The Environmental Catastrophe of Green Technology - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15262897
Steve_American wrote:
A carbon tax can be passed onto someone else by corps. A carbon tax will not change the behavior of the very rich who think they are entitled to own private jets.

So, IMHO, you haven't started until you have a strict rationing system. It could have levels so the rich do live better than the poor, but it needs to reduce everyone's consumption a lot.



The rich will dilute that until it's a ghost.

You've never seen rationing, I have, and it doesn't work for shit on something this big and diverse.

Taxes work.
#15262898
XogGyux wrote:
Carbon tax only works if there is an alternative. If you tax it, but people don't get an alternative, they will just pay more, be more unhappy, have more social and political unrest.



Most Americans drive trucks, or other good sized vehicles. I drive a Prius... When gas gets expensive, people buy fuel efficient vehicles. Taxes work.

Our economy is built around cheap fuel. That won't change until they are 'encouraged'. This is something Europe did a half century ago...
#15262921
late wrote:Most Americans drive trucks, or other good sized vehicles. I drive a Prius... When gas gets expensive, people buy fuel efficient vehicles. Taxes work.

Our economy is built around cheap fuel. That won't change until they are 'encouraged'. This is something Europe did a half century ago...

What you are describing is not really a CO2 tax but rather a fuel tax, and seems to be rather out of spite because "some people just want big cars". I don't see that as the best way forward. For one, you end up hurting those that also have a big car but because they need it. You hurt the contractor that has a van to carry his tools and heavy equipment, you hurt the plumber that has a pickup truck. And for the most part, these people don't have a viable alternative. There is only 1 pickup electric car in the market (the F150 lightning) and it is expensive as fuck, and not widely available (if you want to buy it, you go into a waiting list). So there is no solution for this anytime soon.
From reading your post, it seems your main motivation is to punish the silly soccer mom that bought an unreasonably large SUV or the silly accountant that bought a F150 even though he does not have a use for the flatbed. While it would not be unreasonable to somehow de-incentivize them to do so.... there is no good method to de-incentivize without also harming a whole bunch of people that truly don't have another choice. And, you always run the risk of making these unreasonable behemoths into "status symbols". A real CO2 tax would tax an electric vehicle at a higher $$ out of the dealership because building an electric vehicle emits more CO2... Sure, overtime it will make up the difference, but meantime you are going to be passing down that cost to the buyers... it may make the transition even slower.
I am not convinced that pursuing this is the best way forward. A proper carbon tax lends itself to exportation of your carbon emissions... to countries that don't give a fuck about how much carbon they put out. Even in the US, California with all its green energy initiative, they import a bunch of electricity, claim they are zero carbon and then other states that produce that electricity are doing so with coal. Do you think the planet gives a fuck if you burn the coal in California vs another state? No. It would have been better to have a natural gas plant within California proper, than importing coal electricity from a neighboring state, for instance.
These sorts of ban/taxes/etc approaches lend themselves to this sort of cheating. I don't give a crap about "perceived CO2 emission reductions" I only care about "real CO2 emission reductions".
I remain skeptical about CO2 tax.
#15262931
XogGyux wrote:
What you are describing is not really a CO2 tax but rather a fuel tax

I remain skeptical about CO2 tax.



As I said, it would apply to all carbon based fuels, based on the amount of carbon they emit.

Like most people, you want to let someone else deal with it for you. Excuses are pretty much all I see.
#15262943
late wrote:As I said, it would apply to all carbon based fuels, based on the amount of carbon they emit.

Like most people, you want to let someone else deal with it for you. Excuses are pretty much all I see.

Everything generates CO2. We process some iron ore and smelt some steel = CO2 released in the process, we pump some water to drink = CO2 released, we raise a field of lettuce and harvest it = CO2 released. So essentially, you are proposing a tax on consumption. Consumption taxes are regressive, poorer people are affected disproportionally due to a larger percentage of their income needed to address basic necessities.

This is the equivalent of dieting not by cutting down your food intake or exercising, but by asking fat people to put 20c for each meal they eat and donate it. I guess you could tax the fatty into famine, but short of that, if you don't address the supply/demand part of the equation (food intake/exercise expenditure) you are not going to get great results.

The price of gas in the US briefly went to around $4-5 USD last year after Russia invaded Ukraine and people were losing their minds but continued their lives otherwise unchanged. I am not convinced at all that CO2 tax is helpful. I think it will screw up the less affluent people. Big corporations are going to move their factories to 3rd-word countries that cannot refuse because they need to survive, and we will end up releasing even more CO2 because of the costs of transportation and/or poorer/developing countries having more percentage of coal plants vs renewable.

I believe on targetting problems at the source of the problem. The problem is that burning fossil fuels is releasing CO2. The solution is to get other technologies that do the same as fossils, but that has less CO2 emissions.
Where is the "bang for the buck", the bang for the buck is in energy grids. Transportation at this point should not be the priority. What is the advantage of gasoline and diesel as compared to solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear? The advantage is that hydrocarbons are very energy dense. Meaning, you can generate a lot of energy from a relatively small volume/weight of the product. You cannot power a truck with solar panels. You can put some sails on a boat and power it... we have done that for centuries, but I doubt we will get much traction into going forward. And as much as I'd like to have a nuclear reactor on my honda accord, I am certain the EPA, the Department of defense and the department of energy are going to have some objections. Luckily, we don't care that much for power plants. They can be as heavy and large as they need to be since we don't have to carry them around. So we can use all of those alternative fuels.
#15262946
XogGyux wrote:
Everything generates CO2. We process some iron ore and smelt some steel = CO2 released in the process, we pump some water to drink = CO2 released, we raise a field of lettuce and harvest it = CO2 released. So essentially, you are proposing a tax on consumption. Consumption taxes are regressive, poorer people are affected disproportionally due to a larger percentage of their income needed to address basic necessities.

This is the equivalent of dieting not by cutting down your food intake or exercising, but by asking fat people to put 20c for each meal they eat and donate it. I guess you could tax the fatty into famine, but short of that, if you don't address the supply/demand part of the equation (food intake/exercise expenditure) you are not going to get great results.

The price of gas in the US briefly went to around $4-5 USD last year after Russia invaded Ukraine and people were losing their minds but continued their lives otherwise unchanged. I am not convinced at all that CO2 tax is helpful. I think it will screw up the less affluent people. Big corporations are going to move their factories to 3rd-word countries that cannot refuse because they need to survive, and we will end up releasing even more CO2 because of the costs of transportation and/or poorer/developing countries having more percentage of coal plants vs renewable.

I believe on targetting problems at the source of the problem. The problem is that burning fossil fuels is releasing CO2. The solution is to get other technologies that do the same as fossils, but that has less CO2 emissions.
Where is the "bang for the buck", the bang for the buck is in energy grids. Transportation at this point should not be the priority. What is the advantage of gasoline and diesel as compared to solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear? The advantage is that hydrocarbons are very energy dense. Meaning, you can generate a lot of energy from a relatively small volume/weight of the product. You cannot power a truck with solar panels. You can put some sails on a boat and power it... we have done that for centuries, but I doubt we will get much traction into going forward. And as much as I'd like to have a nuclear reactor on my honda accord, I am certain the EPA, the Department of defense and the department of energy are going to have some objections. Luckily, we don't care that much for power plants. They can be as heavy and large as they need to be since we don't have to carry them around. So we can use all of those alternative fuels.



"If you want to change behavior, change the price."

The problem with your "targets" is that you need to motivate people to use them. The genius of the Carbon Tax is it lets the market solve the problem.

It's certainly not the only tool in the chest, it's just the first real step.
#15262947
late wrote:"If you want to change behavior, change the price."

The problem with your "targets" is that you need to motivate people to use them. The genius of the Carbon Tax is it lets the market solve the problem.

It's certainly not the only tool in the chest, it's just the first real step.

No lol. Taxing carbon is the opposite of letting the market solve the problem. You are in fact, interfering. So it is by definition, not letting the market fix the problem.
#15262977
XogGyux wrote:
No lol. Taxing carbon is the opposite of letting the market solve the problem. You are in fact, interfering. So it is by definition, not letting the market fix the problem.



The Carbon Tax was dreamed up by conservative economists as a market based approach to deal with climate change.

"Economists—both liberal and conservative—love carbon taxes. The levies, they say, would create market incentives for people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and, more important, encourage the development of new “clean” technology."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/?sh=230c99de4338

It is painfully clear you love your excuses, but do you really want to escape into a fantasy?
#15262991
late wrote:The Carbon Tax was dreamed up by conservative economists as a market based approach to deal with climate change.

And everyone knows two things that we can blindly trust conservatives to do is economic policies and environmental judiciousness :lol: .
If the sarcastic tone above did not manifest sufficiently strong enough through the internet, let me assure you I don't buy it.

Let me make it clear. I have no objection with taxing people to fund green projects. In fact, I support it. But do it the right way. Don't try to sneak in some sort of regressive consumption tax to trick people and create a nebulous system of fraud and lack of accountability. Get the government to collect money from its people and to directly fund those projects that are beneficial.

late wrote:
You do realise it's been done?

But if you have something better...

I am a cynical man. When I see these sorts of complex schemes, all I see is a lot of opportunity for scammers/leechers to abuse the system in their benefit by tricking other people with good intentions but little knowledge into doing stupid shit while at the same time believing they are saving the planet.
Remember... you are living in a planet in which people buy water packed in plastic (from hydrocarbon/fossil fuels) and shipped from an island in the fucking middle of the pacific. There is a lot of potential on those tax systems for cheating, outsourcing your carbon footprint, tricking legislators, consumers, etc. Between shady practices, technicalities, shitty legislators, shrewd lawyers... this sort of system, as far as I am concerned, is doomed to be inefficient, prone to fraud, etc.

I rather have the government taking a proactive role in this. If they need to tax (and of course they do) in the regular way to fund the projects, by all means go ahead. But use the same system of taxing citizens that already exist. We pay taxes for the better good because we need armies to defend our interests, we need the education to provide a decently prepared workforce, we need healthcare to ensure the well-being of the society, we need social security to avoid our elders dying in poverty... gues what, we also need clean energy to prevent Alberta and Berlin to become the next tropical paradises :lol: I don't see why we need to tax this in any other way other than the traditional way.
#15262996
late wrote:You do realise it's been done?


Yes, it's been done in Europe and it's a total failure & racket.

Europeans now pay the highest energy prices in the world, are the most indebted states and are totally reliant on everyone else and also have no room to do anything because they have already been using their carbon taxes to fund regular government expenditure. So all of Europe is locked into an energy quagmire with absolutely nothing to show for it.
#15262999
late wrote:You don't want to see...

What I want is to have something that makes sense and it is efficient. The more complicated you make things, the less likely you are to have accountable people that are going to genuinely help fix the problem.
We have a global supply chain. You buy a pair of shoes and the materials and manpower for those shoes as well as transportation for those shoes involve a dozen different countries, companies, and thousands of people that source their energy from many different sources. The idea that you can accurately tax the CO2 emissions of those pair of shoes is preposterous. You are going to end up with arbitrary systems that choose winners/losers based on connections and political interest and not necessarily on merit of the technology.

I like to deal with realities rather than wishes. I wish we had nuclear fusion sorted out and we could make tiny little AA battery sized cold fusion reactors that we could power our flying suits like iron man with tiny little fusion batteries. In reality, we need to deal with what we have. There is no way out of fossil that does not involve expanding nuclear substantially. That is the first step. Teslas and Prius are not going to save the planet, for one, the bloody things emit more CO2 into the atmosphere when being made, a lot more, than regular cars. Yes, at some point during their useful life, they will "break-even", but that assume you have a pretty decent bulk of CO2 neutral energy production in the grid... If you producing most of your electricity from petroleum, gas and coal, electric cars are not going to be energy neutral ever.
Did you know if we replace all coal plants in the US for natural gas, we would roughly reduce our emissions by as much as if we had doubled, or perhaps tripled, all our renewable energy? That is easy, feasible, and cheap. Yet that would likely never happen because of "environmentalists" that are not willing to see reason.
Coal emits almost twice as much CO2 than Natural gas, so just dropping the 10% of energy produced by coal and substituting it by natural gas would almost halve the emissions. What is more interesting, we produce a lot of natural gas via fracking that we just flare (we burn without using it), so it is releasing the emissions ANYWAY without us taking advantage of what would essentially be free fuel. And you might ask... why flare it at all? Well it turns out methane is 30times worse than CO2, so at least releasing the CO2 is actually an advantage. So substituting all coal plants for natural gas in the US is a win, win, win. Instead, we are talking about nebulous taxes. If I am the one that doesn't want to see... you are blind.
#15263078
XogGyux wrote:
What I want is to have something that makes sense and it is efficient. The more complicated you make things, the less likely you are to have accountable people that are going to genuinely help fix the problem.



This is so sad.

Taxes work, we've known that for millennia...

We have also known people go to great lengths to avoid taxation.

A properly constructed Carbon Tax will work, and that's the problem, from your point of view.
#15263090
noemon wrote:
Yes, it's been done in Europe and it's a total failure & racket.

Europeans now pay the highest energy prices in the world, are the most indebted states and are totally reliant on everyone else and also have no room to do anything because they have already been using their carbon taxes to fund regular government expenditure. So all of Europe is locked into an energy quagmire with absolutely nothing to show for it.

late wrote:This is so sad.

Taxes work, we've known that for millennia...

We have also known people go to great lengths to avoid taxation.

A properly constructed Carbon Tax will work, and that's the problem, from your point of view.


late wrote:
First, those aren't carbon Taxes.

Second, no one has done an incrementing tax...

Third, high gas taxes did push people into fuel efficient cars.


So what is it? It's been done... or "those aren't carbon taxes"? If it is not Europe, who has done it? The US? ROFL!, China? ROFL!.

As I have said before, I totally agree the goverment has a duty and a right to spearhead the development and implementation of "greener" technologies. And ofcourse, this this implementation will cost capital and that capital will come from taxation. I am ok with traditional means of taxation. I just think carbon taxing is a cumbersome hypercomplex method that more likely that not will lead to fraud, scams, and stupid incentives.
Take for instance water rights in california. Despite the droughts, farmers have been driven into farming crops with stupid high consumption of water (water wasting) because otherwise they might lose their rights to waters. You have to be very careful with your legislation. Now, add a hostile consortium of fossil-financed lobbyists and interests and the end result of legislation is more likely than not to contain humongous gaping holes for people to get away with murder.
We need simple, straight foward, accountable systems.
#15263092
XogGyux wrote:
So what is it?

It's been done...

or "those aren't carbon taxes"?



The Carbon Tax.

Yes.

No, if you have a tax on a single fuel, it's not a Carbon Tax.

This is devolving into one of those discussions where you want me to do your homework for you. Psst, it's called Passive/Aggressive, and it tells us you've got bupkus, nada, nothing.

@wat0n I have no idea how that is a reply to […]

XogGyux, human exploitation is a choice. It is no[…]

We hit the debt ceiling thursday

No, you can't. Borrowing is just paying higher de[…]

I think our conceptions of 'living', and 'politic[…]