3 ms·

not saying i disagree with the sentiment. but, how do you count the carbon emissions. That's a huge unsolved issue with the Carbon Tax AND Carbon Credits solut

not saying i disagree with the sentiment. but, how do you count the carbon emissions. That's a huge unsolved issue with the Carbon Tax AND Carbon Credits solutions. Your idea doesn't solve it.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Well for fossil fuels there is a pretty straightforward calculation for emissions per unit of fuel. You can tax it at the point of sale to the end customer. Are their non fossil fuel carbon emissions that are hard to count?
timthelion 3y ago
I would simply tax the sale of fossil fuels. Sure, there are other major sources of carbon in agriculture, but for every gram of carbon from fossile fuels oil, gas or coal is bought or mined. I would go with the simple thing, I don't think carbon emissions from agricultural tillage need be taxed.
- realusername 3y ago
  That's the right answer, the whole problem comes from fossil fuel in the first place and making them more expensive will bubble up emission gains through the economic chain.
  - Closi 3y ago
    The actual problem is a little more difficult - clearly fuel is often taxed, but the question is how much tax should be paid on which fuels, in which industries and in which countries. Should an American putting fuel into their hummer pay the same level of duties on a litre of diesel as someone putting fuel in their tractor in Uganda, and how do we get all the countries to agree what the acceptable rate is?
    - realusername 3y ago
      Usually agriculture is very subsidied everywhere yes because countries want cheap food for stability which is totally understandable. There are nasty side effects to that though, the first one being that these subsidies usually are based directly or indirectly on the land size which made less efficient food products like meat much more subsidized than anything else. We'll have to bring some more rational approach there if we want to improve the land use for climate change. And then there's also the utility of the fuel used as you mentioned, there should be a difference of treatment between tractors and private jets indeed. But I don't think it needs to be too precise, cutting the worst offenders and taxing otherwise should be good enough.
      - Closi 3y ago
        That's only one dimension - Another major dimension is country. The same tax applied globally will have very different effects in a third world country to a first world country. Farmers in the USA will react very differently to a 5p per litre tax to farmers in Burundi.
        realusername 3y ago
        As long as taxes are applied in the developed world and the big polluters, the rest (like Burundi) are rounding errors at best.
        Closi 3y ago
        Well China still sees itself as a developing country, and would make up about 30% of CO2, so it all depends on definitions and international agreement.
        realusername 3y ago
        I'd argue that China is pretty bad at this, it's a developed country indeed but has the same CO2 per capita as France when excluding the exports, that's a very bad result and that's why it should be included since it's a big polluter. Usually developed countries are emitting less, the cause of that abnormally bad result is the high number of coal plants in China.
dojomouse 3y ago
In New Zealand we have a pretty effective system that covers all fossil fuel use nationally, as well as several other greenhouse gas emission classes (notably not agricultural emissions though hopefully they’re included soon). The EU has something similar as do several other jurisdictions. It’s a solved problem at scale. In NZ we also have an effective system for recognising and incentivising certain classes of forest carbon removals (which I think are a legitimate and important class of credits - unlike avoided emission credits which I agree are junk).
davedx 3y ago
Monitoring carbon emissions is not unsolved. It’s not perfect but there are lots of highly detailed, advanced solutions out there
mschuster91 3y ago
> but, how do you count the carbon emissions. for anything fuel-based (both fossil and "renewable" such as wood pellets and biogas), we know how much CO2 a given quantity of fuel emits. Place a tax on the importers and producers of the raw material, that's it. Other processes that emit greenhouse gases - especially construction and agriculture such as cow farms - are a bit more difficult to calculate, but there's enough data available to make reasonable averages.

not saying i disagree with the sentiment. but, how do you count the carbon emissions. That's a huge unsolved issue with the Carbon Tax AND Carbon Credits solutions. Your idea doesn't solve it.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Well for fossil fuels there is a pretty straightforward calculation for emissions per unit of fuel. You can tax it at the point of sale to the end customer. Are their non fossil fuel carbon emissions that are hard to count?

timthelion 3y ago

I would simply tax the sale of fossil fuels. Sure, there are other major sources of carbon in agriculture, but for every gram of carbon from fossile fuels oil, gas or coal is bought or mined. I would go with the simple thing, I don't think carbon emissions from agricultural tillage need be taxed.

realusername 3y ago
That's the right answer, the whole problem comes from fossil fuel in the first place and making them more expensive will bubble up emission gains through the economic chain.
- Closi 3y ago
  The actual problem is a little more difficult - clearly fuel is often taxed, but the question is how much tax should be paid on which fuels, in which industries and in which countries. Should an American putting fuel into their hummer pay the same level of duties on a litre of diesel as someone putting fuel in their tractor in Uganda, and how do we get all the countries to agree what the acceptable rate is?
  - realusername 3y ago
    Usually agriculture is very subsidied everywhere yes because countries want cheap food for stability which is totally understandable. There are nasty side effects to that though, the first one being that these subsidies usually are based directly or indirectly on the land size which made less efficient food products like meat much more subsidized than anything else. We'll have to bring some more rational approach there if we want to improve the land use for climate change. And then there's also the utility of the fuel used as you mentioned, there should be a difference of treatment between tractors and private jets indeed. But I don't think it needs to be too precise, cutting the worst offenders and taxing otherwise should be good enough.
    - Closi 3y ago
      That's only one dimension - Another major dimension is country. The same tax applied globally will have very different effects in a third world country to a first world country. Farmers in the USA will react very differently to a 5p per litre tax to farmers in Burundi.
      - realusername 3y ago
        As long as taxes are applied in the developed world and the big polluters, the rest (like Burundi) are rounding errors at best.
        Closi 3y ago
        Well China still sees itself as a developing country, and would make up about 30% of CO2, so it all depends on definitions and international agreement.
        realusername 3y ago
        I'd argue that China is pretty bad at this, it's a developed country indeed but has the same CO2 per capita as France when excluding the exports, that's a very bad result and that's why it should be included since it's a big polluter. Usually developed countries are emitting less, the cause of that abnormally bad result is the high number of coal plants in China.

dojomouse 3y ago

In New Zealand we have a pretty effective system that covers all fossil fuel use nationally, as well as several other greenhouse gas emission classes (notably not agricultural emissions though hopefully they’re included soon). The EU has something similar as do several other jurisdictions. It’s a solved problem at scale. In NZ we also have an effective system for recognising and incentivising certain classes of forest carbon removals (which I think are a legitimate and important class of credits - unlike avoided emission credits which I agree are junk).

davedx 3y ago

Monitoring carbon emissions is not unsolved. It’s not perfect but there are lots of highly detailed, advanced solutions out there

mschuster91 3y ago

> but, how do you count the carbon emissions. for anything fuel-based (both fossil and "renewable" such as wood pellets and biogas), we know how much CO2 a given quantity of fuel emits. Place a tax on the importers and producers of the raw material, that's it. Other processes that emit greenhouse gases - especially construction and agriculture such as cow farms - are a bit more difficult to calculate, but there's enough data available to make reasonable averages.