puts them at the top of the list in this category for me.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Trees are a way to temporarily store CO2. If you just plant a massive forest and do nothing else, today's trees will eventually die, rot, and re-release all that CO2. That forest will regenerate itself if left alone and be a store of CO2, but any individual tree is lifecycle approximately zero.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    I mean you're not wrong, but if we take that view the only permanent solution if to capture the CO2 and stuff it back into the ground, preferably as a relatively stable substance such as coal or oil. Most of the worlds large forests are no more, many European countries are stripped of their old forests, so replanting those are required anyway, for other environmental concerns. They could on a permanent basis capture some percentage of the CO2. It is permanent if you view it as a forest and not individual tree.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      > if we take that view the only permanent solution [is] to capture the CO2 and stuff it back into the ground I think that's basically correct on the scale that's needed. I don't even think turning trees into building materials is enough. Planting a lot of trees and letting forests grow has the advantage that it's obviously possible with current tech, while the forest is expanding in mass that CO2 is being scrubbed, and it's conspicuously visible to people (garnering feelings of goodwill and participation), but I don't believe the relatively small amount of incremental forest that we could reasonably create will make a meaningful change on a 100-year basis.
ffhhttt 3y ago
Presumably it would work similar to taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc. by discouraging excessive consumption and making low CO2 alternatives much more attractive financially.
- jiofj 3y ago
  >it would work similar to taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc The money that these things cost to the public health service is easily quantified. I expect the taxes to reflect that. >making low CO2 alternatives much more attractive If there were "low CO2 alternatives" you wouldn't have to tax stuff, you could just force people to use them, and no one would really complain. Like it happened with CFCs. But taking a train instead of driving your car is not an alternative, it's rubbish.
  - oblio 3y ago
    Taking a train isn't an alternative because train tracks were literally torn from the ground. As were tram tracks. Bikes aren't an alternative because instead of adding bike infrastructure that costs 10% of car infrastructure, the freaking 6 lane stroad needs a 7th lane, because that's going to solve traffic! Walking isn't an alternative because US cities and suburbs are largely devoid of trees and any sort of protection from the sun or rain along their sidewalks, if they even have sidewalks to begin with. Oh, trees also make for a nice view and protect pedestrians from bad drivers, instead of lawns everywhere (!!!!). Plus trees and some bushes contain the crazy, deafening, ear damaging levels of noise cars make at speeds higher than about 70kmph.
jabradoodle 3y ago
Well paying 0 is "robbery" in the opposite direction. Worse, it is common to actually subsidise fossil fuels.

by jiofj 3y ago

the_cramer 3y ago

Well trees are a technology to capture co2, are they not?

rtpg 3y ago
I think there’s some stats about the amount of co2 captured by planting an absurd amount of trees is pretty negligible There are other reasons to plant trees (well, plant plants in general), notably around rehabilitating land that is on the verge of desertification or the like.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Trees also cool their environments through evapotranspiration as well as literally converting sunlight into sugars. There's more benefit than just carbon capture per se.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    Yes! I like trees a lot. I’m just commenting about how carbon captures scale is not aligned with trees capabilities on this front
    - uoaei 3y ago
      To be fair, all other carbon capture technologies are still net-positive emissions-wise, after accounting for (what's typically dismissed as mere) externalities. The fact that trees, ie forests, are net-negative and also have other benefits (QoL for lots of organisms, increased biodiversity leading to resilience, etc.) puts them at the top of the list in this category for me.
sokoloff 3y ago
Trees are a way to temporarily store CO2. If you just plant a massive forest and do nothing else, today's trees will eventually die, rot, and re-release all that CO2. That forest will regenerate itself if left alone and be a store of CO2, but any individual tree is lifecycle approximately zero.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  I mean you're not wrong, but if we take that view the only permanent solution if to capture the CO2 and stuff it back into the ground, preferably as a relatively stable substance such as coal or oil. Most of the worlds large forests are no more, many European countries are stripped of their old forests, so replanting those are required anyway, for other environmental concerns. They could on a permanent basis capture some percentage of the CO2. It is permanent if you view it as a forest and not individual tree.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    > if we take that view the only permanent solution [is] to capture the CO2 and stuff it back into the ground I think that's basically correct on the scale that's needed. I don't even think turning trees into building materials is enough. Planting a lot of trees and letting forests grow has the advantage that it's obviously possible with current tech, while the forest is expanding in mass that CO2 is being scrubbed, and it's conspicuously visible to people (garnering feelings of goodwill and participation), but I don't believe the relatively small amount of incremental forest that we could reasonably create will make a meaningful change on a 100-year basis.

ffhhttt 3y ago

Presumably it would work similar to taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc. by discouraging excessive consumption and making low CO2 alternatives much more attractive financially.

jiofj 3y ago
>it would work similar to taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc The money that these things cost to the public health service is easily quantified. I expect the taxes to reflect that. >making low CO2 alternatives much more attractive If there were "low CO2 alternatives" you wouldn't have to tax stuff, you could just force people to use them, and no one would really complain. Like it happened with CFCs. But taking a train instead of driving your car is not an alternative, it's rubbish.
- oblio 3y ago
  Taking a train isn't an alternative because train tracks were literally torn from the ground. As were tram tracks. Bikes aren't an alternative because instead of adding bike infrastructure that costs 10% of car infrastructure, the freaking 6 lane stroad needs a 7th lane, because that's going to solve traffic! Walking isn't an alternative because US cities and suburbs are largely devoid of trees and any sort of protection from the sun or rain along their sidewalks, if they even have sidewalks to begin with. Oh, trees also make for a nice view and protect pedestrians from bad drivers, instead of lawns everywhere (!!!!). Plus trees and some bushes contain the crazy, deafening, ear damaging levels of noise cars make at speeds higher than about 70kmph.

jabradoodle 3y ago

Well paying 0 is "robbery" in the opposite direction. Worse, it is common to actually subsidise fossil fuels.