4 ms·

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?

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?