Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
""...and the people who consume their products. Like you. "
"adherence to honesty-in-advertising would put a giant dent in that problem for a measly investment... "
The best way to be honest about the emissions is a simple revenue neutral carbon tax.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
Revenue neutral ... huh... so, you mean a regressive tax on the poor who consume the products of the companies that produce the products (emissions) at a higher rate per capita that the rich?
And here I thought you all cared...
You tax the emissions of companies, you tax the consumer.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Everyone should pay for the external costs of their emissions. No exceptions. There is no sacred right to pollute. All policies with loopholes would be gamed.
To make it revenue neutral, the money should be used to lower taxes on the working & middle class, so that Warren Buffet and Donald Trump's employees are no longer in a higher total tax bracket than them.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
Carbon tax schemes are nothing more than rearranging deck chairs. Only an internationally agreed mandate to phase out fossil fuels by a date-certain will work IMO. Government should regulate--not participate.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Our existing policy of no carbon fee is a far worse version of shifting deck chairs (with high emissions users forcing their impacts on everyone else). A revenue neutral carbon fee is at least a much better version that gets us in position to be able to ban fossil fuels in the long run.
A ban is great in the long run, but does very little for many decades. You need a phase-in plan. In the shorter run, requirements like in California for a rising percentage of green electricity can work. But how do you cut use of fossil fuels for cars and building heating? Are you going to restrict the supply - causing massive strife? A supply restriction without a demand restriction just means the price of fuel would double or triple, with all the profit still going to fossil fuel companies. People would continue to burn fossil fuels for their existing petroleum cars and heated buildings, unless this is disincentivized. Simple taxes are more effective than complicated policies and subsidies to incentivize the worst users to use less fossil fuels, and gradually willingly switch to alternatives.
As you say, the RNCF (revenue neutral carbon fee) does need to be Global.
That may be difficult and will require global enforcement penalties. But at this point, due to top naysayer deniers like the USA, we haven't even tried.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
I'll bet if USA signed onto a treaty that said, for example, no coal plants operating after 2050 and, say, no new internal combustion engines produced after 2040 (except aviation turbines), the market would find a way to make it happen. Volvo is already on the path.
Of course, govt would have to quickly permit the alternatives--new dams, nuclear plants, wind, solar, tidal projects. Replacing dense carbon energy won't be free.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
I'd love to see either or both of these approaches! Or anything nationwide/global. However, regulatory history shows that absolute solutions die by a thousand cuts of exceptions, starting with the jet engine turbines (what about smaller planes, both private and public - including water bombers for firefighting? then the next exception, and another, and pretty soon not much gets done).
I agree it also needs to be urgent to thoroughly vet the alternatives and get on the best ones immediately. All of the highly centralized ones have major issues to resolve. There probably aren't enough (maybe not any) suitable sites for enough hydroelectric dams to replace much of our electricity needs, especially when you consider the climatic uncertainties and likelihood that higher variability is one of few things that we can be sure will be in our future. Nuclear could certainly be made safe to operate if we really wanted to, but waste disposal seems to be a fatal flaw in that approach: we haven't made any progress on that at all in all these 50 or 60 years. (Though to be fair, all the vast amounts of coal fly ash that are currently already released into the environment in one way or another are responsible for more radioactive pollution than all the nuclear plants combined...)
Solar and wind options are currently the most scalable, and are suitable for either distributed (on your own house or factory) or centralized power generation, though these also have adverse impacts (not as large as not trying to ameliorate climate change at all). Tidal is interesting, especially suitable since so many large cities are located on coasts.
Then there are the very real consequences of mining all the minerals for batteries. Mostly readily mitigated, you just have to do it and price it into the energy cost. Basically a clean up your own mess kind of approach. Which fossil fuel industries absolutely are not doing.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
read that a fuel rod is 'spent' when its measured output falls 8% below that of when new...
Good thing it can be reprocessed over and over and over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
TLP, the reason I excepted aviation is that there is no conceived alternative for the status quo re power and speed. Nitrogen-based fertilizer is another big one with huge inputs that can't be found elsewhere.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"say, no new internal combustion engines produced after 2040"
Unless you disincentive it, people will keep the old ones running for another 70 years, same as Cuba.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
life is short, hot and hard. the sand is cool and soft, easier to bury the head.
longer-form: escapism costs gasoline, for me. not really tryin' to reproduce or anything, and the reality is that the human cockroach will probably abide, as does the Earth, and the Dude, and stuff.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
Unless you disincentive it, people will keep the old ones running for another 70 years, same as Cuba.
The disincentive would likely be baked into the macro-economics of a petrol industry now a shadow of its former self. Gasoline would be expensive and scarce. IC engine cars would be a hobby.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
I totally get the rationale for excepting aviation, and agree there's no plausible alternative right now. But it's the camel's nose. The folks that own the governments of several major countries including the U.S. and Russia like their planes and helicopters, they'll get their exceptions, and then we're off to the races. Agriculture (which also has a big ownership stake in government) will also maintain it's infeasible to maintain our level of food production without ICEs, or will just keep running them for a century anyway. And we all have to eat, no? And on and on. Yes we should have some hard targets, but history shows that's not effective by itself.
That's where a combination approach can help keep things on track. Carbon tax has its downsides too. Ideally it should be returned to the lower end of the income scale who tend to be more affected both by consumption taxes and by climate effects, but then we'll hear about, oh, some of it should help mitigate climate effects... and that part will end up being diverted to high-end housing on coasts and other stupid places.
So, no matter what, a lot of vigilance and dedication to the goal is required. But the first and most important step is what we see right here: acknowledge there's a big problem and start talking about doing something about it. Soon! Thanks to all for their informative and thoughtful posts.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Ah, so you have ended up agreeing with me and refuting yourself.
"The disincentive would likely be baked into the macro-economics of a petrol industry now a shadow of its former self. Gasoline would be expensive and scarce. IC engine cars would be a hobby."
What happened to your silly claims that expensive gas is a bad thing?
If it gets expensive due to an RNCF you say it's bad.
But if it's expensive due to these vague shadow bakings and magical hobbys, that is a good thing.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
What happened to your silly claims that expensive gas is a bad thing?
If it gets expensive due to an RNCF you say it's bad.
But if it's expensive due to these vague shadow bakings and magical hobbys, that is a good thing.
Again, for your benefit, Splater, a carbon tax simply puts govt into bed with producers. Not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this. In any event, not sure why you're sniping; we're basically on the same side re thread topic, right?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2018 - 09:36am PT
|
All those blue Californicators are a bunch of hypocrites. They are too uncaring to bother to
recycle their cellphones so they just throw away 42,000 per day!
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2018 - 10:35am PT
|
Malemute's right; but not going hard after fuel efficiency is not just a climate disconnect, it is bad for the consumer public, and bad for business interests. It's monumentally idiotic.
For example, over the time period I've owned my current work vehicle, a 10% difference in mpg would amount to a fuel cost difference of about $4000, which is roughly 20% of the vehicle price paid. Paying more for a vehicle that gets better mileage pencils out as a big savings over time. Not to mention climate and air quality benefits.
The rest of the world is a big market for vehicles, and they are not so dimwitted. US executives might figure that in the short run their stock options are worth more if they don't invest to be able to compete on mileage, but in the long run we lose out to the rest of the world; they'll eat our lunch, dinner, and dessert too.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2018 - 05:47pm PT
|
del cross, well, those are the numbers for my vehicle. Actual miles driven, and the 10% difference in amount of fuel to drive that distance, multiplied by a price per gallon that's representative of recent years, in the two states where I drive (mostly). It's not perfect; gas price was lower when I bought the vehicle, and it's much higher out in the boonies. I paid about $20K for it, and the cumulative gas cost for a 10% difference in mileage is roughly $4K. For a 20% difference in mileage, double that.
Vehicles cost a lot more than they did then, and it's possible the added cost of a hybrid wouldn't pay off unless you keep it for decades. If we were really paying the total cost, including health and environmental damages like increased costs of fires and floods and storms, fuel efficiency would be a gigantic bargain.
Edited to add: by far the most spiff platform for vehicles is the one used by the Chevy Volt, and there's now a pickup truck (Workforce is the brand I think). These are fully electric vehicles with an onboard gas-powered generator once your charge is used up. Even when running entirely on the gas generator, I think the mileage is way better than a comparable gas ICE vehicle (not sure). Then factor in that you can charge it from your solar panels, and it's a good plan.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!