|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do carbon emissions have a price? Would you, should you pay?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Several news sources are saying July 2016 was the hottest month in recorded history. I think it matters.
The question is, should we all pay to emit greenhouse gasses? Surcharges on every km or mile driven for example, or every litre or gallon of fuel. Economists say that when the price gets high enough, people plan better and burn less, thinking about consequences. -- as of now, gasoline here is about 25¢ per litre less than it was before the Saudis opened the oil spigot. For Americans, that's about 92¢ less per USA gallon than at the peak.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Carbon emissions have a cost, so they should have a price. The problem is the people making the decisions are inversely affected.
As far as an energy use tax, this disproportionately affects the already disadvantaged.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Many of the costs of our profligate use of fossil fuels can not be expressed in monetary terms. Hence, there is no objective means of calculating a price per kg of carbon. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, and I think all of our taxes on fossil fuels are too small.
But, taxing fuel has a large social cost in it's own right. Fuel is an essential, we need to heat (or cool) our homes, cook our food, travel to work etc. There are limits to how much people can reduce their consumption as prices rise, and the poorest who have least options for reducing consumption will be hit very hard. Which means we need to be targetting where revenue from carbon taxes are spent on helping the poorest from losing out - and, not just the poorest in our own nations. In the UK we already have schemes that subsidise renewable power generation, grants towards improving insulation and efficiency of homes. These are all good, but they generally aren't taken up by some of the poorest in our country - a grant towards replacing an inefficient boiler is of no benefit if you don't have the money to pay for what the grant doesn't cover.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Yes, Alan.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
there is no objective means of calculating a price per kg of carbon.
It's not that there's some intrinsically right price. The idea as I understand it is that the price goes up until the individuals or sectors of the economy which have the best alternatives find it worthwhile to choose those alternatives. The price goes up until consumption comes down to levels which won't irreparably harm the environment.
And it also raises revenue that can be used to reduce taxes on wealth-generating activity - startups and expanding businesses.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And it also raises revenue that can be used to reduce taxes on wealth-generating activity - startups and expanding businesses.
Except that is what is currently done, and it doesn't directly help those who actually struggle with the increased fuel costs who are unable to cut use very much. Certainly in the UK there is a tendency for government to use new tax revenue (of which carbon taxes would be an example) to allow cuts in other taxes that invariably benefit the relatively wealthy.
Carbon taxes need to be invested in energy efficiency and low-carbon generation (including through overseas aid to help poorer nations). But they also need to be used to help the poorest cope with increased costs. If a carbon tax raises the average fuel bill for the poorest by £10 a month, then raise the tax thresholds and welfare payments so that the poorest gain more than £10 a month through that route. If "wealth generating activity" is your base line then putting money in the pockets of the poor is a very effective method because it will be spent on things that people need but can't afford.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Maybe things like that cheap holiday flight should not be cheap. Or any other number of luxury items and novelties that can be bought. perhaps there should be no power for leisure activities like F1 or posting on internet forums? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The only trouble is unravelling and rebasing economies that are based around making, distributing and selling all this stuff. We have been "improving standards of living" for so long that we would suddenly have so many people with nothing to do and therefore will be poor. There would be a revolution, and revolutions are rarely environmentally friendly.
Perhaps we have gone so far down this ally that the only real solution is to find a new source of cheap energy. Fusion or something like that.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I can't imagine that any sensible rise in fuel prices would have the slightest effect on the people who use it most profligately. To them it would still represent a very small proportion of their total outgoings.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The rich seem to be keen to employ all sorts of strange off-shore accounting to reduce their tax bill. Being less profligate with their energy use would seem much simpler.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
British Columbia did a revenue neutral carbon tax. The money raised reduces other taxes. And seems to have boosted the economy. I don't think a carbon tax has to go after the poor. There is a GST tax credit via income (it is the same sort of sales tax as a VAT) which goes automatically to low income people. It is based on income, not what tax has been paid. I could see adding 10 to 100% to fuel costs and credit low income hy sending them cheques the same as done with GST.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Agreed that fuel consumption is a possible target for reduction. But I have seen, somewhere, a statistic that most of the fuel in the US is consumed by trucking. Here is where some incentive to reduce long distance hauling of goods that can be locally produced might gain some traction.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The latest UK statistics (pdf) have transport accounting for 40% of energy use, with domestic use at 29%. About a 10% reduction over the last 10 years (from the peak use, back to about 1970 use), with a long term decline in industrial use taking a big lead in that, service use largely unchanged and only small reductions in transport and domestic.
For transport, passenger transport is about 70% of the total. So, energy use by trucks is not that big a fraction of the total. Though, from what I can see in the documents, it's not clear if the energy use for transport to the UK (whether by truck from the rest of the EU, or by sea) is included in the total. For the UK, getting passengers to travel more efficiently is thus the opportunity to make the biggest cuts in energy use.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Agreed that fuel consumption is a possible target for reduction. But I have seen, somewhere, a statistic that most of the fuel in the US is consumed by trucking. Here is where some incentive to reduce long distance hauling of goods that can be locally produced might gain some traction.
According to this data from the US Dept. of Transportation, trucking consumes only about 25% of the fuel used by road vehicles - nearly all the rest is cars, SUVs, pickups, and the like. The transportation sector as a whole contributes about 34% of total US CO2 emissions.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
they also need to be used to help the poorest cope with increased costs.
Maybe to help the elderly who need to keep their homes a little warmer than the average ? Or those in very rural areas who don't have alternative transport ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, almost by definition, the poor are those least able to bear the extra costs of carbon taxes. That would include those who have unavoidable higher energy use.
Help doesn't need to be in the form of money, whether through benefits or reduced taxation. Upgrading insulation and central heating for the elderly, or subsidy of rural public transport would also help in your examples.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
or subsidy of rural public transport would also help in your examples.
Although one can reasonably ask whether one wants rural public transport from an energy-efficiency point of view.
Affordable public transport everywhere is desirable from a social point of view (particularly as regards access to facilities and services for people who can't afford their own transport, or are unable for heath reasons to operate their own transport.)
You don't want to end up with great big busses routinely carrying one or two people about the place, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
They don't need to be big buses. And, very few places would have such small communities that there would only be 2-3 people travelling if it was reasonable option (eg: frequent enough and going to the right places).
They don't even need to be dedicated buses; in parts of the UK there are post-buses, which provide a reliable public transport service and deliver the mail. As rural areas become more dependent on online retail and delivery, the options for combining delivery and public transport increase. It takes a bit of imagination.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
It's not just imagination. It's about setting up the mechanisms to align private interest with public interest. Someone has to operate the post bus or the insulation scheme without losing money thereby. If there's a net gain to society, can we devise a compensation scheme so that everybody gains ?
It's asking that a carbon tax (plus associated measures) be not just revenue-neutral but distribution-neutral...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
