Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpao79 | Hacker News Reader

Does this proposal from a conservative group represent a good solution?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca...

https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...

If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would:

- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world.

- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.

Would love to hear other people's opinions.

View on HN

A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well, it

- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.

- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?).

It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.

I feel as though you may be implying the carbon tax is applied to industry and in policy that's correct, but in practice the carbon tax is passed onto the consumer. Sometimes unashamedly so. I'm not saying it's a bad thing mind you, less consumption is what we need.

Australia trialled this. I say trialled, because our government has been such a flip flop of agendas (and indeed leaders) for nearly a decade and it was only around for 3 years before being repealed. No doubt we'll see it again soon, and I look forward to rehashing the same tired debates, albeit in slightly warmer weather, when that occurs.

Of course it's passed on to the consumer.

Then some company works out how to do the same thing in a less carbon intensive way, and it's cheaper.

That's the whole point. This isn't fixable without pain, no matter how people pretend.

I totally agree, and alluded to that in my comment. I just felt like perhaps the comment I replied to was implying that industry bares the cost.

Whether we figure out a less carbon intensive way or just consume less, I think we can agree the benefits are the same.

I have a pet theory that we've reached a kind of "Peak Comfort". While commerce and industry yearns for more revenue, I hope that at some point the average consumer will start to say "Hey, this is probably enough comfort for me, I should focus on other things in my life." Whether that manifests in using less electricity, buying fewer fancy technology bits or sticking with their current car a few more years. Perhaps that is a naive hope, I am not sure.

"This isn't fixable without pain..."

Reducing waste (CO2) will boost profits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)

Industry is asking for a carbon tax. There are few holdouts, for political and personal reasons. Namely, fear and ignorance.

If it did, they would already have.

If short term thinking, externalizing costs and psychopathology would not exist, maybe. But not as is.

You're right, but the dividend portion of the plan linked in the top parent is meant to address the consumer's added cost. Poorer people would see higher benefit since they spend the least on carbon products but the revenue is returned equally.

Also see this paper, which is actually arguing for a slightly different system called cap-and-dividend but with the same outcome in mind: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/worki...

A plan such as tax-and-dividend or cap-and-dividend also breaches the political divide and shows that both sides can get what they want in a single sensible system. Yes, certain lawmakers will still spitefully resist as they always do.

When the consumer has a choice in products, the costs of each integrates the carbon costs to the environment. When all options have heavy carbon taxes it encourages new product development.

Sounds about right.

I think the idea put forth in the Conservatives for Climate Change Action is that instead of the proceeds from the carbon tax accessed on US carbon producers (and indirectly average US consumers/citizens) going to developing countries for unspecified environmental activity (Obama pledge the US would provide $1B to developing countries), the carbon tax proceeds would be pumped back into the US economy via annual $4000 dividend going to average US consumers/citizens.

$1B is pocket change. $1B divided over the US population is about $3 (once? or per year? it doesn't matter).

So... US citizens get a $3997 dividend. Or slightly less, if we want to fund research into say, Thorium reactors, smarter power grids, solar cells, power storage, wind, etc.

And what additional efforts should we take to reduce the validity of any Birther's claims that Obama was actually born in Kenya? Obama releasing his birth certificate made as much difference as the National Climate Assessment leaking this report. What more evidence will they demand before graciously changing their minds to fit the facts? Don't those people's unfounded politically motivated conspiracy theories deserve just as much respect as the claims of climate change deniers, too? /s

I don't know why this is being downvoted when it's the key point: disbelief in climate change is a matter of political allegiance, not "validity" in the normal sense.

You understood my point exactly. Sarcasm aside, Obamacare is "a proposal from a conservative group", too.

The people who lie about Obamacare are the exact same people who lie about global warming, and the exact same people who lie about Obama being born in Kenya and being a Muslim. Their motivations for all of those lies are exactly the same: identity politics and demonstrating political allegiance.

They're mendacious unsupportable lies uninformed and unaffected by evidence, because they very well know and cherish the fact that what they say is not true, yet they hysterically pretend to believe it, and scoff and ignore all evidence to the contrary, so no amount of appeasement or logical argument or irrefutable proof will change their minds, and they will only Gish Gallop faster and demand even more irrefutable evidence, just to waste your time. Don't fall for their trap.

The bald faced liar who decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is the exact same sociopath who said about Obama being born in Kenya: “I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump told host Meredith Vieira. “You have people now down there searching, I mean in Hawaii?” she asked. “Absolutely,” he replied. “And they cannot believe what they’re finding.” [1] And there is absolutely no evidence that he ever sent any investigators to Hawaii [2], just like there is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. Evidence doesn't matter.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/birther-bonkers-don...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hawaii-inve...

When ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked him about the investigators later that month, Trump refused to say what they had found.

“It’s none of your business right now,” he said. “We are going to see what happens.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper also confronted him about the investigation that month.

“Can you name even one person who your investigators have talked to?” Cooper asked.

“I don’t want to do that right now,” Trump said. “It’s not appropriate right now.”

Tana Goertz, Trump’s Iowa campaign chair and a former “Apprentice” contestant, said last year that the candidate would reveal his findings “when the time is right.”

“He’s never told you about it? You’ve never asked him about it? It was unbelievable and you weren’t curious about it?” asked MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.

“Never was curious once, because he’s not a liar. If they found something, it will come out. The time isn’t right, and guess what? Mr. Trump does what he wants and he’s not going to do it on our time,” she replied.

This sounds like a great idea. The best part is it gets the government out of managing, so that the market can best operate based on properly-aligned incentives.

There is one thing I didn't understand:

"American companies exporting to countries without comparable carbon pricing would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they’ve paid on those products"

Wouldn't that subsidise and hence encourage exports to these counties? That would benefit the economy of those countries. I don't think that is desired.

Consumption is already subsidized in those countries by not internalizing the carbon externality. The border adjustment puts US exports on a level playing field with other products in that country, saving the distortionary effects of imbalanced taxes. Meanwhile, the import tax adjustment makes sure that goods from that non-complying country aren't at an unfair advantage.

But of course optimally all countries pass a similar carbon tax in the medium term so border adjustments are unnecessary.

I'm not sure more subsidies are the best way to combat subsidies. I worry such export subsidies will cause consumers in those countries to increase consumption and make those countries reluctant to pass a similar tax.

Those countries already have outsized consumption because carbon externalities are not priced in. Failing to border adjust a domestic US carbon tax would incentivize them to import less, not necessarily consume less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com