Hacker News Reader

Comment by darawk | Hacker News Reader

Why don't we just put a carbon tax on...carbon?

Cows consume carbon (grass, organic matter), produce carbon (methane, other organic matter), and are composed of carbon (more organic matter). Isn't the article espousing placing a carbon tax on a form of carbon?

Ya, but why wouldn't you levy this tax equally on all carbon-generative activities? Why single out cows? I'm all in favor of taxing carbon, but we should do it in a holistic way. Not one thing at a time.

Because not all carbon-generative activities also produce methane, which is the real destructive part about beef. Also, some other carbon-generative activities (e.g. driving) are already taxed pretty heavily.

Different emissions have different levels of global warming potential. If carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of 1, then Methane has a Global Warming Potential of 28-36 over 100 years [0].

I wouldn't even single out carbon dioxide per se. If you're going to start an emissions tax and do it right, you might as well target all green house gas emissions and base the tax rate off their global warming potential which takes into account both the energy they absorb and their longevity in the atmosphere.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...

The article explains the case for this. Meat from cattle is easily substituted, gas for heating your home less-so.

Why should ease of substitution be a factor? If the goal is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, a tax on natural gas would give people an incentive to improve insulation or build smaller homes or just turn down the thermostat.

My thought is put a carbon sales tax on things that use carbon based fuels and use that to subsidize alternatives.

So, diesel and gasoline powered cars are taxed. Gas and oil burning furnaces are taxed. Raise the taxes high enough to make alternatives worth it on a capital basis.

Do you realize this would tax people for breathing?

Assuming a "Tax" is an extra percentage amount on money paid in exchange for goods/services: no this would not tax people for breathing, unless you know of someone who already pays for the privilege of breathing.

I'm fine with that. Breathing is a negative externality. If someone were to actually include breathing, it'd be an incredibly small amount relative to other human activities.

No, it wouldn’t as breathing is basically carbon neutral (on largely vegetarian diets).

I have to pay the sewer department for crapping. I get fined for crapping where I’m not supposed to. You pay for externalities where it matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com