Hacker News Reader

Comment by p_j_w | Hacker News Reader

Not sure if a price that "starts small" is enough at this point. It may have been 15 years ago, but it seems like now it won't be enough to stave off a massive disaster. If there's only political will to start small, then obviously we should do that. It seems like the can kicking of the past has come to bite us in the ass, though, and these sorts of actions will not do it.

View on HN

Given the uncertainty of climate effects, we should actually be starting very very very high, and then bringing it down as we have more certainty about the worst case effects. I need to find that paper from financial analysts that say that simpler, more politically achievable schemes with low starting prices completely mismodel the financial risk...

Unless you're advocating some kind of fundamental change in our systems of economy and government it seems kind of pointless to point out how a plan which has no hope of making it through might be better.

Any sort of carbon tax has no hope at all in the US! But pointing out that the optimal form is also the least politically acceptable is, IMHO, important for choosing how we address climate change and what sort of policies we choose.

Because "no hope" in politics can become "certain outcome" with only a few switches in influencers. The US is subject to minority veto in all of its national legislation, so if the Koch influence were to cease, or if there was a (shocking) change of heart from that huge influence on the minority political power that is the roadblock to a carbon tax, that could all change.

A small price now, combined with projections that it will rise substantially over time will still affect the calculations of any major capital purchase. Of course, convincing people the price will rise is made difficult by the lack of seriousness to date.

Gasoline should be at least $25/gallon by now. So putting that aside, large-scale investment in nuclear seems to be the best option.

With a $5/gallon tax, you could pay $600/ton for direct air capture of carbon. This is the current price for small test installations. There are claims that this could decrease to as little as $40/ton with scale.

Any literature on this? I've not really followed the idea of carbon capture (other than planting forests and stuff).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com