Carbon Solutions

[Reeve]

OK, for the sake of this thread, let's ASSUME that anthropogenic climate change is real, is caused by our carbon emissions, and that it will result in horrible consequences. Please don't make this thread about whether or not it's real in the first place. If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, treat this like a thought experiment.

How would you go about reducing our emissions?

One idea I heard on Planet Money today, though it was a rebroadcast, was charming in its simplicity. You just tax carbon emissions directly and proportionally to the amount of carbon emitted. This means gasoline, concrete, electricity, natural gas, food, and almost everything else would get more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emitted to make that item available to the consumer. Sounds horribly destructive to the economy, right?

But you collect all that tax revenue and redistribute it evenly across the whole population. So the average (mean) consumer would pay $X amount and receive back $X. A high carbon user would pay $X+100, but only get back X, while someone who rides their bike everywhere, keeps their lights turned off during the day, etc. might pay $X-100, but still receive X back. You could do this either as a check the government cuts at the end of the year, or you could do it as an income tax reduction.

This would encourage people towards more carbon-friendly behaviors and discourage them from carbon unfriendly behaviors while not reducing the total spending power of the economy at all.

Anyone have thoughts on that proposal or a proposal of their own?

[Lightwysh]

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-pavemen...pollution.html

This needs to be a thing. Raise carbon tax on fuel, use tax money to install this stuff.

[Spectral]

Frankly, I don't think there's any realistic worldwide plan to reduce emissions. Those of us in wealthy nations have the luxury of being able to spend our resources on what amount to experiments in the energy world, and that's great, I'm on board with it. The problem is that the developing world needs energy now and any attempt to stop those nations from getting it will cause real human suffering, or at least prevent quality of life from improving. I don't think it's realistic to say, "hey, we had our industrial revolution, but you can't have yours until we sort out how to cheaply produce clean energy".

In that context, any policy that one nation implements is a Band-Aid. Nonetheless, if an individual nation (like the US) is approaching the problem, I'm generally amenable to the most market based solutions, like the standard carbon cap and credit system that's been discussed. This reduces emissions while optimizing potential market solutions to the problem. In practice, I think you'd see massive increases in solar and wind power and shifts in consumer choice to more efficient vehicles.

[Rukentuts]

It would cost about $32 billion (or $100 a head) to make the entire USA bike friendly.

That, and we need serious reevaluation of our urban planning, more like Europe where in an urban environment all necessities can really be found in about a mile.

[Reeve]

That, and we need serious reevaluation of our urban planning, more like Europe where in an urban environment all necessities can really be found in about a mile.

That's an issue of density as much as it is urban planning. Sidewalk shops don't tend to stay open if people aren't walking by and going in to buy things. People don't tend to walk if it's just as easy to drive, and driving tends to be easy as long as density isn't that high. Plus, people don't walk if there's not stuff close by to walk to. It's sort of a chicken and egg problem until you reach a critical mass of urban density, and then the problem tends to sort itself. I can't think of any really high density places I've ever been to that had a problem with walkability.

[Lightwysh]

That's an issue of density as much as it is urban planning. Sidewalk shops don't tend to stay open if people aren't walking by and going in to buy things. People don't tend to walk if it's just as easy to drive, and driving tends to be easy as long as density isn't that high. Plus, people don't walk if there's not stuff close by to walk to. It's sort of a chicken and egg problem until you reach a critical mass of urban density, and then the problem tends to sort itself. I can't think of any really high density places I've ever been to that had a problem with walkability.

They have tried the Urban development thing here with shop on the street and apartments above, it doesn't seem to be working out to well for the shops.

[Reeve]

Frankly, I don't think there's any realistic worldwide plan to reduce emissions. Those of us in wealthy nations have the luxury of being able to spend our resources on what amount to experiments in the energy world, and that's great, I'm on board with it. The problem is that the developing world needs energy now and any attempt to stop those nations from getting it will cause real human suffering, or at least prevent quality of life from improving. I don't think it's realistic to say, "hey, we had our industrial revolution, but you can't have yours until we sort out how to cheaply produce clean energy".

In that context, any policy that one nation implements is a Band-Aid. Nonetheless, if an individual nation (like the US) is approaching the problem, I'm generally amenable to the most market based solutions, like the standard carbon cap and credit system that's been discussed. This reduces emissions while optimizing potential market solutions to the problem. In practice, I think you'd see massive increases in solar and wind power and shifts in consumer choice to more efficient vehicles.

Just getting the already developed nations to promote better behaviors would have a pretty significant impact. Plus, if carbon is more expensive, it would speed the development of more green technologies that the developing countries could take on once the developed countries have proven they work. I imagine fuel efficiency tech would advance more rapidly with the advent of a carbon tax as the market for fuel efficient vehicles improved, and there's no reason those vehicles wouldn't find their way to developing economies over time as well.

[Altrec]

OK, for the sake of this thread, let's ASSUME that anthropogenic climate change is real, is caused by our carbon emissions, and that it will result in horrible consequences. Please don't make this thread about whether or not it's real in the first place. If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, treat this like a thought experiment.

How would you go about reducing our emissions?

One idea I heard on Planet Money today, though it was a rebroadcast, was charming in its simplicity. You just tax carbon emissions directly and proportionally to the amount of carbon emitted. This means gasoline, concrete, electricity, natural gas, food, and almost everything else would get more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emitted to make that item available to the consumer. Sounds horribly destructive to the economy, right?

But you collect all that tax revenue and redistribute it evenly across the whole population. So the average (mean) consumer would pay $X amount and receive back $X. A high carbon user would pay $X+100, but only get back X, while someone who rides their bike everywhere, keeps their lights turned off during the day, etc. might pay $X-100, but still receive X back. You could do this either as a check the government cuts at the end of the year, or you could do it as an income tax reduction.

This would encourage people towards more carbon-friendly behaviors and discourage them from carbon unfriendly behaviors while not reducing the total spending power of the economy at all.

Anyone have thoughts on that proposal or a proposal of their own?

Something like you proposed might work for a year or two until someone in the government decides they could make better use of that money and gets a bill passed to reappropriate that money for some pet project. It also has a draw back similar to the tobacco tax where the tax revenue starts to dry up as more people stop using the product because of the excessive taxes. Sure, it in this case might stop or at least slow carbon emission, but the impact on the economy would be felt and it would be large after a few years.

I can't think of any short term solutions that wouldn't have major consequences on the economy, but putting a focus on the development of technologies that reduce our need for oil in a financially viable manner are something that we would need to do.

[Reeve]

They have tried the Urban development thing here with shop on the street and apartments above, it doesn't seem to be working out to well for the shops.

Yeah, like I said, you need a certain critical mass before it works.

[Spectral]

They have tried the Urban development thing here with shop on the street and apartments above, it doesn't seem to be working out to well for the shops.

Where is "here"? Most of the areas that I'm aware of that have tried that layout have generally had success with it. Of course, it has to be part of an overall urban development scheme that motivates local choices, not just a one off.

- - - Updated - - -

Just getting the already developed nations to promote better behaviors would have a pretty significant impact. Plus, if carbon is more expensive, it would speed the development of more green technologies that the developing countries could take on once the developed countries have proven they work. I imagine fuel efficiency tech would advance more rapidly with the advent of a carbon tax as the market for fuel efficient vehicles improved, and there's no reason those vehicles wouldn't find their way to developing economies over time as well.

Yeah, like I said, I'm good with using nations that can afford to treat their energy policy as an experimental lab as such. I think there's a lot of potentially positive outcomes, I'm just skeptical about the likelihood of reducing global emissions anytime even close to our lifetimes. Development of poorer countries is likely to swamp any efforts made by the wealthier nations.

The other part that people don't want to talk about is that if you genuinely are on board with controlling emissions, you more or less have to be on board with population control measures. It's a lot easier to shrink emissions if the global population drops to 5 billion than if it grows to 10 billion.

[Lightwysh]

Where is "here"? Most of the areas that I'm aware of that have tried that layout have generally had success with it. Of course, it has to be part of an overall urban development scheme that motivates local choices, not just a one off.

Here is Denver area. They are replacing malls with these Urban Shopping centers, It looks pretty but usually after the first year and business leases start to come up, they don't get renewed. We have one district here that is about 1 mile x 1 mile, Every month the stores look less and less, the quality of store is degrading, Im guessing withing 2-3 years they will all just be pot shops.

[Reeve]

Something like you proposed might work for a year or two until someone in the government decides they could make better use of that money and gets a bill passed to reappropriate that money for some pet project.

You can set that up so that those funds are required to be redistributed. If someone wants to reappropriate an equivalent amount of funds, it would have to be a separate bill, and just as likely to get through congress as any other tax hike.

It also has a draw back similar to the tobacco tax where the tax revenue starts to dry up as more people stop using the product because of the excessive taxes. Sure, it in this case might stop or at least slow carbon emission, but the impact on the economy would be felt and it would be large after a few years.

As people use less carbon, first off, it means that the law has done its job. But secondly, the revenues dry up along with the redistribution back to people, but that's totally OK because it means people are also paying less tax in the first place. The credits and debits balance.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is Denver area. They are replacing malls with these Urban Shopping centers, It looks pretty but usually after the first year and business leases start to come up, they don't get renewed. We have one district here that is about 1 mile x 1 mile, Every month the stores look less and less, the quality of store is degrading, Im guessing withing 2-3 years they will all just be pot shops.

Denver isn't very high density though. I was just there 2 weeks ago for memorial day.

I've seen the sorts of developments you're talking about in San Jose, CA (Santana Row), and it's probably the most successful thing the city has seen. Houston has a few such things as well, and they work well enough, though not the runaway success of Santana Row.

[Spectral]

Here is Denver area. They are replacing malls with these Urban Shopping centers, It looks pretty but usually after the first year and business leases start to come up, they don't get renewed. We have one district here that is about 1 mile x 1 mile, Every month the stores look less and less, the quality of store is degrading, Im guessing withing 2-3 years they will all just be pot shops.

Ah, yeah, that's unfortunate. I think that point brings to light the importance of solutions being local rather than one-size-fits-all. What works for Madison, Portland, or DC might not work for Denver, Kansas City, or Atlanta.

[Reeve]

Kill all humans.

Pretty sure the goal is to keep the planet comfortable for humans, not to save the planet from them.

"Earth Day" is really "Human Day."

[Altrec]

You can set that up so that those funds are required to be redistributed. If someone wants to reappropriate an equivalent amount of funds, it would have to be a separate bill, and just as likely to get through congress as any other tax hike.

Where there is money there is someone in the government that wants their cut, and no little requirement is going to stop them from finding some loophole to get the money funneled somewhere else. The government doesn't like giving money back once they have it so I don't see it working out. Heck, years ago after the tobacco settlements the money that went to Ohio was only to be used for anti smoking campaigns and for helping people to quit smoking, but most of that money got used for other things.

As people use less carbon, first off, it means that the law has done its job. But secondly, the revenues dry up along with the redistribution back to people, but that's totally OK because it means people are also paying less tax in the first place. The credits and debits balance.

It did its job, but the economy suffered for it without first developing financially viable alternatives to existing technologies. That and assuming those funds were repurposed like I'm sure they would be those funds would need to be made up for somewhere because you know they are not likely to cut their pet projects.

[Gheld]

Less laughable public transit systems.

Even the best public transit systems in North America, are a fucking joke, when compared to some of the worst public transit systems in Europe. So North Americans' need to lose this "PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT, LULZ" attitude and we need to see major public transportation projects.

[Reeve]

Where there is money there is someone in the government that wants their cut, and no little requirement is going to stop them from finding some loophole to get the money funneled somewhere else. The government doesn't like giving money back once they have it so I don't see it working out. Heck, years ago after the tobacco settlements the money that went to Ohio was only to be used for anti smoking campaigns and for helping people to quit smoking, but most of that money got used for other things.

That money you're talking about with the tobacco stuff is money that only people watching anti-smoking funding would notice. If you cut people's carbon tax rebate checks, you better believe they'd notice and raise a stink.

It did its job, but the economy suffered for it without first developing financially viable alternatives to existing technologies. That and assuming those funds were repurposed like I'm sure they would be those funds would need to be made up for somewhere because you know they are not likely to cut their pet projects.

Why did the economy suffer for it? People have the same amount of money to spend in the end. Hell, the "average" person could change no behaviors and come out of it with no change whatsoever. Any money people don't spend on carboniferous goods would be spent instead on something else. You might put a few particularly dirty industries out of business when people look for alternatives, but then the alternative industries would rise instead. And how would we reduce the amount of tax collected during that time without also developing viable alternatives? The money that was being spent on dirty techs before has to go somewhere.

[Gheld]

On the topic of cabron taxes and penalties and stuff.. I 0% support society going backwards in order to reduce CO2. Any changes need to come in the form of improvements that make everybodies lives easier... Such as improved public transit systems, better, cleaner technology, etc.

[Pitkanen]

All funding from carbon tax used to fund global birth control initiatives!!! if only...
Carbon tax isn't much different from tobacco taxes... you use the money to lower it's use (funding white roofs in the southeast, better insulation, LED's, renewable energy), and the tax itself makes people lower their use. And the alternatives become more competitive.

I like the public transit idea as well, both within urban-suburban and across the US. Really, we have an organizational/city planning issue because we've had "cheap gas" for so long, where commuting in a car long distances has been economical and acceptable.

[Altrec]

Less laughable public transit systems.

Even the best public transit systems in North America, are a fucking joke, when compared to some of the worst public transit systems in Europe. So North Americans' need to lose this "PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT, LULZ" attitude and we need to see major public transportation projects.

This like the urban development mentioned above is a density problem. Most of the country is too spread out for a proper public transportation system to be created in the same fashion that you want. In many cases it could easily take hours to get to work using a public transportation system and only 20 min to drive yourself. With everyone being spread out like we are there would be too many bus/train stops, and if you tried to cut too many stops it would be just as easy to drive to work as it would be to drive to the nearest station.