If we're going to be serious about reducing carbon emissions we need to end "cap and trade" and simply apply "cap" to everyone, celebrities and politicians included with no exceptions. If we cannot commit to that level of reducing carbon I have wonder if this isn't a trading scheme masquerading as an environmental cause.
On the contrary, it's quite obvious that the rich emits far more than the poor. Even if the rich can accelerate their switch to renewable, they still couldn't fly more. They can't buy too many cars / houses, etc. Also, any reduction in CO2 emission from the rich would help the rest of the population as the allowed average footprint would increase.
My reasoning is that these taxes increase the price of all goods, including food and energy. That hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich because food and energy expenses are a much bigger % of their income for the poor.
> My reasoning is that these taxes increase the price of all goods, including food and energy.
If you do a cash transfer to low-income individuals funded by the tax, it is entirely possible to make the tax progressive or neutral instead. (and it still does all of the important market-pricing action things its supposed to)
But it can be tricky - some poor people use more gas than others. And if we want to give an extra cash transfer to the cleaner who starts work before public transit starts running, that's going to get complex to administer.
Giving the same to him as anyone else at a similar income level would be just fine. Assuming he can get any other job requiring a similar skill level the market wage for ‘cleaners who have start work before public transport starts’ running would naturally have to increase.
While I think you have a valid point and I'm 100% behind it, cap and trade would not necessarily hurt "the poor".
The difference in emissions between small and big polluters (them being people or companies) is abysmal, a low contributor could easily double/triple its footprint and still come out much lower than the big ones.
I think a sensible solution is cap and trade at the country level and let it trickle down from there.
A system like "cap-and-trade" is sustainable politically precisely because it benefits a few carbon traders who can make huge profits from the system. They can feed back 0.1% of their profits to politicians to keep their privileges.
The rest of us (who depend on this planet to live on) face a collective action problem where everybody has to lower carbon emissions. For instance the US has high per capita emissions but still is responsible for only 15% of global emissions. If the US had a breakthrough and stopped emitting carbon tomorrow it wouldn't solve the problem unless countries responsible for 80% or so of emissions also did.
The structure of it is that there is always (and maybe will be) some major country that takes a contemptuous attitude about climate change (say the US under Trump) that gives other countries (say Germany) cover to talk a good game but take no action.
The poor will suffer the most from global warming, but they’ll still often be much better off than they are now. For example, there are estimates that global warming will cost Bangladesh 10% of its GDP by the end of the century. That’s a lot, but it would be far worse to try and avoid climate change and risk losing even 1 point of annual GDP growth until then.
There are also estimates that Bangladesh will be under the ocean by the end of the century - wonder whether that's worth forgoing 1% annual GDP growth.
Less of Bangladesh will be underwater by the end of the century than Holland in the 19th century. My dad was complaining yesterday that “Bangladeshi kids today don’t know what it’s like to have to take a boat to school during monsoon season.” Flood control technology has pretty much eliminated such flooding in his village and those like it.
They’ve been estimating some place or another would be underwater for years. And it still hasn’t happened. What did Al Gore say in 2009 about the ice caps in “5-7 years?” Gore wasn’t even close to correct.
>They’ve been estimating some place or another would be underwater for years. And it still hasn’t happened.
Because most of those predictions weren't claimed to be happening within the next few years. This would still be some decades off, at least.
>What did Al Gore say in 2009 about the ice caps in “5-7 years?” Gore wasn’t even close to correct.
[sigh] Here, give me your hand, I'll hold it for you...
>"These figures are fresh,” Gore said on Dec. 14, 2009, during the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen.
>He added: “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
>Gore cited findings from climatologist Dr Wieslav Maslowski, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School.
>However, it appears he mis-stated the forecast, according to reporting at the time.
>In an interview with The Times published on Dec. 15, 2009, Dr Maslowski said: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
I would also hope that I don't need to point out to you that just because Gore didn't know how to communicate data he was seeing, that that means climate change isn't a thing. I feel like I do, though, because your comment so obviously feels like you're willfully not paying attention.
The problem is theoretical and practical... In theory, a cap would be the same for everyone... in practice, rich people would be able to avoid the cap, and the poor would still be capped.
I lived in a country, where we had odd- even- systems of driving a car due to gas shortages many years ago (basically if your licence plate ended with an odd number, you could drive on odd dates, and even-even). Rich people bought another car... poor people had transport problems.
We've come to a situation where rich people ride their private jets to eco-something conferences, tell Average Joes that they shouldn't eat meat and drive their cars, because in 20 years, the sea will rise for x meters anyway, and then those rich people take their private jets back to their newly bought beachfront properties.
So, when the law (which is written by the rich) changes... who will get fucked the most? WIll they really hurt their own? If they're "afraid" of climate change, why don't they change their behaviour first? And if they don't, why should average joe do that, when he already pollutes A LOT less?
It is going to be cheaper for poor countries to go directly to renewables. There is no law that says that you need to pollute to become wealthy. The pollute-y kinda tech was just more cost-effective in the past.
A third of the world still burns wood for fuel. One of the most effective things we can do to curb emissions is get them using coal instead. Renewables are not in the immediate future for much of the world.
Burning wood releases more ghg per unit of energy than coal. We're not talking about biomass pellets in efficient furnaces, but actual wood in a stove. The fact that a tree can grow back in 20 years and alter the equation doesn't help us at all right now. Leaving the trees standing and instead burning coal will result in a decrease of emissions.
> It is going to be cheaper for poor countries to go directly to renewables.
Coal plants are the cheapest way to produce electricity. And no, solar which operates at a fraction of installed capacity and is useless for large periods of time is not a cheaper alternative.
