3 ms·

Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead

Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
cleaning it up is solving the problem.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Is it? Or is it just kicking the can down the road? We're trying to clean up crumbs off the floor with a machine that runs on cookies.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    It's an improvement no? It's like paying a fee when buying a car battery or car tires unless you return an old one. The fee needs to be overly pegged to inflation or something though otherwise you end up with the glass / aluminum cans problem.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, and it's not a discrete thing you're getting taxed on, it's everything. It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Again, seems reasonable. If you dont like paying them to pump the oil and dispose of the carbon, then don't consume the oil and create the emissions.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, It's a tax to encourage the alternatives. If an electric car costs more than an ICE car, then taxing ICE cars through a carbon tax will make the electric car more attractive, at least on the margins. > It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Similar logic to the above applies. Oil companies might be able to charge more for a barrel of oil, but it's not like that barrel of oil is suddenly more useful. That's bad for oil companies because it makes the economics of their product worse. They have to do more "stuff" to sell a given barrel of oil, but their competitors (solar panels or whatever) don't.
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        > I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Sure, but the reason solar panels are popular is because they're (mostly) the cheapest way to generate power. By adding an additional tax to petroleum products based on say sequestering costs (as opposed to some made-up I won't chop down a forest offset) it encourages non-petroleum products to be used. It's basically a tariff for clean energy.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Operating under that sort of nihilism, why bother saving babies if they are just going to die of old age at best?
gruez 2y ago
>Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The entity who caused the pollution should be responsible for paying to clean it up. For logistical purposes it might make sense to tax at the point of production/sale rather than actual emission, eg. taxes at gas stations rather than some sort of monitoring system on every car. > The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo. If the alternatives are actually cheaper, the market will naturally work itself out, because polluters would be incentivized to switch. Nobody uses plastic utensils in place of reusable ones, not because the government banned them, but because everyone knows the latter are so much cheaper.
- sweeter 2y ago
  You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. This is there American hyper-individualistic mindset at work. The problem and solution is cut and dry, anything else is a comfortable lie.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. explain? at least with carbon since it's fungible and global it's probably the easiest to clean up, compared to exxon trying to clean an oil spill or whatever.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

cleaning it up is solving the problem.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Is it? Or is it just kicking the can down the road? We're trying to clean up crumbs off the floor with a machine that runs on cookies.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  It's an improvement no? It's like paying a fee when buying a car battery or car tires unless you return an old one. The fee needs to be overly pegged to inflation or something though otherwise you end up with the glass / aluminum cans problem.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, and it's not a discrete thing you're getting taxed on, it's everything. It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Again, seems reasonable. If you dont like paying them to pump the oil and dispose of the carbon, then don't consume the oil and create the emissions.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, It's a tax to encourage the alternatives. If an electric car costs more than an ICE car, then taxing ICE cars through a carbon tax will make the electric car more attractive, at least on the margins. > It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Similar logic to the above applies. Oil companies might be able to charge more for a barrel of oil, but it's not like that barrel of oil is suddenly more useful. That's bad for oil companies because it makes the economics of their product worse. They have to do more "stuff" to sell a given barrel of oil, but their competitors (solar panels or whatever) don't.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      > I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Sure, but the reason solar panels are popular is because they're (mostly) the cheapest way to generate power. By adding an additional tax to petroleum products based on say sequestering costs (as opposed to some made-up I won't chop down a forest offset) it encourages non-petroleum products to be used. It's basically a tariff for clean energy.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Operating under that sort of nihilism, why bother saving babies if they are just going to die of old age at best?

gruez 2y ago

>Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The entity who caused the pollution should be responsible for paying to clean it up. For logistical purposes it might make sense to tax at the point of production/sale rather than actual emission, eg. taxes at gas stations rather than some sort of monitoring system on every car. > The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo. If the alternatives are actually cheaper, the market will naturally work itself out, because polluters would be incentivized to switch. Nobody uses plastic utensils in place of reusable ones, not because the government banned them, but because everyone knows the latter are so much cheaper.

sweeter 2y ago
You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. This is there American hyper-individualistic mindset at work. The problem and solution is cut and dry, anything else is a comfortable lie.
- gruez 2y ago
  >You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. explain? at least with carbon since it's fungible and global it's probably the easiest to clean up, compared to exxon trying to clean an oil spill or whatever.