Carbon Tax

[RoyWalley]

@twig93

Most energy usage is optional.

Then go ahead and tax it. Who is going to feel it the most?

[SredniVashtar]

@RoyWalley

College is optional. Using energy is not. If you’re going to make an analogy, use food as the substitute for carbon output instead of college.

Those with the ability to pay will still eat, and they’ll probably eat well. Those without the ability to pay will starve. You have to let them starve because the goal is to reduce overall food consumption (i.e., carbon output). Go ahead and implement your program, I won’t stop you. If it doesn’t reduce overall food consumption by an amount significant enough to reach your primary goal, all you’ve done is starved some poor people. Even if you do reach your primary goal, the greatest impact is still felt by poor people.

Sure, food is a great analogy.

Do you think food should be free, or do you think food should cost money?

People have to eat. Especially poor people. Therefore all food should be free.

[NormalDan]

@RoyWalley

Then go ahead and tax it.

I think that’s what we’re literally voting to do.

[RoyWalley]

Food costs money. So does energy. Adding a tax to food (or energy) in order to accomplish some goal is going to hurt the poor much more than it will hurt the rich, and the rich will probably consume just as much food (or energy) as they did before. So if you’re going to add that tax, better make sure it will accomplish your goal before you do that. Otherwise the only thing you accomplish is hurting the poor without accomplishing your goal.

[SredniVashtar]

You offered an analogy, and now you’re taking it back. Maybe make up your mind on an analogy that works for you.

We give away carbon emissions for free.
Think of another thing we should give away for free.

[RoyWalley]

@SredniVashtar

You offered an analogy, and now you’re taking it back.

I took nothing back.

[SredniVashtar]

It’s not analogous anymore. You removed the only thing that makes it analogous. The subsidy.

Anyway, to continue your analogy:
The problem with subsidizing food is that it makes people less price-conscious. They buy more steak and lobster and less bread and butter.

The reason we don’t subsidize food is not to discourage eating, it’s to stop people from choosing to eat the most expensive thing on the menu.

The same is true of subsidizing carbon-emissions.

Finally, if you feel bad for poor people, then do something FOR poor people.

[RoyWalley]

@SredniVashtar

The subsidy.

Call it that if it makes you feel better.

[SredniVashtar]

If global warming is a problem, then carbon emissions are a cost, and not paying them is a subsidy.

That’s economics!

[RoyWalley]

Then you throw your tax on the emissions, which is really just a tax on energy. If it turns out that the only impacts are poor people don’t get to use energy, and twig93 has to play solitaire at home, but carbon emissions overall don’t go down and global warming remains a problem, you’ve done nothing but made life harder for poor people and twig a better solitaire player. I’m not saying don’t tax it, but if you do, make sure you get what you think you’re going to get.

[NormalDan]

@RoyWalley

and twig a better solitaire player

Now we’ve managed to create a positive externality!

[dr_t_non-fan]

Flat Rebate Per Citizen.

[Nick_Papagiorgio]

People can avoid it. There are obviously going to be tax credits here for things like electric vehicles, solar power, etc. The biggest sacrifice will be paying taxes on beef for most lower income folks.

[Indy]

@Ted_Hoffman

Goats generate carbon, though. Depending on how many you’re using and for how long, it might be more carbon.

The grass clippings your lawnmower leaves behind generate CO2 as they rot. The amount the goats produce because they ate the grass shouldn’t be any higher. It just got processed through a goat instead of through some bacteria.

So, comparing CO2 emissions from lawn mower or goat, the carbon in the grass is going to get into the atmosphere either way, the difference is just the CO2 from the mower.

[SredniVashtar]

IMO, the biggest sacrifice would be a jump in gas and power prices. People freak out about the price of gas even when the government has nothing to do with it. Here the government would be causing it directly.

I don’t see it passing without some clear-cut handout/rebate/exception for the 99%. Of course, we are talking about a $zhjillion bill, so what’s a little more?

But IMO, we can’t (Sinema can’t?) fund a bill with an increase in gasoline prices. That’d be a no-go.

[soyleche]

@Indy

@Ted_Hoffman

Goats generate carbon, though. Depending on how many you’re using and for how long, it might be more carbon.

The grass clippings your lawnmower leaves behind generate CO2 as they rot. The amount the goats produce because they ate the grass shouldn’t be any higher. It just got processed through a goat instead of through some bacteria.

So, comparing CO2 emissions from lawn mower or goat, the carbon in the grass is going to get into the atmosphere either way, the difference is just the CO2 from the mower.

The goat is putting carbon that was in the air a couple weeks ago back into the air. The mower is putting carbon into the air that hasn’t been there for millions of years.