JRP3
Hyperactive Member
So people buying and driving Tesla's don't cause others to do the same? Seems to me Tesla is the prime example of "lead and they will follow".
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
So people buying and driving Tesla's don't cause others to do the same? Seems to me Tesla is the prime example of "lead and they will follow".
juliusa
Active Member
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This is pretty much true overall and certainly good enough as a rule of thumb but occasionally I see reports of variable clean energy leading to a drop in less-dirty-fuel and an increase in more-dirty-fuel. Net metering can have this unintended consequence.
juliusa
Active Member
How? I understand how sequestration reduces carbon, but I don't see how 100 solar panels reduces the amount of carbon in the air from burning 100 tons of coal.
I think it is great that China has lots of hydro, wind, and solar. Does not negate the impact on global warming of their increased use of coal and carbon emissions.
All the planet cares about is how much carbon is in the atmosphere - not our emissions per capita or how many solar panels we have.
China is increasing their emissions faster than we are decreasing ours.
juliusa
Active Member
Yet another consensus economist prediction that was wrong.
Economists once warned that office jobs in the United States would soon follow factory jobs in moving overseas.
The White-Collar Job Apocalypse That Didn’t Happen
Oops!!
Here is a great read. Written in the 80s based on Harvard Business School research on the future of energy. Typicial stupid spreadsheet projection of the future by extrapolating from the past - ignoring future invention and discovery. It was, of course, completely wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Future-Robert-Stobaugh/dp/0345293495
We have much more confidence in what our business, scientific, and intelligence communities tell us than they do.
Economists once warned that office jobs in the United States would soon follow factory jobs in moving overseas.
The White-Collar Job Apocalypse That Didn’t Happen
Oops!!
Here is a great read. Written in the 80s based on Harvard Business School research on the future of energy. Typicial stupid spreadsheet projection of the future by extrapolating from the past - ignoring future invention and discovery. It was, of course, completely wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Future-Robert-Stobaugh/dp/0345293495
We have much more confidence in what our business, scientific, and intelligence communities tell us than they do.
Last edited:
The GND is the solution. Everything else is just a bandaid.
The IMF thinks carbon taxes will stop the climate crisis. That's a terrible idea
The IMF thinks carbon taxes will stop the climate crisis. That's a terrible idea | Kate Aronoff
If the IMF thinks that’s going to make a $75-per-ton carbon tax politically feasible in the US, I have a yellow vest to sell them. In the context of gaping inequality, any climate policy that doesn’t look to make the economy more equal overall will be dead on arrival.
The reason people have taken to the streets against fuel price hikes from France to Ecuador is pretty straightforward: the rich can afford to adjust, and the poor can’t.
Still, the IMF report does represent a departure from its previous thinking, and shows just how far climate strikers and calls for a Green New Deal have shifted the political landscape on climate. As the report’s authors correctly note, “the economic costs of mitigating climate change through less-than-optimal tools would still be lower than the devastating effects of global warming”. But the most optimal tools aren’t going to cut it. We need more equitable ones.
The IMF thinks carbon taxes will stop the climate crisis. That's a terrible idea
The IMF thinks carbon taxes will stop the climate crisis. That's a terrible idea | Kate Aronoff
If the IMF thinks that’s going to make a $75-per-ton carbon tax politically feasible in the US, I have a yellow vest to sell them. In the context of gaping inequality, any climate policy that doesn’t look to make the economy more equal overall will be dead on arrival.
The reason people have taken to the streets against fuel price hikes from France to Ecuador is pretty straightforward: the rich can afford to adjust, and the poor can’t.
Still, the IMF report does represent a departure from its previous thinking, and shows just how far climate strikers and calls for a Green New Deal have shifted the political landscape on climate. As the report’s authors correctly note, “the economic costs of mitigating climate change through less-than-optimal tools would still be lower than the devastating effects of global warming”. But the most optimal tools aren’t going to cut it. We need more equitable ones.
juliusa
Active Member
A carbon tax is a terrible idea. What we need is a revenue-neutral carbon fee/credit that will have the rich pay and the poor benefit.
d21mike
Active Member
Could you explain the difference "simply". I just Googled a few pages and not sure I fully understand the difference but will try.
1. Carbon Tax = Carbon Fee. Just a different name.
2. Carbon Credit = Carbon Dividend. Just a different name.
I think what the real difference is the Credit/Dividend part. I.E. The Tax/Fee is collected and then given to the citizens? One page said that a family of 4 would get so much money as a Dividend of the collections each month witch they can then use as they see fit? Part of it even said that it would help offset "higher cost (caused by the FEE)"?
My expectations is that anything you do in this area will simply be a transfer of "cost" to the people using the product. I.E. Add a Tax or Fee on Coal and the Coal will simply cost more to purchase because the ones paying the Tax or Fee will pass that on. And the ones buying the Coal to create Electricity will simply pass on that cost to the people buying the Electricity which are the same people that are getting the Credit/Dividend.
I am not sure how all of this moves the needle to reduce the use of Coal?
I would not do either one (including GND). If you reduce the demand for Coal the use of Coal will be reduce. If there is no demand there will be no need for the supply. This is the same for Gasoline. If you eliminate Gas powered cars the need for Oil will be reduced.
Someone earlier said the ones that make the money need to be the ones to make this change. I am not talking about Billionaires. I am talking about individuals and families that buy "NEW CARS". Seems to me that at one point we had a luxury tax on expensive cars. If you want people to STOP buying NEW ICE CARS instead of EV's then make the economics work so people will naturally buy an EV.
We currently have a Rebate program to encourage people to buy EV's. However, that rebate is being eliminated for Tesla because they have sold too many. That does not seem the make since if we want to stop people from buying ICE Cars and to instead buy EV's. Maybe charge a fee on the ICE car and pass that along as a rebate on the EV where it is cheaper to buy an EV?
Similar thing with Electricity. Those that own a home need to add solar. The economics need to work. Tesla is helping that with their Solar Rental Program. But instead of encouraging Solar the 30% credit is being reduced to 0 over time. And instead of paying solar energy providers (the home owner) a fair price to generate more energy then they need they want to push to only install Solar for what you need. Every homeowner needs to put on as much Solar as possible and then get paid a fair amount for what they generate above what they use. I.E. How much would it cost SCE or PG&E to produce the same KW they are getting from home owners?
Then like with cigarettes we need people to understand that buying a ICE car will KILL their grandkids (and their grandkids) in a similar way as cigarettes would kill them but will take a bit longer to happen. It has to be a huge marketing campaign to make people understand and believe.
juliusa
Active Member
A carbon tax is like the gasoline tax, and is very regressive. EVERYONE pays. Tax revenue goes to the government.
A carbon fee / credit is revenue-neutral to the government, where a fee is collected then rebated back to the people. If you are an "average" user of carbon, the fee you pay would equal the credit you get - so it costs you nothing. Higher than average carbon users (rich with 4 houses and flying private) end up paying; lower than average users get paid because the credit they receive is more than the fees paid.
Yes. It is the credit/rebate part that is the distinction.
Yes, the cost gets transferred to the consumer. So electricity generated by coal costs them more than electricity generated by wind. That is the whole point of a tax or fee/credit - make carbon more expensive to reduce consumption.
Higher cost means lower consumption, and makes lower carbon sources of generation cheaper in relation to coal since they do not have the fee.
Bingo!! Higher cost for a product results in lower demand when there are alternatives available.
Yep. The carbon fee/rebate is separate from that. It does not have to replace it. There is talk to extend the tax credit beyone 200,000 vehicles - that can happen independently of a carbon fee/credit.
Carbon fee/credit makes the economics better since electricity produced from carbon will be more expensive due to the fee. The fee/credit does not have to replace other incentives - they can continue to exist.
Most places already have subsidies like that - they have net metering on an annual basis, so all the electricity generated up to the amount used gets purchased at the same rate paid to purchase it. Anything generated above what is used gets purchased at the wholesale purchase price. The carbon fee/credit would likely raise that price.
This whole subsidy works similarly to the fee/credit - net metering is a subsidy to the solar person, and a cost to everyone else. Someone who uses 11mWH of electricity and generates 11mWH of electricity pays nothing for the electricity distribution infrastructure that they use, so their neighbors are subsidizing them. If EVERYONE had solar and generated as much electricity as they use in a year, this system falls apart - in fact, I have seen some estimates that when 20% of electricity is generated this way it stops working.
This can happen independently too, and I'm all for it as long as the government (taxpayers) does not pay for it. I question the effectiveness - seems like with all those ads there are still a lot of people smoking and vaping.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
Sure, it probably would be a good idea to use the carbon fee to finance a rebate. For everyone as an offset, or for additional solar or EV purchase-time rebates. Not sure about the details. However, keep in mind that CO2 indirectly creates costs that must be paid for sooner or later.
juliusa
Active Member
The former. Cash to spend as they wish.
Government costs? General tax revenue pays for those. A carbon tax is a terrible idea.
See the post from @mspohr Green New Deal
If the IMF thinks that’s going to make a $75-per-ton carbon tax politically feasible in the US, I have a yellow vest to sell them.
Your distinction is bullshit.
Except in the very rare case of government running a surplus, government doesn't keep tax revenue. It redistributes in one or both of two ways:
1) spending
2) tax reduction.
Zero-sum fee/credit is just one definition of a carbon tax.
What you actually mean is that you support a carbon tax, but only if it works in a particular way.
juliusa
Active Member
Perhaps if you read what I wrote and you quoted, you would not have posted such an ignorant comment.
A carbon tax is a regressive tax and increases government revenue. A carbon fee/credit is is a progressive tax, and because the tax is coupled with a credit does not increase government revenue.
The fee/credit is simply your #2, where the tax reduction is on a per-capita basis by statute.
Yes. A carbon tax (regressive, revenue increasing) is bad policy. Ask the French people. A carbon fee/credit (progressive, revenue-neutral) is good policy.
Last edited:
A good argument for MMT and the GND
With growth this tepid, is it time to give 'helicopter money' a whirl?
With growth this tepid, is it time to give 'helicopter money' a whirl? | Larry Elliott
Jones and Llewellyn suspect the next step will be monetary finance, which is where bonds are issued to pay for tax cuts and public investment, and the debt is then purchased by the country’s central bank. Crudely, the central bank prints money to pay for stimulus. It is known as “helicopter money” because governments dump large dollops of cash over their economies.
If ever there was a time to give helicopter money a whirl then this is it. Inflation is low, as are long-term interest rates despite high levels of government debt. Sooner or later, a government somewhere will be willing it give it a try.
With growth this tepid, is it time to give 'helicopter money' a whirl?
With growth this tepid, is it time to give 'helicopter money' a whirl? | Larry Elliott
Jones and Llewellyn suspect the next step will be monetary finance, which is where bonds are issued to pay for tax cuts and public investment, and the debt is then purchased by the country’s central bank. Crudely, the central bank prints money to pay for stimulus. It is known as “helicopter money” because governments dump large dollops of cash over their economies.
If ever there was a time to give helicopter money a whirl then this is it. Inflation is low, as are long-term interest rates despite high levels of government debt. Sooner or later, a government somewhere will be willing it give it a try.
d21mike
Active Member
I think we have always been in agreement... just a few niggles about details.Finally you and I are in agreement.
juliusa
Active Member
An immediate worldwide ban on burning fossil fuels would have the added benefit of 70 to 95% reduction in human population.
Norbert
TSLA will win
If that makes it popular, fine with me. Otherwise, I'd prefer the latter. And I would hope there is no negative effect from that this means less cash for everyone if CO2 is reduced in general.
A tax does not increase government revenue. A tax is part of government revenue.
Government revenue increases if the sum total of taxation increases.
The impact of a carbon tax is only regressive if it isn't balanced or overbalanced by distribution of the revenue.
A fee/credit system is just another form of taxation.
But, boo taxes, so if you want a tax you call it something else.
- Status
Similar threads
