Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

A Call for a Carbon Tax From Elon Musk...and Many Others

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Six people sit in a lifeboat with six bailing buckets. There is a leak in the boat that is letting in water at a tremendous rate; it will take all of them working together to keep the boat from sinking. Do you sit there and wait until the other five start bailing, or do you pick up your bucket and set an example?

Good example. As with all "tragedy of the commons" problems, people not doing their share to solve the problem because others aren't doing their share yet is exactly the reason that the problem will not be fixed. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only approach to solving the problem that can possibly work is to do your share to fix it.
 
We all need to vote with our wallets and also to pressure our politicians to act in the interests of our children and grandchildren by implementing carbon taxes and pressing for international agreements with other countries to make the taxes universal.

Agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

The only approach to solving the problem that can possibly work is to do your share to fix it.

This is a good thing of course. But with such a difficult problem like global warming you have to check that everybody does his own share.
 
Last edited:
Increasing the price of fossil fuels is the only strategy that can realistically be used to keep them in the ground (which is the only safe place for them).

Without disagreeing, I wonder just how high those taxes need to be to keep those trillions of dollars worth of resources in the ground?

- - - Updated - - -

Good example. As with all "tragedy of the commons" problems, people not doing their share to solve the problem because others aren't doing their share yet is exactly the reason that the problem will not be fixed. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only approach to solving the problem that can possibly work is to do your share to fix it.

And therein lies the root of the problem. All it takes is a few entities not playing ball, and those hydrocarbons come out of the ground and into the atmosphere anyway.
 
No, that is a different problem - freeloaders are a difficult problem, but one that can be solved. It's related, but it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy like the commons problem, where the freeloading problem is used as an excuse to not look for a solution.

Collapse by Jared Diamond (not as fun to read as Guns, Germs and Steel, but still good if you are interested in this sort of thing) gives examples of civilizations that have fallen because they have not addressed commons issues. As well as ones that successfully addressed it - of course there was much grumbling by freeloaders at the time, but it worked out in the end. RichardC just gave an example of how to get started unilaterally (even affecting some, though not all, of the freeloaders). That won't solve everything immediately, but then no one solution can solve all problems - that's not a reason to not start.
 
One advantage of a carbon tax v. a carbon cap-and-trade program is that an importing country with a carbon tax can levy an import tax on goods to even the playing field without violating WTO rules. What this means, in effect, is that the US can set a carbon tax on all products produced in or for the US market. Goods produced in carbon-intensive countries, like China, would lose some of their competitive advantage in the US market, and production would tend to shift towards low-carbon countries. Countries that rely heavily on export to the US would have a strong incentive to reduce the carbon-intensity of their economy to stay competitive.

Six people sit in a lifeboat with six bailing buckets. There is a leak in the boat that is letting in water at a tremendous rate; it will take all of them working together to keep the boat from sinking. Do you sit there and wait until the other five start bailing, or do you pick up your bucket and set an example?

Correct. One of the many advantages of carbon taxes (others include certainty, predictability, and greater resistance to political manipulation and other forms of fraud).

- - - Updated - - -

Without disagreeing, I wonder just how high those taxes need to be to keep those trillions of dollars worth of resources in the ground?

Not all that high. Renewables have already hit price parity in a number of cases. The key factor is the creation of a clear price signal and expectation that the price of carbon emissions will continue to rise (the increasing price fairly reflects the increasing incremental harm of those further emissions). The replacement technologies all exist and will rapidly get cheaper as they cease to be alternative energies, and become mainstream. Substantial progress could be made if politicians (including those in Canada and the US) started to act in the public interest and immediately terminated all subsidies and tax preferences that the fossil fuel industries currently enjoy. We have already discovered and documented more than enough fossil fuels reserves to seriously overheat the planet. Why are we, as taxpayers, subsidizing companies to explore for additional reserves or subsidizing consumers to burn fossil fuels?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, don't know. However, BC gets it's electricity almost entirely from hydro and doesn't have that large a population (compared to area) so they have a big head start in being carbon neutral.

NY could do the same thing -- we have huge supplies of hydro.

Instead, we're listening to lunatics propose to poison our water supplies while increasing CO2 emissions with hydrofracking.

Accordingly, I'd say the problem is simply and plainly to change out our politicians for ones who give a damn.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure I agree with all your points, but I do believe you're on to something with this. I too am amazed at how people will not want to take any responsibility for their own actions, but demand/insist that it's the government's duty to "fix" whatever is perceived to be broken. (speaking generally, of course. Not pointing fingers at anyone here :wink:)

Why did we bother to form a government, if not to get it to do all the annoying chores which I don't want to do myself?

I don't want to have to catch burglars myself. I don't want to have to take care of people with schizophrenia myself. I don't want to have to barricade and shut down coal mines and hydrofracking operations myself. I want to pay someone to do it. And I don't want freeloaders getting away without paying their fair share for things which benefit all of us.

That's why we have a government. And that's why we have taxes.

In short, yes, it is government's duty to fix a lot of the things which are broken. When government *doesn't* fix them, then we have the extremely annoying problem of replacing the government.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral deal. At least, not one that makes it into law.

So true. In the US, almost all political deals are revenue-negative. Income tax cuts. Estate tax cuts. Capital gains tax cuts.
 
Why did we bother to form a government, if not to get it to do all the annoying chores which I don't want to do myself?

I don't want to have to catch burglars myself. I don't want to have to take care of people with schizophrenia myself. I don't want to have to barricade and shut down coal mines and hydrofracking operations myself. I want to pay someone to do it. And I don't want freeloaders getting away without paying their fair share for things which benefit all of us.

That's why we have a government. And that's why we have taxes.

Yes, but then we have to respect the will of the majority and accept the politicians that we end up with, even if they're climate change deniers and don't want to take action on CO2 issues. Just because you or I might care doesn't mean the majority does.
 
Yes, but then we have to respect the will of the majority and accept the politicians that we end up with, even if they're climate change deniers and don't want to take action on CO2 issues. Just because you or I might care doesn't mean the majority does.

We don't have a majority govenment in the US. A parlimentary system would be a vast improvement on what we have. Instead we have a govenerment by minority obstruction and even those minority representives are not repesenting their constitutients but instead those who bought them.
 
We don't have a majority govenment in the US. A parlimentary system would be a vast improvement on what we have. Instead we have a govenerment by minority obstruction and even those minority representives are not repesenting their constitutients but instead those who bought them.

We currently have a minority parliamentary government here in Ontario, Canada and it's about as dysfunctional as anything I've seen. Ridiculous compromises all the time just so they can stay in power. Interestingly, it looks like this government may fall primarily due to it's green agenda (and mishandling thereof).

- - - Updated - - -

@mknox and DuncanWatson

In my opinion politics shouldn't be quoted so much in this forum. By giving so much stress to politics when speaking of environmental problems there is the risk of increasing disaffection of people for environment.

I both agree and disagree. One one hand, I've made the statement that people need to take action into their own hands more and not rely on governments, but on the other hand, most of what we're talking about here IS politics and policy.
 
We don't have a majority govenment in the US. A parlimentary system would be a vast improvement on what we have. Instead we have a govenerment by minority obstruction and even those minority representives are not repesenting their constitutients but instead those who bought them.

The main problem with the Parliamentary system is that you typically have one party that has 45% and other with 46%. To form a government they join with the party that has 8%. This tends to let the 8% party run things, because if the 8% party doesn't get what they want they basically dissolve the government, and produces a solution no one wants.

The other problem is that once a majority government is formed they can do what they want. Just ask any long time BC resident about Autoplan. When it first when in the NDP spent a bundle building claim centres. When they got booted out, the Social Credit party closed them all down. Unfortunately, you can't use a specially built claim centre for any other purpose. After a couple more government changes, they opened them back up. The point is that it's kind of like a drunken sailor's walk. First you go to one side (and spend a bunch of money) then you go down the other (and spend even more money to undo, and then spend more money implementing the other way), repeat.
 
Yes, but then we have to respect the will of the majority
Well, if we have a government which represents the majority. Don't get me started on gerrymandering, or on the 'minority' government you have in Canada, or on the filibustering we have in the US, or on all of the polls which show that governments are not responding on issues where people have >80% agreement.

Love them or hate them, referenda have a lot of democratic legitimacy. When you lose at a referendum, you have to shrug and say "Well, I guess I wasn't in the majority." Governments don't necessarily have that, for various reasons. It requires some work to set up a system where the government is perceived to have legitimacy as the voice of the majority, and there are always people working against it.
 
Well, if we have a government which represents the majority. Don't get me started on gerrymandering, or on the 'minority' government you have in Canada, or on the filibustering we have in the US, or on all of the polls which show that governments are not responding on issues where people have >80% agreement.

Love them or hate them, referenda have a lot of democratic legitimacy. When you lose at a referendum, you have to shrug and say "Well, I guess I wasn't in the majority." Governments don't necessarily have that, for various reasons. It requires some work to set up a system where the government is perceived to have legitimacy as the voice of the majority, and there are always people working against it.


Federal US politics has been so thoroughly corrupted (in the functional meaning of the word) by monied interests that it can no longer be described as democratic in any meaningful way. Money and lobbyists choose the candidates (who usually do not differ on the most important issues) with the result that there are few, if any, candidates which represents the enlightened public interest. As a result it has becomes impossible to move forward vitally important legislation with respect to issues such as climate change.

The problem is described in a cogent form by Lawrence Lessig in a recent TED talk. See:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

See also:

http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/15/we-c...k-a-qa-with-ted-books-author-lawrence-lessig/
http://www.amazon.ca/Lesterland-Cor...d=1369111297&sr=8-16&keywords=lawrence+lessig

The American political system has been foundationally weakened by a corrupt
campaign funding system, creating a dangerously unstable and inequitable design
that could destroy our republic — if we let it. In this provocative and
important book, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig takes on the deep flaws in
our campaign finance system and lays out a plan for fixing it. Lessig describes
a place called Lesterland, a fictional land with a population of 311 million
people of whom the 144,000, or 0.05 percent, named Lester are the people really
in charge. It’s the United States, of course, and Lesters are the people who
fund the election. Lessig notes that just 132 Americans gave 60 percent of the
SuperPAC money spent in the election cycle. It’s these few, he says, who are our
Lesters, and our dependence on them is perverting the democracy of the country.
After all, if candidates have to spend 30 to 70 percent of their time trying to
raise funds to get back to Congress, which they do, might that not affect their
principles, their beliefs, their ideals, and what they’re prepared to fight for
on behalf of the people?
It is also instructive to consider the billions of dollars in resources
which have been dedicated to the creation of doubt and confusion in the minds
of the public and politicians (who don't have access to the information or the
professional scepticism of the scientists working in this area required to actually
assess the scientific merits). For example, the Huffington Post reported that
spending by oil and gas companies lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill jumped a
whopping 64% between 2007 and 2008 to $128.6 million in 2008.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/oil-and-gas-lobby-spendin_b_176003.html

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Senate Office of Public Records recorded that
the oil and gas and electric utilities together spent approximately $230
million on lobbying in 2009 (to obvious good effect, as reflected in the
positions on global warming advanced by the GOP presidential candidates)! You
may also wish to perform some research into the relationship between the oil
and gas and coal industries, the various "Astroturf" groups which are
funded by them to refute the results of the scientific research on climate change,
and the connections between the Kochs, the Americans for Prosperity
organization, the Tea Party and other groups which are stridently supporting
the "denier" agenda.

Books which document the systematic manipulation of the public and politicians
with a view to obstructing scientifically sound, public interest regulation
include:

Merchants Of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes
Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your
Health, by David Michaels
Climate Cover-up, by James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore

For a more humorous treatment see the movie: "The Campaign"

In this, as in many other things, Canadians are a bit behind the U.S. - but our current federal government is doing all that it can to move us closer to the US model - removal of the public funding for election campaigns, the elimination of valuable scientific research capabilities from Environment Canada (and the muzzling of those scientists who remain) and the wanton destruction of policy development bodies such as the internationally recognized National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, are among the recent examples.
 
Last edited:
One advantage of a carbon tax v. a carbon cap-and-trade program is that an importing country with a carbon tax can levy an import tax on goods to even the playing field without violating WTO rules. What this means, in effect, is that the US can set a carbon tax on all products produced in or for the US market. Goods produced in carbon-intensive countries, like China, would lose some of their competitive advantage in the US market, and production would tend to shift towards low-carbon countries. Countries that rely heavily on export to the US would have a strong incentive to reduce the carbon-intensity of their economy to stay competitive.

Six people sit in a lifeboat with six bailing buckets. There is a leak in the boat that is letting in water at a tremendous rate; it will take all of them working together to keep the boat from sinking. Do you sit there and wait until the other five start bailing, or do you pick up your bucket and set an example?

An excellent point, a Carbon Tax can be a PRO industrial, PRO jobs policy. If it could be balanced with approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and a big push for 4th generation modular nuclear it would be a start to a real energy/economic growth/sustainability policy. If it was a Carbon Tax and Rebate that was revenue neutral and just shared the proceeds equally with everyone it would be a start to policy of greater economic equality.

Unfortunately existing politics tend to make both sides dig in on irrational positions and prevent that kind of thing.
 
An excellent point, a Carbon Tax can be a PRO industrial, PRO jobs policy. If it could be balanced with approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and a big push for 4th generation modular nuclear it would be a start to a real energy/economic growth/sustainability policy.
I doubt that tar sands oil would be economic if there was a meaningful carbon tax, and therefore the Keystone XL pipeline would be unneeded.
 


Federal US politics has been so thoroughly corrupted (in the functional meaning of the word) by monied interests that it can no longer be described as democratic in any meaningful way. Money and lobbyists choose the candidates (who usually do not differ on the most important issues) with the result that there are few, if any, candidates which represents the enlightened public interest. As a result it has becomes impossible to move forward vitally important legislation with respect to issues such as climate change.

The problem is described in a cogent form by Lawrence Lessig in a recent TED talk. See:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

See also:

http://blog.ted.com/2013/04/15/we-c...k-a-qa-with-ted-books-author-lawrence-lessig/
http://www.amazon.ca/Lesterland-Cor...d=1369111297&sr=8-16&keywords=lawrence+lessig


It is also instructive to consider the billions of dollars in resources
which have been dedicated to the creation of doubt and confusion in the minds
of the public and politicians (who don't have access to the information or the
professional scepticism of the scientists working in this area required to actually
assess the scientific merits). For example, the Huffington Post reported that
spending by oil and gas companies lobbying politicians on Capitol Hill jumped a
whopping 64% between 2007 and 2008 to $128.6 million in 2008.

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/oil-and-gas-lobby-spendin_b_176003.html

According to OpenSecrets.org, the Senate Office of Public Records recorded that
the oil and gas and electric utilities together spent approximately $230
million on lobbying in 2009 (to obvious good effect, as reflected in the
positions on global warming advanced by the GOP presidential candidates)! You
may also wish to perform some research into the relationship between the oil
and gas and coal industries, the various "Astroturf" groups which are
funded by them to refute the results of the scientific research on climate change,
and the connections between the Kochs, the Americans for Prosperity
organization, the Tea Party and other groups which are stridently supporting
the "denier" agenda.

Books which document the systematic manipulation of the public and politicians
with a view to obstructing scientifically sound, public interest regulation
include:

Merchants Of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes
Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your
Health, by David Michaels
Climate Cover-up, by James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore

For a more humorous treatment see the movie: "The Campaign"

In this, as in many other things, Canadians are a bit behind the U.S. - but our current federal government is doing all that it can to move us closer to the US model - removal of the public funding for election campaigns, the elimination of valuable scientific research capabilities from Environment Canada (and the muzzling of those scientists who remain) and the wanton destruction of policy development bodies such as the internationally recognized National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, are among the recent examples.


And this is why I don't understand how we (US) can go over to other countries (the Middle East) and say that democracy works. It might have in the past, but not today.
 
The disinformation saga continues:

Conservative outside group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is launching a six-figure advertising campaign pressing vulnerable Democrats to oppose a carbon tax.

The month-long online effort will span 15 states and cost $175,000. It will target three Democratic senators up for reelection in 2014 — Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.) — as well as 10 House members.

“Carbon taxes are bad for American industry and jobs,” AFP President Tim Phillips said in a statement. “They drive up utility bills and the cost of gasoline for American families and businesses, all while hurting job growth and driving business overseas. Deliberately driving up energy prices is a bad approach that slows economic activity.”

AFP is backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, who made their fortunes in the fossil fuel industry.

Conservatives and industry oppose putting a price on carbon, as they say would slow economic activity, raise the cost of energy-intensive products and increase electricity rates.

On the other hand, many liberal Democrats, public health groups and environmental organizations support a carbon tax. They say it would properly account for environmental, property and health damage caused by carbon emissions, as well as mitigate climate change.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...-prosperity-carbon-tax-campaign#ixzz2VU33CAH6
 
It would of course depend on the details. Canada has already passed a Carbon Tax that hasn't made it uneconomic. Either way, it would be a general policy rather than a targeted exception. The purpose of passing Keystone XL isn't because it has exceptional merit, it's because there is no rational reason to stop it other than that it's been chosen as a symbol by specific environmental lobbying groups. If the Carbon Tax was applied to carbon emission, it would apply to imported but not exported fossil fuels.
 
It would of course depend on the details. Canada has already passed a Carbon Tax that hasn't made it uneconomic. Either way, it would be a general policy rather than a targeted exception. The purpose of passing Keystone XL isn't because it has exceptional merit, it's because there is no rational reason to stop it other than that it's been chosen as a symbol by specific environmental lobbying groups. If the Carbon Tax was applied to carbon emission, it would apply to imported but not exported fossil fuels.

Canada, as a whole, has no carbon tax of any real substance. There is a relatively modest carbon tax in British Columbia, which is believed to have had some beneficial impacts, but the federal Conservatives have vehemently opposed a carbon tax. The scope of application of the carbon tax would be one of the issues that would have to be determined.

One of the concerns about the build out of tars sands infrastructure, including the Keystone XL, relates to the expected recovery of the cost and return on the investment over its useful life. Once the investments are made and the infrastructure installed it will be very difficult (if not impossible, in the current deeply compromised political environment) to turn off the pipe. It is much easier not to build the pipelines, etc., in the first place.