[dr_dshiv]

>I'll repeat here--that I don't believe altruism will solve greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: it'll only be solved when it becomes economic to do so.

Completely agree. We need governments to ensure externalities (both positive and negative) are reflected in market pricing so that economic forces can operate efficiently.

Implication: there must be a debt to pay for past and present GHG output. It should not be punitive. But it should be clear and predictable.

[mcdonje]

So, a robust carbon tax.

[IncRnd]

That is economic today for people who rent out the credits that arise by purchasing land then not harvesting the trees. That is economic today for people who claim carbon credits for purchasing new equipment, where the old was at EOL anyway. And so on. The existence of brokers for carbon credit sales should tell you something. For real economic viability that isn't scam-based, something based in reality is needed.

[ryukafalz]

You're talking about carbon credits, not a carbon tax.

[anonporridge]

I've noticed a trend of people trying to suggest we already have a carbon tax via carbon credits.

I'm not sure if they're just confused, or trying to sow misinformation.

[IncRnd]

You're inventing things out of whole cloth. I simply misread.

[IncRnd]

I read that wrong. Thanks!

[BurningFrog]

That is the way.

It is however politically impossible in most places.

[joe_the_user]

A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard. Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do, tax or not. And plenty of rich people could ignore the tax and keep driving.

And the political impact would be angry people ready to listen climate deniers.

What's needed is a plan to eventually give everyone an electric car or some choice, any choice, that lets them do their daily business with much lower carbon consumption. Maybe taxes can change the behavior of industrial users but for consumers, this is totally daft solution.

[Maarten88]

> A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard.

I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary. Saying that something will hit the poor/average person/working family is an argument about wealth/cost distribution, which is separate from the actual problem.

When we, as humanity, have the natural resources, the technology and the labor required to do something that is objectively necessary, the only thing that can stand in the way is cost/wealth distribution: who gets to pay the bill.

So when objectively necessary changes do not happen, the only possible reason for that is that maintaining wealth/power are more important than suffering the consequences of not implementing the change.

[dcow]

Furthermore, it’s not one dimensional. Society would respond to a carbon tax. Maybe if your manager or director really really needs a team/department on site, the company would foot the bill to have you as a carbon consuming commuter. We would all adjust behavior in response to the tax. Things that obviously are bad for the environment are now obviously bad for your wallet and need to be justified. At least there aren't that many wealthy people so if they want to pay the tax and fly around in jets, so be it.

[joe_the_user]

I think that is just an excuse to not make changes that are necessary.

It's not excuse, it's a reason. It's not even the poor that will push back here on gas taxes but the somewhat well-off but not wealthy. These are the kind of people I don't have cultural sympathy with but if you just say tell them "oh, you're going to be paying a whole bunch for that pickup", you may find you don't get to say that after next election.

When we, as humanity, have the natural resources, the technology and the labor required to do something that is objectively necessary, the only thing that can stand in the way is cost/wealth distribution: who gets to pay the bill.

The US has a massively unequal distribution of wealth currently. A plan to get the poor to for this problem will fail 'cause they don't actually have money.

[thatcat]

so you're saying it will incentivize better choices like not choosing a pickup as a daily driver

[atleta]

> A carbon tax is essentially going to hit the average person hard.

Well, that's the very point. (And it was even why the carbon tax was mentioned in response to the GP comment.) Unless you make CO2 emissions (CO2 emitting behaviour) expensive for the members of the society (you can say, the average person) they (we) won't stop doing these.

Yes, a lot of people feel they have to drive a lot. But they probably don't. They can just afford it and thus they've organized their lives around being able to drive a lot.

Now if all these behaviours and activities would become very expensive then the market would come up with cheaper substitutes. Yes, people would have to change too but it wouldn't mean that everyone would just stop what they are doing and thus their lives would somehow grind to a halt. (E.g. can't drive to work any more doesn't have to mean can't work any more.) Carbon tax will also make carbon based energy production expensive which means that the alternatives will immediately seem cheaper and there will be a lot of incentive in deployment and development. Nuclear plants (fission plants, fusion ones don't seem anywhere near) will become attractive again and probably cheaper and more robust as well.

Nobody's claiming it's not hard. The claim is that it is the better solution. The other one is running into a very nasty future where food is expensive, water is tight and hundreds of millions of people will want to come to live to your country (unless you are one of thse who will have to migrate).

[megablast]

> Moreover, the average person has a lot of driving they have to do

Bullshit. Consider that the average person doesn’t own a car.

Even in developed countries people drive more than they have to.

[imtringued]

The average person is also getting hit hard by high energy prices for fossil fuels regardless of tax rate.

[joe_the_user]

Yes, average person gets hit by rising energy prices. Some portion of average people (especially small business owners) support demagogue who artificially lowers these at heavy costs. Rinse and repeat.

[coryrc]

> there must be a debt to pay for past ... GHG output

A debt which should be paid by past users, not current users who merely share the same country.

[adrianN]

If step 1 in your climate plan is "resurrect the dead since the industrial revolution started", I doubt it will be very successful. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[dr_dshiv]

Current companies paying for past output.

[hcurtiss]

Who would pay that debt for past emissions, and what price should they pay?

[rtpg]

Perhaps society as a whole should just try to solve these problems.

This is the tarpit of market-based solutions: debating endlessly about who bears costs, instead of just doing collective things collectively. And if you do have markets, every middleman and their dog will demand their slice of the pie.

[voakbasda]

The only way to get everyone to participate in a solution will be regulation. The last thing that I want is the government regulating this market. We will end up with another cartel like the oil industry.

[malermeister]

So what do you suggest then? We do nothing and slowly walk towards our demise?

[throwawayboise]

Probably this, yet. When the problem is real, people will find real solutions. Or not, but it's not happening now anyway. Are you driving less? Have you stopped eating beef?

[malermeister]

When the problem is "real", it will be too late for solutions. We need to do something right now. Besides, I'd argue the problem is starting to be "real" right now. California, Australia, Siberia and Greece were on fire this year, Germany had historic floods and the East Coast keeps getting devastated by hurricanes.

I also disagree with the tactic of shifting responsibility to the individual to avoid doing anything where it actually matters. My individual contributions to climate change are negligible, this is a collective issue. We need to get industry and corporations in check and the only way we can do that is with heavy regulation.

[macinjosh]

I will not be part of your collective.

[jtms]

Nothing, forward is the only direction to move if we want to have any hope of survival. If we mire ourselves in economic finger pointing we will end up doing nothing about the actual problem

[smitty1e]

I'm not sure, but there is little more terrifying short of a nuclear accident than the idea of faceless people in an office somewhere deciding who gets a pass and who gets crushed for sins uncommitted by them.

In short: you hint at tryanny.

[coldtea]

Let's tax at 50% every private property of a few million. That would do it.

[c1sc0]

Boomers. Everything they own.

[throwaway894345]

It’s remarkable how effectively the fossil fuel industry has gotten progressive environmentalists to believe that we can solve this problem without carbon tax.

The moment you mention how a carbon tax works (that it’s a market mechanism) progressives recoil. When evangelizing to progressives, I try to focus on “making polluters pay for the damage they are doing” (as opposed to making taxpayers bail us out) since they are more likely to be persuaded by appeals to fairness rather than efficacy.

Similarly, conservatives recoil at “tax” nomenclature, so when evangelizing to the , I refer to it as “carbon pricing” and emphasize the economic efficiency argument.

In either case, we have a long way to go, politically.

[throwawayboise]

The "polluters" are you and I. We buy the cars, we buy the other things, we use electricity and gas and oil in our homes and cars.

We, the consumers, will ultimately pay any carbon taxes. Which may be appropriate, but let's not be unrealistic about who will be paying.

[throwaway894345]

That’s precisely the point. When the cost of pollution is reflected in the price you and I pay, then cleaner options become economically viable and we the consumers pick them. Over time the market does it’s thing and optimizes for cost (becomes more efficient) and cleaner options become cheaper i.e., the carbon tax you and I pay is significantly diminished. Moreover, we can distribute the carbon tax revenue to the lower and middle class folks.

[Swenrekcah]

Not all of it. Some of the tax will have to be eaten by the producers since the market will not tolerate just any price. Then also the tax will make less polluting alternatives more viable and thus likely reducing their price in the long run.

And of course, we the public consumers will also benefit the most from making our industries greener and cleaner.

[heavyset_go]

Prices aren't determined by costs.

[malermeister]

> We buy the cars

Speak for yourself. I haven't owned a car in my life and don't plan to change that.

[mechanical_bear]

Ok, but you certainly pollute in other ways.

[eecc]

Sure, just not that way anyway.

Try again.

[bagels]

I'd be willing to bet many of your daily activities (eating, using the internet, etc.) involve burning hydrocarbons. It's pervasive.