So what are you saying, other than criticism?
I’m trying to understand how carbon taxes make a dent in climate change. If we agree that these examples probably don’t get us there, then there isn’t any dispute, is there? And, the question is, what will?
Tim_N
6079
Targeted taxes change the relative prices in the economy. If greenhouse gas emissions are taxed, then the cost of coal or natural gas electricity generation increases relative to solar/wind/nuclear, and investment for new generation will go further towards renewable electricity.
The price of electricity goes up so companies stop wasting so much of it. Oil is more expensive, so consumers start caring more about fuel efficiency. Can’t afford the huge SUVs anymore, perhaps consider a hybrid or electric whereas they wouldn’t before. Logging a forest is now more expensive than it used to be.
There’s really unlimited examples. It can transform an entire economy over time if the tax is large enough and the revenue is used in smart ways.
Cap and trade is probably better as you set a maximum amount of emissions to be generated, perhaps set by a nonpartisan team of scientists, and then the price of carbon fluctuates so that the ceiling isn’t exceeded.
But you’re ignoring the direct evidence we keep sending. They DO make a dent in climate change, in fact are the best and possibly only effective tool for addressing it. How? By making it more expensive so people seek to reduce spending. It’s pretty basic / common sense. A bunch of provinces, countries, even States in the US have carbon tax and it is working.
Do they get us to ‘addressing’ climate change? Well it’s not a binary answer, but everyone pretty much agrees we should do everything we can, and the best / most effective way to help is carbon tax. Not wait for the magic bullet that ‘addresses’ it.
Do big fonts and numbers help? https://www.clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ - 3,500 US economists and 27 Nobel laureates and pretty much universal support. The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History.
They will lead to zero emissions…when? That’s what I meant by ‘make a dent’.
This makes more sense to me, for what it is worth.
Tim_N
6083
You could easily have a carbon tax of $30 in the first year, increase it to $50 in the second year, and by year 25 have a carbon tax that is so large that very little to no emissions are generated (except maybe steel unless the scientists can solve that problem).
Oh come on, you meant reduce, otherwise you would have said ‘eliminate’. And besides, you’re fully aware that eliminating is not the goal. A reduction in global warming beyond catastrophic consequences is the goal, and there are plenty of low-hanging fruit that can help a long way towards that goal (e.g. eliminating coal power, which has zero effect on quality-of-life).
Can you maybe lighten up? I meant ‘eliminate’, as I’m under the impression that it isn’t enough to reduce carbon emissions. Could be I’m wrong about that too.
OK, but no one has that plan, because no public will accept that plan. I’m talking about the actual plans people have or are proposing. I don’t think they will be adequate.
MikeJ
6087
I think if most of the money is rebated, it is easier to accept (but still has the effect of encouraging better choices throughout the economy). However, a carbon tax is only one piece of the puzzle. You would want big investments in alternatives, especially alternative energy tech and public transit. Perhaps sin taxes on particularly wasteful uses like yachts and private jets. Changes to regulation to speed the deployment of new energy infrastructure. Basically as many policies as the population can stomach.
Yes, that makes more sense, thanks.
Sorry. I felt like I’m debating a ‘there’s no point’ viewpoint which is not your intent.
I think long term the goal is very low GHG emissions, but short to medium term is just reversing the trend. I even share your viewpoint that these carbon taxes seem too low to do much. Ontario, Canada (where I live), the tax amounts to 4 cents per liter of gas.
No, not at all. I think we have to do everything, and surely something that prices fossil fuels appropriately is part of that mix. I just can’t see the actual plans, on their own, as making much of a difference; and I’m definitely getting the impression that for some people, that’s the whole plan.
MikeJ
6091
The most head banging aspect is you get people who say that the tax is too small to make a difference and at the same time say we need repeal it because it’s too much of a burden.
Yeah. We’re also in the middle of an election where the conservative party is promising to repeal it and replace it with ‘green technology’. There are no more details basically other than that statement. So there’s a chance that even the low bar proves too high.
RichVR
6093
Akin to the “I have a great medical plan, the best medical plan”.
Climate change doesn’t make my top 5 biggest problems in the country. It is typically 6 or 7.
But a carbon tax seems like a no-brainer, even my Republican friends don’t reflexively hate it Plus it is a big enough deal that should actually make a difference…
Matt_W
6095
I’ve never seen any policy proposal that suggested carbon taxing was the whole plan. Consumer education. Subsidizing renewables. Investment in green energy research. (My pay is almost entirely from DoE alternative energy research funding.) Gasoline taxes. Subsidizing of local mass transit. Automobile efficiency regulation. Etc.
Ok, I don’t really want to restart the whole argument, but this is the sort of thing I mean:
(Emphasis added)
So I’m not imagining that slant. Lots of people do argue carbon taxes as the way to go. That’s why I asked the question in the first place. I wanted to understand what people mean by carbon taxes, and what carbon tax plans actually get approved by politicians, and I think on their own they are insufficient.
