Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9nGQluzmnq3M | Hacker News Reader

Incorrect: Lomborg's position is that climate change is happening, he just thinks that a) the effects will not as catastrophic as claimed and b) most of our efforts to fight it are meaningless wastes of money.

"Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world." -Lomborg

View on HN

Gas should be $20 per gallon. (see economic model below). So b) is super interesting to me.

Obama’s former Chief Economist, Michael Greenstone at U. Chicago studies the social cost of carbon. He modeled the cost of carbon at around $2,000 per ton. That means a gallon of gas “costs” society $20.

Which is a multiple of the current price of a gallon (~$4) today. This isn’t a 10% or 20% tax on gas, this is a nuts and bolts rebuilding of society.

I’m excited to be a part of it. I can understand how some would find that unwinnable or overwhelming. But to me the climate is the largest business opportunity civilization has ever seen.

Luckily you don't have to be that extreme. Carbon sequestration costs between $100 and $600 per ton. So if you set a carbon tax at $2000 per ton everybody would sequester and nobody would pay the tax and gas would be $6 - $10 per gallon. Which would be the carbon tax and the market economy working as designed. Awesome, and it's incredible we aren't doing it.

And going to the point of the article. $20/pound hamburger would have very similar results. ($20 number completely made up)

Hey right on, that’s a nice twist, appreciate it! That’s obvious to me now that you say it but wasn’t before. Yes, there’s the beginnings of a market ceiling to the price. We need to get the supply of that $100-$600 capture up. Either using it for new products or burying it. Thanks again!

> And going to the point of the article. $20/pound hamburger would have very similar results.

Isn't that about where we are? That's $10 for half and $5 for a 'quarter-pounder'?

> ($20 number completely made up)

Oh. What's the point of / how can you meaningfully discuss the 'results' of a made-up number?

Not sure how well that would go over with the average American, suddenly seeing their usual $200-$300'ish monthly bill on gas suddenly change to $2000 - $3000/month.

And who would get all that extra tax revenue? I assume the US Government, but does anyone have any belief that the US Government would actually put that money towards carbon offsets?

I’m not saying the tax you propose will ever happen, I don’t think it could or necessarily should.

This is a model of the real social cost of carbon. Which means someone will pay it, maybe not you or me though, and maybe not right now. And that cost may go up.

If it cost me 10x to fill my 500 gallon propane tank, well it's back to burning wood/cutting down trees for me.

If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings. Mature trees (especially coniferous trees) are fairly carbon neutral because they suppress undergrowth. Seedlings capture tons of carbon. So the tax would incentivize emitting much less net carbon. That's the point.

>If you're not being stupid about it, you're cutting down mature trees and not trampling the volunteer seedlings.

Most of the time I can drive around my family's property and find many trees that have already fallen and are down without having to even cut mature trees. It's just the extra work that goes into it rather than calling up the gas company for a refill. I am lucky and my great grandpa/family has been passing the farm/land down through the generations and now it's a 'family' farm with about 1500 acres, and about 2/3 of that is forest with trails.

Worst case scenario I contract out some kids/young adults in the area to cut/haul/stack my wood if I am short on time and unable to get enough for the winter myself.

Lots of Maple trees in Upper Michigan :D

Even better. Deadfall will rot, releasing its carbon anyways.

Yes but if you burn them....

The comparison is to burning natural gas.

CO2 is not the only type of pollution. Particulate is a lot worse in most ways. And it's also a lot more noticeable. Heck it's probably even as bad or worse for the climate.

Washington had a revenue neutral carbon tax on the ballot in 2016 and that was (imo unfortunately) rejected by voters. The revenue for the carbon tax would have funded a reduction in the sales tax: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Carbon_Emission_Tax_and_S...

> And who would get all that extra tax revenue?

The proposals that seem to be taken most seriously are for a "revenue neutral" tax. The money collected is distributed back to the public, with each person receiving an equal share.

Stop trying to make everything a "business opportunity". There will always be a competitive advantage in exploiting people and destroying the environment. People don't burn down rainforests for the fun of it.

If civilization is going to survive it's because we collectively recognize the destructive nature of markets based around profits and start doing things for the sake of life.

How dare you question the will of free markets and the dictatorship of capital. The Invisible Hand will somehow make sure everything works out just fine in the end, I'm sure of it.

Huh I guess we aren't post-religion society after all.

$20/gallon gas may be a "business opportunity" for some but it will have the vast majority of capitalists screaming at the top of their lungs.

If you want to combat capitalism and big corporate you directly hit it where it hurts, in their profits. Adding rules and regulations and outright bans just induces regulatory capture and ends up strengthening big corporations. A carbon tax is the most effective means for combating climate change because it's so straightforward and because it provides direct pressure on capitalism's precious markets.

And if you simply refund the money to citizens, you preserve the market's ability to self relate instead of picking winners and losers through subsidies and regulations.

Maybe increasing gas prices will favor electric cars, maybe we'll see a resurgence in hydrogen or other alternative fuel sources, idk. What I do know is that polluting will be less attractive and we'll see innovations.

> Obama’s former Chief Economist, Michael Greenstone at U. Chicago studies the social cost of carbon. He modeled the cost of carbon at around $2,000 per ton. That means a gallon of gas “costs” society $20.

Do you have a source for this? He cited much lower estimates in his Congressional testimony: https://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/Greenstone%20S...

> But to me the climate is the largest business opportunity civilization has ever seen.

I nominate this for "Most telling HN comment of 2019".

But it is not the end of the world.

True, it might only be global catastrophe that will take generations to recover from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com