Freedom & The Environment (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Climate change is a negative externality. The onerous cost of pursuing compensation through the Courts, and the long term nature of the carbon release indicates that it is infeasible to regulate this behaviour through the tort system alone. There is a market for appearing to be green but that still isn't enough, so the only real sensible way to internalise the problem is to introduce a carbon tax at the point of extraction, but distribute 100% of this (minus admin costs) back to the taxpayers.

 

[Slidey]

Climate change is a negative externality. The onerous cost of pursuing compensation through the Courts, and the long term nature of the carbon release indicates that it is infeasible to regulate this behaviour through the tort system alone. There is a market for appearing to be green but that still isn't enough, so the only real sensible way to internalise the problem is to introduce a carbon tax at the point of extraction, but distribute 100% of this (minus admin costs) back to the taxpayers.

This.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Climate change is a negative externality. The onerous cost of pursuing compensation through the Courts, and the long term nature of the carbon release indicates that it is infeasible to regulate this behaviour through the tort system alone. There is a market for appearing to be green but that still isn't enough, so the only real sensible way to internalise the problem is to introduce a carbon tax at the point of extraction, but distribute 100% of this (minus admin costs) back to the taxpayers.

Sounds sensible, but you are ignoring is the unseen costs of a carbon tax.

How do you quantify the costs and ascertain who has suffered damages? Even the best scientists cannot agree on the extent to which carbon emissions cause climate change, let alone the value and distribution of the costs associated with the damage.

It also implies a need for world government, or at least unprecedented levels of international co-operation since mosts of the costs of climate change will be born outside the jurisdiction where the emissions take place. In particular, countries like Bangladesh and island countries with low lying areas stand to be most adversely affected.

This raises the issue of further problems that are already rife when it comes to foreign aid. Sure, Australia could pay the government of Bangladesh compensation, but how much of the money will actually go to those impoverished Bangladeshis that have been harmed by climate change? More likely the money will mostly be misappropriated by corrupt governments and warlords and actually used to harm the people intended to be helped.

Furthermore, if the biggest polluters like the USA and China don't commit to such a scheme (along with most of the world) then anything done at the domestic level will be almost pointless.

Then there's the transaction costs. Since the government is inefficient, incompetent and corrupt at everything else it does, there is no reason to expect that this would be any different. Already the Australian government is planning to exempt or compensate some of the biggest polluters from the a carbon tax scheme. Then there's the usual problem of the most powerful companies and individuals being very good at circumventing taxes. It's quite difficult to accurately measure carbon emissions, and expensive and time consuming to ensure they are not being under reported.

So like most proposals for government intervention, it sounds good on the surface and would make sense if it could be done at a reasonable cost with reasonable accuracy; but in practice the costs of the scheme would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

 

[withoutaface]

Sounds sensible, but you are ignoring is the unseen costs of a carbon tax.

How do you quantify the costs and ascertain who has suffered damages? Even the best scientists cannot agree on the extent to which carbon emissions cause climate change, let alone the value and distribution of the costs associated with the damage.

It also implies a need for world government, or at least unprecedented levels of international co-operation since mosts of the costs of climate change will be born outside the jurisdiction where the emissions take place. In particular, countries like Bangladesh and island countries with low lying areas stand to be most adversely affected.

This raises the issue of further problems that are already rife when it comes to foreign aid. Sure, Australia could pay the government of Bangladesh compensation, but how much of the money will actually go to those impoverished Bangladeshis that have been harmed by climate change? More likely the money will mostly be misappropriated by corrupt governments and warlords and actually used to harm the people intended to be helped.

Furthermore, if the biggest polluters like the USA and China don't commit to such a scheme (along with most of the world) then anything done at the domestic level will be almost pointless.

Then there's the transaction costs. Since the government is inefficient, incompetent and corrupt at everything else it does, there is no reason to expect that this would be any different. Already the Australian government is planning to exempt or compensate some of the biggest polluters from the a carbon tax scheme. Then there's the usual problem of the most powerful companies and individuals being very good at circumventing taxes. It's quite difficult to accurately measure carbon emissions, and expensive and time consuming to ensure they are not being under reported.

So like most proposals for government intervention, it sounds good on the surface and would make sense if it could be done at a reasonable cost with reasonable accuracy; but in practice the costs of the scheme would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

It's a prisoner's dilemma, but also one where everyone else can see your hand. China absolutely spacked at the idea of developed countries unilaterally lowering their emissions because they knew if this happened then in a few years they would look really bad if they were the only ones not doing so, that's why Copenhagen was scuttled (I believe you'd probably seen this article but if not I can get you a source).

The key to change is pledges (Rudd was onto something here). We concede that unilateral action is not the answer, but we make some commitment (say 5 or 10%) but then go further to agree to go further if a large chunk of the international community does so, and from there you have everyone but a couple of countries invested in the game, and the diplomatic pressure hopefully flows down that way. Getting this process started would need at least one big player, and I think the EU (hectic trots that they are) fits this bill.

The taxation itself would be imposed either at the mine/well or on the importation (haven't explored the mechanics very well at this point) but at a rate which represents the maximum emissions from that fuel under ordinary conditions, and it would fall to the ones who burn it to provide evidence that they've actually created less carbon than they could have, or that they've offset it, or something, and receive a rebate commensurate with that. The administrative burden would be there, but if it's bundled with tax returns I don't think the extra cost would be unmanageable (and certainly lower than an ETS).

EDIT: The other wonderful thing to pressure China is that most of their wealth/production is generate by exports, and if there were carbon tariffs put up on their goods because they weren't carbon taxing those goods themselves, then they'd find themselves not much better off for not having participated anyway.

 

[SylviaB]

Not really. But I don't think that's very relevant because (assuming AGW = real) it's already been concluded that 'any means necessary' is not, uh, necessary.

okay say you had absolute power, and your goal was the effective prevention of climate change etc whatever, what would you do?

 

[Slidey]

okay say you had absolute power, and your goal was the effective prevention of climate change etc whatever, what would you do?

I would, over time, make it more and more economically unviable to produce electricity via fossil fuels (excluding nuclear).

I would also mandate (and subsidise if it became a significant financial burden) that all houses were built properly. If we replaced every house in Australia with an energy efficient version (targetting especially things like roofing, windows, and insulation), we would easily knock something like 25% to 50% off our CO2 emissions.

These two measures would be more than sufficient.

 

[zombie omie jay]

is nuclear regarded as using fossil fuels?

 

[zombie omie jay]

public money to build a public network of nuclear plants and put those coal guys out of business then privatise

 

[withoutaface]

I would, over time, make it more and more economically unviable to produce electricity via fossil fuels (excluding nuclear).

I would also mandate (and subsidise if it became a significant financial burden) that all houses were built properly. If we replaced every house in Australia with an energy efficient version (targetting especially things like roofing, windows, and insulation), we would easily knock something like 25% to 50% off our CO2 emissions.

These two measures would be more than sufficient.

The second point is overcommitted tosh in the same vein as the insulation subsidy. If you make energy more expensive then people will choose to build such houses (or convert their existing ones) as an economic imperative.

 

[badquinton304]

is nuclear regarded as using fossil fuels?

No nuclear is not using fossil fuels. I think he just means non-renewable energy.

I would, over time, make it more and more economically unviable to produce electricity via fossil fuels (excluding nuclear).

I would also mandate (and subsidise if it became a significant financial burden) that all houses were built properly. If we replaced every house in Australia with an energy efficient version (targetting especially things like roofing, windows, and insulation), we would easily knock something like 25% to 50% off our CO2 emissions.

These two measures would be more than sufficient.

This.

 

[withoutaface]

public money to build a public network of nuclear plants and put those coal guys out of business then privatise

That's as dumb as Slidey's idea.

Read up on Pigovian taxes. Nuclear power does not possess a positive externality, neither does a well built home, except insofar as they avoid the negative externalities associated with fossil fuels. Ergo you tax the negative externality, you don't subsidise what you perceive to be alternatives because you're a) picking winners within the power generation industry and b) ignoring that, given the choice, people might choose to spend money on another product rather than energy when a carbon tax is factored in.

 

[lonely-lass]

Just. Just leave.

Did you even actually read...forget it, just go.

I know I didn't answer your question. Environment is more important to lead a healthy life, forget freedom!

 

[Slidey]

is nuclear regarded as using fossil fuels?

Not so much I suppose. It's not really renewable, though. Not to mention that if uranium ever did run out there is always thorium (abundant as fuck, and clean as fuck - both in terms of radioactivity and environmental damage).

Also waf: you can throw big words around all you like, but at the end of the day it would get the job done and with fairly minimal cost to 'liberty'. I concede that a carbon tax is likely sufficient though.

The government's insulation scheme was rammed through with little thought or oversight.

 

[withoutaface]

Not so much I suppose. It's not really renewable, though. Not to mention that if uranium ever did run out there is always thorium (abundant as fuck, and clean as fuck - both in terms of radioactivity and environmental damage).

Also waf: you can throw big words around all you like, but at the end of the day it would get the job done and with fairly minimal cost to 'liberty'. I concede that a carbon tax is likely sufficient though.

The government's insulation scheme was rammed through with little thought or oversight.

I'm not throwing words niggah, I'm throwing concepts. If you're subsidising product A to decrease the use of product B, then you're leaving the producers of product C in the cold, because you should just be taxing B more.