[game_the0ry]

> A reminder that the idea of a carbon footprint originated from BP as a way to shift blame to the consumer...

Also a way to deflect blame from rich folks who fly in private jets, are chauffeured in gas-guzzling SUVs, and who also travel too often.

[dangerlibrary]

It literally doesn't matter who consumes it. As soon as the oil is out of the ground, we've already lost. That stored carbon is going into the atmosphere or into new a plastic / other petroleum product (which is often eventually burned and sent into the atmosphere).

Extraction taxes/bans are the only policy that matters. We need to leave the carbon that's already in the ground in the ground. Expensive new ways to re-sequester a fraction of the extracted carbon are just a shell game. Efficiency efforts will always be hindered by some variant of Jevon's paradox. [0].

Companies (like BP) that are heavily invested in extraction technology and capital - drilling rigs, pipelines, etc. - will try to convince you that we can extract as much as we want indefinitely, and figure out how to get the carbon out of the atmosphere later. It's a stupid, obviously wrong, bad-faith argument from an amoral, economically motivated set of actors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[abyssin]

Given the central place of energy in the economy, I don’t think taxes would work: they would merely increase prices provide incentives to develop technologies leading to more Javon’s paradox, as you said. The only solution I see is banning extraction. But banning something? Unthinkable!

I wonder why I still strive to limit my carbon footprint. Nobody’s impressed nor inspired by my behaviour.

[gruez]

>I don’t think taxes would work: they would merely increase prices provide incentives to develop technologies leading to more Javon’s paradox, as you said. The only solution I see is banning extraction.

1. Not all technological developments contribute the the Javon's paradox. I can see how more fuel efficient engines contributes to that, but electric cars (along with renewable energy generation) don't.

2. the point of taxes isn't solely to eliminate fossil fuels, it's also to provide compensation for the damage that fossil fuels create. If we determine that a tonne of carbon emitted causes $100 worth of damage, and we levy a $100 tax on carbon, that means governments can fully offset the damage. That makes for a far better state of affairs, even if we continue burning fossil fuels. I'll even go as far to say that it's a perfectly acceptable state of affairs.

>The only solution I see is banning extraction. But banning something? Unthinkable!

It's unthinkable for good reason. What do you do about critical industries that depend on fossil fuels? The whole point of carbon pricing is to use the market to force the least efficient/easiest to switch carbon users to stop emitting carbon, so that the costs of transitioning is as low as possible.

>I wonder why I still strive to limit my carbon footprint. Nobody’s impressed nor inspired by my behaviour.

Most of what you said applies to voting as well. Do you also wonder why you vote in elections?

[goodpoint]

> I wonder why I still strive to limit my carbon footprint. Nobody’s impressed nor inspired by my behaviour.

Please don't fall into cynicism and despair. A lot of people are putting efforts into decreasing their environmental impact and you are not alone.

True, we are a minority, but doing the right thing matters.

[dangerlibrary]

If you tax extraction sufficiently, you can make it prohibitively expensive (regardless of technological improvements) to extract carbon-intensive fuels.

Take it to the extreme to verify this effect - a $1000/barrel tax on extracted oil is effectively a ban.