Economists want uncarbonated...

"Instead, we should recognize that the present moment creates an opportunity to bring about a better future for ourselves and our children. By taking on the carbon economy, we can begin charting a pathway towards economic recovery while building a fairer, more sustainable world in the process.

Governments must actively phase out the fossil fuel industry, redeploy funds towards green technology, infrastructure, social programs and good jobs, spurring an economic transition that benefits people and the planet.


By achieving a large-scale economic transformation that dismantles the carbon economy and brings about a greener world, we have an opportunity to begin the process of economic recovery while working to undo the injustices at the heart of our modern system. As the undersigned experts in economics, we call on our policymakers to recognize the role that meaningful climate action has to play in rebuilding our world – to recognize that a healthy economy and society require a healthy planet.

This letter has been signed by more than 100 economists. See the full list of signatories here
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-letter-carbon-economy-climate-change-rebuild

 

Attempts to implement a carbon tax have long been derailed and corrupted by special interest financial lobbying groups who want to turn the concept into a corrupt cap and trade scheme. (i.e. basically commodifying the right to pollute, and giving special government granted privileges to certain owners, which these private owners can then sell for profit)

 

However, a carbon tax would also have a downside. Excessive burden on small businesses or individuals, who would find it too difficult to precisely measure their carbon output or comply.
And more government control. Because the power to collect any tax can be abused. Measuring carbon output is less straightforward than income.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and something like this could have numerous not easily foreseen consequences. It's not just completely simple.

I doubt politicians or the public are intelligent or creative enough to properly implement such a concept without it creating unnecessary problems.

Furthermore, there would also be the issue of factories just leaving the country and going to some other country where the carbon tax does not exist. For fairness, you would also need to compensate for this by putting up tariffs on foreign imports from countries that do not have the carbon tax.

 

Huh?

It would work like the gas tax, easy peazy.

Any carbon fuel would get taxed per btu, which would be added to the purchase price, same way the gas tax is now.

You would need to balance that extra cost with an equivalent against imports that didn't get made with a carbon tax.

A properly constructed Carbon Tax is good for the economy, because it stimulates new business, and increased efficiency..

 

It wouldn't be that simple. There are not exactly meters installed on every chimney or exhaust pipe.

Or would your so-called "carbon tax" actually only be on fuel?

But it won't just be fuel. It will also be things that were made using fuel, which never got taxed.
Tons of manufactured goods require energy and fuel to produce.
(This is especially the case with anything containing the metal aluminum, for example)

 

Yup, that simple.

Every carbon fuel would be taxed exactly like we tax gasoline now.

Any goods and services would pay the tax on the fuel as they buy it.

This was designed by conservative economists to be effective, and cheap and easy to administer.

 

Would there be a tax on imports of aluminum from China?

Because China uses dirty coal power to create aluminum, and it takes a lot of power and a lot of coal to create aluminum (if it's not made from renewable energy).


I will flat out refuse to support a carbon tax until these issues regarding manufactured goods are addressed, and the foreign import loopholes are closed.

Or you could just exempt American factories from the carbon tax, so they could compete on an equal & fair basis with foreign importers.

 

I went over that earlier in the thread. You would have to have a carbon tariff to level the proverbial playing field.

 

The ironic thing is, I bet the crowd of economists advising the politicians would be fine with a carbon tax, but they'd probably scream and wail at the prospect of any tariffs, even a carbon tariff.
The field of economics has turned into a politically partisan ideologically-driven special-interest think-group these days. A group of Left-leaning economists who will do anything to support Globalism have practically allied themselves with a group of radical free market Right-leaning economists, and together have led to an anti-tariff ideology dominating in economics.

I think we should have some serious skepticism about whether such a carbon tariff could actually be implemented. I mean, politically. Economists and special interests will do everything they can to try to stop it. That's been the situation going on over the last three decades.

 

More POT LUCK....
I think that each Senator should visit towns and play 3 card monte with the shepple...

 

What carbon fuel are we not already taxing? Sounds like it would be more honest to say, "Raise gas taxes", not that it would put a dent in our CO2 output.

 

My idea is an incremental Carbon Tax. We would add, say 25 cents, to the gas tax each year, and an equivalent amount to all the other carbon fuels.

Ideally, we would use part of that money to offer a subsidy to alternatives.

 

Conservative economists invented it.

But yes, the rich have way too much power.

 

Here we go again.

 

Sorry but this is where you lose me. Alternative energy is dependent on fossil fuels. Taxing traditional more heavily just raises the cost of of alternative energy so you are effectively just inflating prices of both to feel like you are doing good while punishing the poor. In addition, gasoline still isn't our largest generator of CO2 so you aren't even chasing the meat of the problem.

There are a multitude of things we can do that don't require tax and subsidize that would be beneficial. Switching over coolants in our AC systems, using alternatives to the standard concrete manufacturing processes, and reducing our consumption of so much meat are three that often get mentioned.

 

At the moment, but a typical reduction of carbon emissions is 90%. This is tech, it will keep getting better.

No, it doesn't.

We can easily put together a package of programs for the poor. A gas tax refund, for starters.

This would hit all carbon fuels. Industrial agriculture is not sustainable, it's a major source of carbon emissions, and most of our new plagues happen in the crowded conditions, and it's hard on the soil and require pesticides that are just too strong. We need to get back to small to medium sized farms.

Sure, we need to do all that, and more. But the idea that we don't need a Carbon Tax is silly.

 

They are economists...

Have a cup of coffee, see if you can wake up.

 

So is AOC and all the people who have ruined the US economy with NAFTA.

 

Ahh, you're just in it for the whine.

 

No.

I'm laughing because you suggested "economists" can't be Marxists, which is obviously silly, and then this is the best reply you can come up with me pointing out AOC's economics degree.

 

Put a carbon tax on hamburger.

 

No need, it would be baked in, so top speak. When the farmer bought fuel for his tractor, when the shipper bought fuel for his trucks, etc.

 

You really do have a problem of some sort.

I never said economists couldn't be Marxists. As a rule of thumb, economists tend to be conservative or centrist. They also like capitalism, which Marxists do not. Which I would have thought was obvious.

I don't remember mentioning AOC's economics degree. Perhaps you could point that out to me.

 

If we tax the hamburger then it will already be built in when the farmer and truck driver roll up to McDonald's.

 

Trying to chase down every product would be an unworkable failure. Which is prob why you suggested it.

The Carbon Tax was developed by economists as a way to let markets deal with the problem. The tax itself is cheap to administer, we already have it for some carbon fuels.