5997

Yeah, cutting sugar intake or quitting cigarettes is really hard, but not “I can no longer get to work or heat my home” kind of hard. I spent many years living paycheck to paycheck trying to make those last seven dollars stretch until payday, and I didn’t have it nearly as bad as many. Having to buy an EV to replace my $200 rustbucket Taurus or having my energy costs significantly jump would have meant starving.

I don’t doubt that making energy significantly more expensive would change some habits in the middle class. People would be more energy conscious and that would be a good thing, for sure. But for the people on the edge, that’s going to push them right over the cliff.

I’d much rather see massive investment from government in building out non-fossil fuel energy infrastructure. Taxes can be levied for that, but the taxes can be more targeted instead of hitting the people just holding on for dear life the hardest.

5998

See also: gilet jaunes (partly)

5999

If you look at

lots of the most effective options require neither massive lifestyle changes or enormous expenditures. They do require a global determination to subsidize poorer countries on issues like refrigerant management, forestry and agriculture. A relatively small expenditure could make the difference between making it more profitable to keep rainforest rather than to clear it for cattle ranching.

6000

I like this discussion where we keep taking the other’s point to the extreme. “you think child exploitation should be legal but highly taxed!”. No, I don’t. I think making carbon consumption illegal (e.g. your idea of banning gas cars) is going to be difficult to implement.

How do we “make” Ford, General Motors etc not sell more gas cars and sell electric cars, all while gas is cheap, consumers want SUVs, and EVs are expensive? We make it illegal with a fine? Seems like Ford will add the fine to the cost of the cars. Or people won’t buy Ford.

On the other hand, a low initial and ramping carbon tax is easy to implement. Canada is doing it now, as are many other countries. Politicians can do this, and actually get re-elected, which is a tough hurdle.

I’d actually say you’re right. The majority of people that own or lease a car, uh, purchased or leased it at some point in the past. Switching to an EV that’s lower cost is pretty straightforward. Yes it will take some time and my idea of an overnight switch is too extreme.

In my case there’s very little lifestyle change being asked. In terms of reducing sugar, well 1/3rd of Americans are obese so yeah, I’d say it’s pretty tough, and is a lifestyle change.

A great way to frame the very definition of climate change is “wow this CO2 has a much higher long-term cost than we’ve been paying”.

My answer is “huh, maybe we should raise the dollar cost to reflect its true cost”.

Your answer is “no. we should keep gas cheap, because poor people can’t afford to pay more. Let’s just ban gas cars in the future”.

6001

No, I don’t think you’re Satan. I just think you’re wrong, and examples like quitting smoking aren’t really selling your argument. Why is a carbon tax the best solution? Why can’t regulatory action be better?

6002

Or better yet, why not both?

6003

Regulatory does have some drawbacks. The strength of regulations can depend on the lobbying power of the industry and how sympathetic it is to the public. Regulations can be complex and a future administration can undermine them more easily than a straightforward tax-and-redistribute approach. Regulations don’t take into account the costs of solutions (it’s politically determined rather than economically determined) so the loss of the price signal is likely to make it less efficient. Also more bureaucracy and paperwork on regulations and compliance.

What I think regulations have going for them is it can be politically an easier lift since doesn’t have the poison-pill word “tax” attached, and the costs are indirect rather than in-your-face. People don’t seem to trust taxes, even if it’s a tax-and-dividend thing.

6004

It’s just backed by research and evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

As of 2018 at least 27 countries and subnational units have implemented carbon taxes. [3] Research shows that carbon taxes effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[3] Economists generally argue that carbon taxes are the most efficient and effective way to curb climate change, with the least adverse effects on the economy.[4][5][6][7]

6005

That link is not an argument that it is the best way. It’s an argument that it can work, and that some economists tout it.

Okay by me, assuming you deal with the regressive nature of the taxes.

6006
6007

There’s something you should know about claims of regressive taxation. That is, that they’re increasingly used by well-off white men to maintain the status quo and shut down discussion. I’m serious. I’ll give you some examples.

In Toronto the city advertised that they were considering tolling the main highway. It turns out that a low toll such as 2-3 dolalrs could be a major revenue source for the city, to pay for roads possibly or transit, and a congestion management tool. But, it was shouted down “regressive!” “Regressive!” “It will hurt the poor people hardest!” That sounds like a fair argument. That $6 per day might hurt the low-income people and it’s nothing to high-income people. But here’s the thing: we’re smart enough to look into this. And they did, though it was too late. It turns out low income people aren’t commuting to downtown office towers in cars on the highway. They’re taking the bus. And the people who were shouting the claim? They are the ones driving high-end cars on the highway.

Another example. Photo radar. Proven safety technology that works. Almost no-where in sight across the USA. Whenever the topic comes up, there are very well-reasoned arguments against it, in places like the Chicago Tribune. “It ends up targetting low-income neighborhoods.” “It ends up being a cash grab by otherwise under-funded police departments, there are better solutions”. “Regressive! Targets low-income people and hurts them more!”. These arguments are successful. Written by wealthy white men that are smart and don’t want to pay tickets for speeding, which they get away with all the time. But again, it’s actually pretty darn easy to design a safety program that doesn’t have those negative consequences. Litterally, lives could be saved, but no, “regressive!”.

Back to carbon tax. I actually said that in Canada, the tax is rebated and 70% of families are likely to get back more than they pay in carbon tax. The 30% remaining are those that are high emitters, and are likely those that heat large homes. Yes, there could be poor people that drive 50 miles in a heavy SUV that would be unfairly impacted by this. But maybe we should look into it and listen to the experts.

It’s a consensus approach as the best way to deal with climate change. Click link 2.

6008

As an economist who does academic research in areas related to climate change, I can say from my experience it is generally true that economists think cap-and-trade schemes (which puts an absolute ceiling on the level of emissions in the country and allows the price to fluctuate) leads to least cost abatement, which is more efficient than carbon taxes (which put an absolute control on the price and allows the level of emissions to fluctuate), which in turn is more efficient than control through regulation or through direct government intervention (like the government building things themselves, perish the thought).

Yet, this discussion was largely had over a decade ago when rational people thought we had a choice between these measures. I bet all the economists who work in this area were applauding Obama when he was doing all he could through executive orders. When the market failure is so large, any kind of government intervention is supremely helpful.

6009

Yeah, fair point. A good counterpoint to my argument is “you said tax! Now you die!”.

Seriously I’m also interested in a more detailed take from yourself. Subsidize/regulate what and how?

6010

A better argument against toll roads is that they are dumb, and cause tons of lost productivity from wasted time with toll collection. With things like ez pass, that’s lessened, but unless you implement a system which covers everyone, like a plate based system that everyone opts into, then the toll collection is just bad.

If you want to raise money, just use a tax. It’s simpler and more efficient than tolls.

6011

Tolls can be a useful congestion management tool, and a revenue source. Congestion fees are becoming popular worldwide, but feel free to write to New York City and say they’re dumb. Too off topic for me to go further and debate this one.

6012

Sorry I am not sure what you mean. Anything with the word tax in it is politically toxic, so carbon taxes are often marketed as ‘carbon prices’ which I think is a smart idea.

Interestingly, the citations in the wikipedia article to the idea that ‘carbon taxes are most efficient’ leads to surveys of economists asking whether a carbon tax is preferable to an increase in income taxes. Emission trading schemes, or cap and trade schemes, are considered the most efficient means of abating emissions. I think economists would also believe that any price on carbon, whether through a trading scheme or carbon tax, is vastly preferable to not having one.

Actually I take that back, there was a link to a relevant question here:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/climate-change-policies

Again, sorry I am not sure what you mean. Did it read like I was advocating for subsidies and regulation over a carbon price? Right now, my view is that I would take literally anything over the status quo. Subsidies have been used frequently even in countries with carbon prices, e.g. cheaper solar panels, tax breaks for companies that do X environmental thing. There’s alot of research on how solar panel subsidies did a great job in bringing the manufacturing price of the panels down. Direct regulation can be of the form of setting up rules on new coal plants (like what Obama did), or setting timed mandates for the proportion of energy in a grid that comes through renewable resources (Australia has/had a thing called the Renewable Energy Target that did just that and worked well, although in practice it shared many features with a cap-and-trade scheme).

6013

I only meant that the word tax is politically toxic, so I agree. I felt you were advocating for others over carbon tax (on the basis that it was a failed debate a decade ago). If you’re still on board with the idea, while acknowledging that its politically difficult, then we’re on the same page.

Subsidies lowering prices of solar panels or say batteries only works to an extent, and the hope is the subsidies end at some point. It seems to me that battery electric vehicles will remain more expensive than gas cars despite economies of scale.

Edit: I support EV subsidy, I’m not trying to sound like carbon tax is the only option. It’s just a very good tool.

6014

In terms of lowering prices of panels, it only works to the extent that it is possible for economies of scale and technological improvements to continue. Yet, subsidies can be put into place indefinitely without a problem. Hypothetically, if the externality is caused by coal being cheaper than solar energy to produce, you can either tax coal mining/plants or subsidise solar panel production/consumption. There is a symmetry there. Yet one is more politically palatable than the other when you have a majority of stupid voters.

The big issue is that if a government subsidises solar power then they are ‘picking a winner’ and preventing wind, nuclear, or some new type of energy production we never thought of before from becoming viable because all of the intervention is directed at one source. A suite of subsidies can never be as efficient (in theory land) as a carbon price on GHG emissions that is blind to the source.

6015

Ah, that’s a really good way to put it, picking a winner that might hurt otherwise viable or superior options. Thanks I’ll use that! Good night.

6016

Speaking of subsidies, maybe we can start by ending subsidies for fossil fuels, since there is no reason for them in the first place.