Hacker News Reader

Comment by ForHackernews | Hacker News Reader

Taxing the hell out of CO2 emissions is likely its own self-fulfilling solution. To a first order, it doesn't matter what you spend the windfall on. Subsidize a revival of mime, if you like.

Probably the smartest idea would be to blunt the political backlash by spending the tax revenue on welfare for coal miners, oil workers, truck drivers, etc.

View on HN

"Taxing the hell out of CO2 emissions", which I take to mean taxing it so much it forces producers and consumers to significantly curtail C02 activities, would not necessarily be a self-fulfilling solution.

Tax obviously works, but it can only work to a point. At a certain point we need technological solutions such as solar to make up the rest.

Extremely high taxes would lead to a lot more outsourcing of C02 activities to countries with less controls. If a widget produced X tons of C02 released into the atmosphere in the UK, it may well produce 3X tons of C02 in Asia or Africa. Then it also costs C02 in transporting the widgets to the UK. In this instance the UK does not get tax revenue, and C02 emissions have tripled. A lose lose situation.

Consumers may also revert to unhealthy and C02 producing activities such as burning coal at home for heat.

So then you would also need to tax imports for perceived C02, and also tax precursors for C02 (coal) rather than just emissions.

Meanwhile the poor are rioting in the streets (see Paris this past week).

It's a global problem, you need a global solution backed up by treaty commitments, and presumably an inspection regime (similar to the IAEA).

Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm pretty fatalistic that anything will actually be done, but pretending for the sake of argument that we cared about the world our children will inherit, what would you propose?

I am also fatalistic about global treaties of any major consequence.

So failing that I would start with low hanging fruit. Convince countries with low populations but high per capita C02 emissions to switch to sustainable power. Especially countries that are increasing. Trinidad and Tobago have a small population (1.3 million) but have the second highest per capita and its increasing. I assume they are burning far to much diesel and have some issues getting natural gas supplies, or maybe corruption is causing buyers to buy diesel and not natural gas. Maybe the global community can come up with a solution.

Saudi Arabia (for all their other problems) is high on that list but sees the writing on the wall and is investing in solar. If it makes sense for them financially and in terms of stability, it probably also makes sense for Qatar and Kuwait to burn less oil and build solar.

Next I would look at countries that do not have a high per capita, but are increasing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

I guess that's a good starting place, but we have ~11 years to cut global emissions by 50% -- I don't know if you can do that off the back of Trinidad and Tobago.

It's so bad people focus only on CO2. Focusing only on one gas will likely boost solutions that promote generation of other not great for environment gases like NO2. That has already happened with diesels. Diesel emits much more NO2 (~4x) and PM (up to 20x) than standard engine.

They don't. There's been plenty of information, study and discussion of the other greenhouse gasses, especially methane.

As CO2 is the main contributor it's reasonable it gets most of the focus.

What would you focus on?

Regarding focus for each technology, evaluate its environmental impact in full - total toxicity on all stages - obtaining raw resources, initial production, deployment, use, maintenance over 10-20 years, lastly decomissioning/deactivating. There's been too many wrongdoings by good intentions. Focus on diesels that at least used to emit much more NO2 and PM than gasoline cars [1]. Or biofuels that were proven to be energy-negative overall and contributed much to the increase of food prices, also boosting burning forests to grow corn in South America.

[1] http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really...

I'd love to read data that diesels didn't pollute more than gasoline cars. It's been a huge thing in EU some time ago when governments had to switch their incentives due to those findings. Are you saying it was all a hoax?

Seems like he's talking about climate change, whereas you are talking about polution more generally. NO2 isn't really relevant to global warming, but isn't healthy.

In the case of diesel cars, as I recall, the manufacturers built sports diesel engines that were much more polluting than normal older diesel engines. They then lied that they were still okay due to 'technology' which turned out to be detecting by GPS that the car was at a government test center and making it run like an old engine. Total fraud.

When the fraud was found out, all those diesel sports cars were treated as super polluters because they were.

But NO2 and small particles are a big short term problem rather than an apocalypse, so we should look at them differently.

You are quite right in suggesting that, especially with a lot of lobbying going on, we should look critically at all proposals. The popularity of biofuels maybe being linked to the farming lobby.

Not only the industry or workers, but CO2 taxes, when implemented as petrol or electricity taxes, end up increasing the cost to users who don't control their own usage: petrol is required to commute to work, electricity is required for home necessity, etc.

And the other side of the imbalance: the only way to mitigate these taxes is a large depreciating capital investment in an electric car or home battery. Those who can't afford the investment suffer the worst of the tax.

Maybe, but I just don't understand how a politician can come up with a plan like this:

"Hey, you know what, why don't we make everything more expensive, so that we can do more than everybody else in solving a problem that is global, is caused mostly by other people, and doesn't really affect us that much yet?"

I mean, there are things you do because you have to do them, because they're the right thing: and yet maybe they're not what excites you most. Especially when you're trying to sell the idea to a continent that has much more serious, immediate, specific problems: increasing divide between rich and poor regions, excessive regulation, corruption, falling economic competitiveness, negligible political weight on a global scale, etc. To me, the fact that a problem so vast and abstract is put in front of others, so obvious and compelling, is already the sign of a serious departure from reality.

The reasoning you're outlining is pretty much why I don't think climate change will be addressed in any meaningful way.

The recent UN report says we have 11 years to cut global emissions by 50%. It's extremely unlikely that will happen: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...

As you say, everyone will continue focusing on "immediate, specific" problems, and then it will be too late (if it's not too late already). Our children and grandchildren will suffer droughts, wars and famines for our short-sightedness.

Number one reason for our grandchildren to suffer will be that there are so many of them. As long as the population grows without limit you will have wars and famines eventually.

Developed countries where women control their own fertility don't have an overpopulation problem. Maybe we could help other nations reach those milestones?

But again, realistically, not enough time.

A lot of that "overpopulation" scaremongering is purely simplistic Malthusian nonsense. Consumption doesn't scale like that with population. Per capita, large families are more efficient. Besides, the population is predicted to hit a maximum of 9 billion, and the EU is aging rapidly which is a major problem. Instead of peddling unimaginative and lazy claims about overpopulation, people should focus on real issues like the glut of consumerism and the grotesque waste of very large quantities of food.

   why don't we make everything more expensive

What is wrong with making things expensive? There are too many things being produced. If we are staying with a market solution then the only way to reduce consumption and its consequences is to price appropriately to achieve the desired behavior.

   a problem that is global, is caused mostly by other people

Europe is a leading contributor to GHG emissions. It absolutely needs to reduce its own emissions. This will have a major impact on the developing economies.

  a continent that has much more serious, immediate, specific problems

A decade to avoid the destruction of the comfortable, profitable and cosy climate we have known for millenia seems pretty damn pressing to me. You won't have to worry about any of the other trivial issues you list if it isn't sorted out.

I honestly do not know why there is not mass panic right now.

https://rebellion.earth/

> Taxing the hell out of CO2 emissions

That’ll last about 5 minutes until the French realise that it boils down to a petrol tax and start rioting again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com