3 ms·

When was this video produced? Carbon tax remains The Correct Answer™ logically. And yet every federal effort has failed. eg Obama's Clean Energy and Security A

When was this video produced? Carbon tax remains The Correct Answer™ logically. And yet every federal effort has failed. eg Obama's Clean Energy and Security Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Secu... Carbon Tax, Beloved Policy to Fix Climate Change, Is Dead at 47 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/obituary-carbon-tax-beloved-climate-policy-dies-47/619507/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/obituary... Why is Musk choosing perfect over good enough? Without relitigating it, we somehow ended up with 2/3rds of Build Back Better in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act. It and other "Bidenomics" are working spectacularly well. Major windfall for Tesla, with subsidies for re-shoring production, PVs, EVs, storage, mining, etc. Does Musk not support IRA? Why does Musk actively oppose and antagonize the people who are actually effectively addressing climate crisis?

coldtea 3y ago
>Carbon tax remains The Correct Answer™ logically Remains? Was it ever? Hasn't it always been a green-washing solution (same as offsetting)? Even if properly enforced, it will become just another cost of doing business.
- b112 3y ago
  The premise is that if you have a company, for example a delivery company, and viable electric and ICE vehicles exist, the delivery company with an electric fleet will have a cost advantage, and it will out compete the ICE fleet company. Of course, we're just barely into electric mass production of vehicles. And as a result, there is still a cost favour towards ICE, they're currently cheaper. Will that change? Maybe? Probably? Batteries are the big cost, and range, but these keep improving. But unless gas costs people $20 per gallon, there won't be a panic switch. Or even $30. So this is going to take decades. And to add to that, our backbone electric production now produces any excess via carbon. That is, if everyone could magically buy an electric tomorrow, and all industry moved there tomorrow, we have absolutely no way to provide enough power. We'd need to bring back coal, gas burners to provide power in the interm. And on top of that, we don't have enough transmission and distribution station capacity to double power delivery. So what this all means, is that regardless of incentives, costs, or even desire, it will be 20+ years to get off of oil. It will be a gradual switch. We should try to accelerate this, certainly. But I am skeptical of the ability for any government to accelerate this too much. There is a limit. And of course, there is the remaining spectre. Other countries. Some are transitioning, others cannot hope to afford it, some don't care. Do we go to war to stop it? edit: Oh, and don't get me started in the anti-plug in hybrid hate. What fallacy. What lunacy. I own a delivery company. I need range. Now my options are, go electric and my ICE competition steals my business, or I stay ICE. What a dumb choice. Better to have hybrids aplenty, so that companies can transition to full electric. A delivery company could go hybrid, and they'd have incentive to put up solar panels, to roll out charging infra. They'd also be able to have a mixed fleet, some hybrids, some full electric, balancing the cost of solar panels across the entire fleet. As range improved, they could slowly move more and more to full electric. But no, hybrids are bad, hate hate the hybrid, anger at, and deride the hybrid, made it difficult for people trying. I personally cannot, period, ever ever ever go to pure electric due to range and charge time issues. I could go hybrid. Except these are disappearing, and hard to get. Great. Just great. And telling me I'm wrong is absolutely stupid, I know my needs, I want pure electric, and trying to tell me it's fine is beyond absurd. Nothing ruins progress more than absolutists.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Also, carbon tax will be needed when we get all of the low hanging fruit. Solar, electric cars, and heat pumps make economic sense. But there are things that are hard to decarbonize like shipping and airliners that will need to be forced to use green fuels instead of the cheaper fossil fuels. It would be better to start now with low tax and increase over time as we decarbonize instead of introducing it in a couple of decades at a high level. For one thing, the funds can be used to incentivize switching or help with problems.
- specialist 3y ago
  Are you thinking of carbon markets (cap & trade)? Either way, I was always skeptical of cap & trade. IIRC, the economists and environmentalists preferred a straight up carbon tax. Ideal Pigouvian tax. Trivial to administer. And so forth. As I understand it, while conceptually ideal, its political economy was turrible. It had no constituency which benefitted, so would therefore defend it during the inevitable reaction. Messaging was also tough (eg "if you're explaining, you're losing"). It also lacked strategy and vision. Minimal regulation and "just do it" mandate appeals to neoliberals and libertarians. But doesn't reduce uncertainty for businesses. Further, getting private capital (on its own) to invest in R&D "for the good of all" is unlikely. I think of carbon taxes like "pushing rope". In contrast, IRA is all carrot. Creating plenty of stakeholders to defend its largess. And it establishes clear priorities (domestic mfg, electrification, huge bet on H2). And it uses public investment to attract private capital. As we can all see, IRA (et al) is widely successful, thus far. I personally would have preferred the earlier BBB bill, which had "sticks" to compliment IRA's "carrots". Stuff like performance mandates, which have proved very effective in CA State. Biden Admin is doing what it can thru executive action to move the needle. Fingers crossed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 3y ago

>Carbon tax remains The Correct Answer™ logically Remains? Was it ever? Hasn't it always been a green-washing solution (same as offsetting)? Even if properly enforced, it will become just another cost of doing business.

b112 3y ago
The premise is that if you have a company, for example a delivery company, and viable electric and ICE vehicles exist, the delivery company with an electric fleet will have a cost advantage, and it will out compete the ICE fleet company. Of course, we're just barely into electric mass production of vehicles. And as a result, there is still a cost favour towards ICE, they're currently cheaper. Will that change? Maybe? Probably? Batteries are the big cost, and range, but these keep improving. But unless gas costs people $20 per gallon, there won't be a panic switch. Or even $30. So this is going to take decades. And to add to that, our backbone electric production now produces any excess via carbon. That is, if everyone could magically buy an electric tomorrow, and all industry moved there tomorrow, we have absolutely no way to provide enough power. We'd need to bring back coal, gas burners to provide power in the interm. And on top of that, we don't have enough transmission and distribution station capacity to double power delivery. So what this all means, is that regardless of incentives, costs, or even desire, it will be 20+ years to get off of oil. It will be a gradual switch. We should try to accelerate this, certainly. But I am skeptical of the ability for any government to accelerate this too much. There is a limit. And of course, there is the remaining spectre. Other countries. Some are transitioning, others cannot hope to afford it, some don't care. Do we go to war to stop it? edit: Oh, and don't get me started in the anti-plug in hybrid hate. What fallacy. What lunacy. I own a delivery company. I need range. Now my options are, go electric and my ICE competition steals my business, or I stay ICE. What a dumb choice. Better to have hybrids aplenty, so that companies can transition to full electric. A delivery company could go hybrid, and they'd have incentive to put up solar panels, to roll out charging infra. They'd also be able to have a mixed fleet, some hybrids, some full electric, balancing the cost of solar panels across the entire fleet. As range improved, they could slowly move more and more to full electric. But no, hybrids are bad, hate hate the hybrid, anger at, and deride the hybrid, made it difficult for people trying. I personally cannot, period, ever ever ever go to pure electric due to range and charge time issues. I could go hybrid. Except these are disappearing, and hard to get. Great. Just great. And telling me I'm wrong is absolutely stupid, I know my needs, I want pure electric, and trying to tell me it's fine is beyond absurd. Nothing ruins progress more than absolutists.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Also, carbon tax will be needed when we get all of the low hanging fruit. Solar, electric cars, and heat pumps make economic sense. But there are things that are hard to decarbonize like shipping and airliners that will need to be forced to use green fuels instead of the cheaper fossil fuels. It would be better to start now with low tax and increase over time as we decarbonize instead of introducing it in a couple of decades at a high level. For one thing, the funds can be used to incentivize switching or help with problems.
specialist 3y ago
Are you thinking of carbon markets (cap & trade)? Either way, I was always skeptical of cap & trade. IIRC, the economists and environmentalists preferred a straight up carbon tax. Ideal Pigouvian tax. Trivial to administer. And so forth. As I understand it, while conceptually ideal, its political economy was turrible. It had no constituency which benefitted, so would therefore defend it during the inevitable reaction. Messaging was also tough (eg "if you're explaining, you're losing"). It also lacked strategy and vision. Minimal regulation and "just do it" mandate appeals to neoliberals and libertarians. But doesn't reduce uncertainty for businesses. Further, getting private capital (on its own) to invest in R&D "for the good of all" is unlikely. I think of carbon taxes like "pushing rope". In contrast, IRA is all carrot. Creating plenty of stakeholders to defend its largess. And it establishes clear priorities (domestic mfg, electrification, huge bet on H2). And it uses public investment to attract private capital. As we can all see, IRA (et al) is widely successful, thus far. I personally would have preferred the earlier BBB bill, which had "sticks" to compliment IRA's "carrots". Stuff like performance mandates, which have proved very effective in CA State. Biden Admin is doing what it can thru executive action to move the needle. Fingers crossed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]