4 ms·

I figured the carbon tax just needed to reach $100-$200ish per tonne, because that is the quoted price to scrub CO2 from stacks.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
taking as true your claim about the cost of scrubbing (I have no idea what that costs or what other constraints there might be there) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... that won't fix transportation, agriculture or residential/commercial leaving you with affecting 48% of the emissions and of that 48% it will not be possible for all of it to scrub (not to mention industry is mobile so can move fairly easily to places that don't carbon tax and don't require scrubbers if push comes to shove, which will drive the electric demand portion of industry to those countries as well) so your actual affectable percent of emission is much lower than 48%. Your best bet is what I outlined (and it's not exclusive you can try and incentivize scrubbing at the same time) because demand for transport and residential doesn't easily move as longa s the people are there, so if you manage to shift say, 15-20% of transport to biking and walking and give people denser options that maintains usable square footage (i.e. not 400 square foot concrete shit boxes in the sky) and another 10-20% to much more efficient public transit, all of a sudden you've had a massive impact and made people super sensitive to carbon prices because they have viable alternatives to the 30 km a day suburbia car commute to the 2500 square foot single family detached house exposted on all sides to the weather. Instead they can, for example get a 2200 square foot 3 story row house only exposed on the roof and narrow front/back, or similar in a 3 story condo complex with one fire exit internal and one elevator allowing enough square footage to make something similar to the row house something that gets built.

snapplebobapple 2y ago

taking as true your claim about the cost of scrubbing (I have no idea what that costs or what other constraints there might be there) https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... that won't fix transportation, agriculture or residential/commercial leaving you with affecting 48% of the emissions and of that 48% it will not be possible for all of it to scrub (not to mention industry is mobile so can move fairly easily to places that don't carbon tax and don't require scrubbers if push comes to shove, which will drive the electric demand portion of industry to those countries as well) so your actual affectable percent of emission is much lower than 48%. Your best bet is what I outlined (and it's not exclusive you can try and incentivize scrubbing at the same time) because demand for transport and residential doesn't easily move as longa s the people are there, so if you manage to shift say, 15-20% of transport to biking and walking and give people denser options that maintains usable square footage (i.e. not 400 square foot concrete shit boxes in the sky) and another 10-20% to much more efficient public transit, all of a sudden you've had a massive impact and made people super sensitive to carbon prices because they have viable alternatives to the 30 km a day suburbia car commute to the 2500 square foot single family detached house exposted on all sides to the weather. Instead they can, for example get a 2200 square foot 3 story row house only exposed on the roof and narrow front/back, or similar in a 3 story condo complex with one fire exit internal and one elevator allowing enough square footage to make something similar to the row house something that gets built.