Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanlarsen | Hacker News Reader

My climate change plan is simple: a ratcheting carbon fee with dividend[1], together with a carbon tariff as part of a climate club[2]

The industries where it's easy will take the easy way to avoid the carbon fee.

The industries where it's hard will pay the fee but will see the ratchet coming and will be furiously researching alternatives. Worse come to worse, at some point the fee will be more than sequestration costs so they'll take that option.

I don't have to talk about any specific industry like steel because there is always sequestration as a backstop.

edit: of course my plan only works because there are lots of people like the companies Bill Gates linked to working on the details.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend 2: https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/

View on HN

Agreed on both points. If you want to help make Carbon Fee and Dividend a reality, check out citizensclimatelobby.org

"Fee"? "Dividend"? That's not a plan to stop and reverse climate change, that's a plan for financiers and capitalists to trade in the blame for continuing climate change.

No no, emissions need to be cut - for real. There need to be schedules and (tax-based) funding to help make this happen. And - an expropriation of intellectual property so that technologies developed to help this happen aren't controlled by any single company or cartel - or nation.

You seem to be agreeing violently. A carbon fee + dividend takes money away from people who pollute, and gives it to people who don't. That's essentially tax funded emissions reduction - pollute less and the government will give you money. And schedules? The ratchet covers that.

You make a good point about the intellectual property, though. The system will still work without such precautions, though - eventually if polluting became expensive enough, relevant technology would be licensed.

> that's a plan for financiers and capitalists to trade in the blame for continuing climate change.

Are you confusing fee& dividend with cap&trade?

No, but also kind of yes. That is, if there's a carbon task, the financial system may very well distribute its load among many people (perhaps even indirectly onto regular people through their retirement benefits or what-not). If the plan does not absolute positively require emission reduction, period, then it's not good enough.

The plan takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It could also be called a "Carbon Tax & Benefit". But instead we use right-friendly words for a very left-friendly plan.

You can take from the rich and give to the poor all day long - but that in itself doesn't reduce emissions. The rich will pay some taxes, or more probably, evade them, offshore stuff etc, and emissions will continue.

The rich can hide money, but it's a lot harder for them to hide consumption, and the carbon tax is a consumption tax.

So what? So they'll pay consumption tax. They're rich, after all, they can afford it.

Cool, now the price of steel skyrockets and brings up the cost of everything that uses steel. Maybe we can find a way to do this in a less economically violent way?

You can spend trillions on reduction or you can spend trillions on adaptation or you can die. There's no cheap option.

Maybe we can find a way to do this in a less economically violent way?

If you accept that we need to lower carbon emissions then that means we will need to stop doing some things. Yes some people will be worse off, others better off. Given that change is coming anyway we might as well be on top of it rather than dragged along screaming and kicking.

This is the less economically violent way. The earlier we take action the cheaper it is going to be in the long term.

No, just no. adding extra taxes will not do anything to solve the climate problem. It will only put first world countries at a disadvantage to 2nd and third world who will continue along using coal and other cheaper forms of energy.

Why would I pay more taxes just to have them come back to me? No. Just no!

> It will only put first world countries at a disadvantage

My second link is a plan to avoid this free-rider problem

Technically the oil company or steel importer would be paying the taxes, you would just be paying increased prices for consumer goods and electricity.

And think about it: if I fly across the country on a private jet, or heat my mansion to 80 degrees throughout the new England winter, or build a million cars to sell overseas, I am doing harm to you and your loved ones. I should reimburse you. And that's exactly what this policy is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com