4 ms·
This is why we need a carbon tax. Your gas bill needs to be much higher.
by kccqzy 3y ago
This is why we need a carbon tax. Your gas bill needs to be much higher.
- nephy 3y agoAs opposed to my electricity, which is mostly produced by a coal plant?
- wenebego 3y agoThe carbon tax should fund renewable energy sources.
- koheripbal 3y ago...lots of things SHOULD be true, but are not in practice.
- cinntaile 3y agoEmission reductions and or efficiency improvements are also possible outcomes if the tax is higher than the cost of these changes.
- RandomLensman 3y agoOnly if you can finance/afford it. If not, it could even delay change as it reduces available funds.
- DoughnutHole 3y agoThe target is really industry. If no one has to pay the cost of emissions no one has any incentive to change. Look to the oil crisis of the 70s for examples - it was a bad time but the cost of fuel spurred a surge in sale of small cars because fuel efficiency finally mattered. On another front it spurred the cycling culture of the Netherlands - they didn’t take up cycling and build infrastructure to support it out of altruism, they did it because their fuel supply was nearly cut off entirely. Innovation only happens when there is a reason to innovate. If carbon emissions don’t cost the emitter anything then there’s no reason to invest in ways to emit less.
- RandomLensman 3y agoIf the costs can be passed on, then there is potentially no incentive to innovate, either. It might also still be more cost efficient to innovate less to reduce costs than to actually innovate to reduce costs. Predicting where these things go is quite tricky.
- DoughnutHole 3y agoBut if the costs can be passed on then that’s a means for emitters to differentiate on cost. If manufacturer A emits more and passes the tax onto the consumer, manufacturer B can undercut on them on price if they’re more efficient. Right now there’s minimal financial benefit to being more carbon efficient. If anything it’s disincentivised because efficiency is itself costly, so it’s cheaper to just emit.
- RandomLensman 3y agoBut only if undercutting isn't too expensive/pays back fast enough. The issue is that from a revenue perspective things always look simple, from a profit perspective it gets more complicated, especially if things have switching costs/limited fungibility, are oligopolies and other structured markets. It might work like you outline but I would not be surprised if there are a lot of unexpected or undesirable results, too.
- 39 3y agoAnd then there’s the energy wasted in transmission.
- belorn 3y agoImpose a law that forbids the constructions of new fossil fuel power plants, and any existing plants must be decommissioned when their current planned operational life-time has expired. Either the market will start to invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives when demand exceed supply, or people will elect governments that step in and invest in non-fossil fueled alternatives. Either way, the coal, oil and gas plant can not continue to be part of the European energy grid.
- magicalist 3y agoYou say you're in South Carolina which is 30% coal generation, not "mostly", and which is set to plummet rapidly over the next few years as several of the increasingly uneconomical coal plants are shut down.
- CaptWillard 3y ago[flagged]
- vasco 3y agoDo you really believe it's more likely that gas companies are paying people to say they want a gas stove on HN than someone genuinely believing it? I've met some many normal people in real life that say the same thing about gas stoves, including family members that have nothing to do with any Big Gas plots.
- CaptWillard 3y agoNo, I'm saying the anti-gas, electric cheerleaders seem ... inorganic.
- thorncorona 3y agoProbably because it’s the same couple people watching the same couple videos, commenting over and over on the thread.
- vasco 3y agoI guess the internet might be a more interesting place if everything you read goes through the lens of a conspiracy theory, so who am I to tell you that these are likely just people with different opinions to you. I don't know either obviously, but I choose to live life using a different lens than that. Maybe I'm wrong and naive but feels more relaxed!
- CaptWillard 3y agoI'm sure it is more relaxed. I remember when conspiracy theories were kinda fun but mostly harmless BS. That was before the last 7-10 years, where government and media played whack-a-mole with emerging information, dismissing everything as conspiracy theory or misinformation. And it worked ... for a while. Problem is, now there's a record, a significant recent history of these things that were described as such for months and years until it was no longer tenable to deny and deflect. Meanwhile, we've seen exactly how organized and cynical the "misinformation" campaigns run by NGOs and other stakeholder groups can be.
- bdw5204 3y agoThe idea that energy bills need to be higher is sure to be a political winner. I encourage any politician who believes in that idea to openly run for office on it rather than trying to hide it and do it once they're already in office.
- prepend 3y agoCertainly the poor will appreciate their sacrifice for the good of helping climate change.
- throwaway473825 3y agoA good start would be to have the same tax on electricity and gas. It's absurd that gas is heavily subsidized in most of Europe: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-energy-taxation-policy-contradicts-climate-goals-auditors-say/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-energy-taxa... Fortunately, I live in one of the few countries which don't subsidize gas (Sweden). When I visit the continent and see a gas stove, it feels like going to a museum. Induction stoves are so much better.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"Induction stoves are so much better." Depends. When the electricity comes from a gas power plant, it is way more efficient, to use the heat of the gas directly, instead of heating water and steam, running through a turbine, transmit lossy overland, convert to household power -> turn the electricity into heat again. But when you have renewable sources, it is a different story. I believe you have mostly nuclear power in sweden?
- sneeze-slayer 3y agoThey are just nicer to cook on. They get hotter far quicker and can be more easily controlled.
- mzi 3y agoWe produce 170TWh per year in Sweden. 41% is hydro, 29% is nuclear and 19% wind. So a large chunk is nuclear, but far from the majority.
- thelastgallon 3y agoYou are ignoring the cost of laying millions of miles of natural gas pipes to each and every home. And the leaks through all these pipes, which is 9%. Electricity is the first utility and all homes have it. Of course, you can be off grid and have no utilities, just have solar+batteries, electrification works perfectly in that scenario.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoCrab bucket.
- prepend 3y agoYeah, it will totally be $16 to reflect the minimal carbon used for the utilities GP mentioned. I don’t think a carbon tax is economically efficient, but I’m starting to think it is emotionally efficient to just let people do all the minimal little things that I don’t think warrant discussion (paper straws, dishwashers, gas logs).