Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#21

Post by dane-pgp » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 10:39 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #12

dane-pgp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the…

It's an interesting idea, but the rich and powerful run the world and basically don't pay taxes. You don't need environmental dress-up, you just need the rich to pay their taxes. Wow, the world is pumping 40 gigatons per year excess CO2, which (at 100$/ton, god I hope we find a cheap way to remove carbon) is 4 trillion per year. There are historically about 2 teratons of excess carbon in the air. Christ that's 200 tr…

> 4 trillion per year.

For comparison, the Gross World Product[0] of 2019 was estimated to be 88 trillion, so a 5% global tax devoted to carbon removal would be sufficient.

Countries could even be given a quota, and they would get a rebate for every ton they came in under that quota, such that they would pay net zero tax if they were net zero on carbon emissions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#22

Post by telesilla » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

sien wrote: post #14

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

That's what's so damn infuriating. Taxpayers are paying that now in subsidies/lack of taxes for non-renewables because of lobbying and corruption. Make it a fair playing field and renewables will get the investment instead without any noticeable rise in user fees.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#23

Post by dane-pgp » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #17

dane-pgp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's the wrong question, and thus a distraction from getting the problem solved. Instead they should have asked "Do you support a tax on the top 1% of polluters, which is paid as a dividend to the bottom 99%?" I suppose that might have the unintended consequence / cobra effect of making people want the top 1% to pollute more, so they get a bigger dividend payment, but, on the other hand, I don't think that the…

Pollution doesn't happen because some "top 1%" want it, it happens because it is a byproduct of goods and services consumed by all of us. A small tax won't change behavior, but a large tax will impact consumer prices of the relevant goods. Who do you think the "top 1% of polluters" are with respect to greenhouse gases? If USA adds a heavy tax to imports from Saudi Aramco and other oil companies, gas prices will jump…

As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer.

So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an extra tax to the people who use 10xN joules.

However, there are going to be cases where it makes sense to tax cheap-but-polluting products to give a dividend to help people buy more-expensive but less-polluting products, even if that means that prices go up slightly. That's just capturing the externalities of the polluting products, though.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#24

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #23

PeterisP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pollution doesn't happen because some "top 1%" want it, it happens because it is a byproduct of goods and services consumed by all of us. A small tax won't change behavior, but a large tax will impact consumer prices of the relevant goods. Who do you think the "top 1% of polluters" are with respect to greenhouse gases? If USA adds a heavy tax to imports from Saudi Aramco and other oil companies, gas prices will jump…

As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer. So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an e…

Okay, I think I understand your idea - essentially to impose nonlinear costs to consumption of "carbon-heavy" goods and services, so that someone who flies 10xN miles pays much more than 10x of tax.

It would be interesting and useful if it worked, however, I'm sceptical of this working - in essence, while "linear" taxes can be relatively easily (there still are difficulties, especially internationally) levied at any point e.g. manufacture, import, sale or use, anonymously, no matter who or how consumes the product. However, having such a "nonlinear" tax is quite hard to administer effectively since it requires taxing at the point of use, tracking all points of sale to the specific individuals, aggregating them (if the person flies N miles per year from many different companies), and preventing transfers of that thing between people and/or using proxies.

I don't think that I have seen nonlinear consumption taxes implemented in practice anywhere; the largest nonlinearity I have seen is exemptions where some ways of circumventing the tax are explicitly permitted for small, limited quantities. For core aspects of carbon emissions - namely, emissions from burning fossil fuels either in cars or heating homes - that would essentially require individual registration of fuel purchases; IMHO that would be treated as quite invasive; for the airline example you mention, this would require shifting the airline pricing so that the price is dependent on which person will be flying (beyond mere name, since names are not unique), which would be a major change in all the process of how airline tickets are booked worldwide.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#25

Post by juanani » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

ergot_vacation wrote: post #18

gremloni wrote: post #13

This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.

Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Tossing trash everywhere and running gas through your bus-like SUV like a maniac is an asshole move, and your neighbors don't appreciate it, but it doesn't move the needle much on actual environmental issues. Big companies and big foreign nations are where the CO2 is coming from. They…

And then you have your golden boy US Arms industry who will rather label you a terrorist than stop their violent greed. They are 'required' or but but power vaccuum, everyone else is just as greedy, ree.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#26

Post by dane-pgp » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #24

dane-pgp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a reasonable starting point, the "top 1%" wouldn't be the companies that sell products that most people need (like cars and electricity), it would be the consumers that use vastly more resources than the average consumer. So, for example, if the average person flies N miles per year, then add an extra tax to the people who fly 10xN miles. If the average person uses N joules of gas to heat their home, then add an e…

Okay, I think I understand your idea - essentially to impose nonlinear costs to consumption of "carbon-heavy" goods and services, so that someone who flies 10xN miles pays much more than 10x of tax. It would be interesting and useful if it worked, however, I'm sceptical of this working - in essence, while "linear" taxes can be relatively easily (there still are difficulties, especially internationally) levied at any…

I was going to say that the administration of this might be difficult, so I completely accept your points above.

The reason I chose flights and home heating specifically was that they are some of the easiest to administer, since governments already track which unique individuals are buying which flights, and home heating is naturally tied to an address (although I suppose someone might own a second home, with the gas bill paid in their spouse's name).

For something like car travel, we may (unfortunately) reach a point where everyone's journeys are tracked, or at least where odometer readings have to be regularly submitted to the government. It wouldn't be too hard for the government to aggregate those numbers by registered owner, but it does assume that there is a fixed conversion between miles travelled and CO2 emitted, which breaks down if synthetic fuel becomes an option.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#27

Post by gremloni » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

ergot_vacation wrote: post #18

gremloni wrote: post #13

This is good. This particular change has to be top down. The ability to put pressure on government and industry should be grass roots, not behavioral changes themselves.

Bingo. Fuck this gaslighting. The vast majority of pollution in general, and CO2 in particular, comes from industry, not individuals. Tossing trash everywhere and running gas through your bus-like SUV like a maniac is an asshole move, and your neighbors don't appreciate it, but it doesn't move the needle much on actual environmental issues. Big companies and big foreign nations are where the CO2 is coming from. They…

Exactly. But at the same time we can’t wash our hand at the grassroots level. We have to continue to be environmentally conscious and put pressure on industry.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#28

Post by jeherr » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 12:15 AM UTC

sien wrote: post #14

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

To add a little perspective, before Covid some 40%ish number of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#29

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 12:16 AM UTC

jeherr wrote: post #28

sien wrote: post #14

68% of Americans say they wouldn't pay $10 a month in higher electricity bills to combat Climate Change: https://www.cato.org/blog/68-americans-wouldnt-pay-10-month-... What politicians say they want to do about global warming is very, very different to what people say they will pay for.

To add a little perspective, before Covid some 40%ish number of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck.

Yeah, some people are very much struggling to survive. They don't have it to spare.

Re: Few willing to change lifestyle to save the planet, climate survey finds

#30

Post by brianwawok » Mon, Nov 08, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #11

CM30 wrote: post #4

I'm not surprised. Trying to rely on people to voluntarily change their behaviour while leaving companies to seemingly do whatever they want without consequences is a terrible idea. Why should people sacrifice their lifestyle while large corporations continue to make cheap, disposable goods and waste resources anyway? What's the incentive to consume less and change our lifestyles if leaders/celebrities/billionaires j…

Couldn’t agree more.It’s like asking individuals not to eat meat to stop climate change… What about stopping companies fracking, mining coal, selling combustion engines first ?

Why not both :)