Hacker News Reader

Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

"Europe is an exception, where cement companies have to buy allowances to cover their CO2 emissions and can save money if they produce less. But in many other countries, such as the US, policies are not in place yet to encourage cement makers to pay for greener alternatives."

That seems like a no-brainer, to build the externalities into the cost of goods.

View on HN

It only works if everyone does it, and if they do it for the majority of emissions sources. As long as all the non-europe bits of the world don't do it, it's pointless. It just makes their flood defenses more expensive to build.

Why would this not work? Its by definition a business that requires local delivery, so every potential competitor is equally affected and there is no laughing third party that benefits.

It won't work as in it won't stop climate change. If one area stops emissions (especially an already low emissions area like European concrete) it doesn't make much difference overall.

> That seems like a no-brainer, to build the externalities into the cost of goods.

The real estate business is so profitable in the West that I doubt that even adding an extra zero to the price of concrete will make them to even scratch in the end.

Yes but with a sufficient carbon price, green cement will be cheaper than traditional, hence more profitable to use.

That's not the point.

It gives cement companies an incentive to invest in greener tech because what would previously have been a pure cost now allow them to pay less taxes which means they can sell cheaper. That makes R&D into lowering emissions a competitive advantage.

Carbon taxes are extremely unpopular in the USA where many doubt the validity of climate change.

They also seem unpopular in France, see the yellow vest riots in 2018. Consumption taxes in general disproportionately affect the poor.

Carbon taxes should start out very small, and phase in gradually over the equipment replacement period (at least 20-30 years?)

Carbon taxes need to drive a shift in planning - on the planning time horizon - for everything that emits carbon

So don't pay your carbon tax into the general fund. Pay the revenue out as a dividend, equal amount per capita. If you emit less CO2 than average you come out ahead.

Poor people tend to emit quite a bit less than rich people; they buy less, ride the bus more, live in apartments or smaller houses, etc.

If you want to go down this road you should be looking at % of income spent on carbon taxes.

Maybe some “carbon allowance” would then be afforded so the lower income people that qualify could claim a deduction on their personal income tax return.

Lower income people would already be turning a profit. Anyone with lower-than-average emissions would get more in their monthly dividend check than they pay in total carbon fees.

Carbon taxes do not have to equal consumption taxes.

73% in favor is hardly "extremely unpopular".

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...

The real issue is that the remaining 27% have a death grip on the levers of power by exploiting undemocratic aspects of the US electoral system.

"many doubt" is the same as "some people are saying", you can usually add "in completely bad faith" after those phrases

73% "claim" to support taxing corporations. How many will actually vote for it knowing it means higher prices? This is the fundamental issue with climate change. Everyone agrees someone else should do something...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com