Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

norway.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 234 posts

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#161

Post by sorryforthethro »

sideshowb wrote: post #123
wjnc wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an economist I fully agree. It's not the solution but the measure that helps consumers in ranking all possible solutions. Why is flying without kerosine tax? Why do we spend a few k€ on electric car subsidies per MT less emitted. A tax would make things like this transparant. All we need is some party with the clout of the EU or US to get this thing going. There is no opting out trading with us and no opting out f…

> CO2 accounting and taxing will be a massive invitation for corruption, gaming and bad actors That's the problem already. We've had a CO2 price for a long time - but it's meaninglessly low. I can only presume because of lobbying from those with vested interests.

Not just simple fraud, but a major hurdle is how to regulate CO2 necessary for producing consumer energy without creating a regressive tax structure. Once CO2 is converted to electricity on the grid, it's fungible and impossible to sort out luxury vs necessity.

Imho, government trying to sin-tax away CO2 is result of our failure to invest in technology solutions.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#162

Post by shoo »

varjag wrote: post #159
shoo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway gained a lot of wealth from extracting and selling the oil. All parties in the transaction (producer, middle men, end users) "should" be carbon taxed to some degree. It's not obvious to me why you'd only want to carbon tax the consumer. Similarly, in public debate there's a lot of finger pointing at oil companies. The public can be somewhat less vocal about wanting to carbon tax the demand side of the trade, o…

It did gain a lot of wealth of selling oil, however it has nothing to do with Norway CO2 emissions. Carbon footprint describes where the source of CO2 pollution is. You can make plastics from all that oil you buy or burn it all, that's on you. If you do burn it, you become CO2 pollutant, really hard to see the controversial part here.

Nonsense. You can define "carbon footprint" that way if you like, but I view that as an accounting definition. You've just decided to define it that way.

CO2 pollution is stored in the atmosphere, which is a shared global resource.

I'd argue that carbon taxing should be designed to discourage economic activity that directly or indirectly leads to greenhouse gas emissions, you need to disincentivise production as well as consumption as well as associated enabling activities such as shipping the stuff. Encourage all of these actors to do something else that results in lower net carbon emissions at the global system level.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#163

Post by vkou »

Kephael wrote: post #149
vkou wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to consent. That's the whole point of tariffs. They can be imposed unilaterally (As we have recently seen with the US - China shoving contest. Which, of course, had nothing to do with the environment, or carbon emissions, and everything to do with political optics.)

If the West stops trading with China then they will invade Taiwan and Okinawa and also supply modern weapon systems to North Korea.

This is Tom Clancy fairy-tale nonsense. China wants a nuclear-free Korea, for the same reason that the United States wants a nuclear-free Mexico and Canada. Nuclear super-powers aren't keen on letting their neighboring satellite states limit their foreign policy, by arming them.

A carbon tax is not 'stopping trade'. It's an increase to the price of goods that are energy-intensive to manufacture, or ship.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#164

Post by RHSeeger »

vkou wrote: post #142
BurningFrog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think China would consent to being taxed like that.

They don't have to consent. That's the whole point of tariffs. They can be imposed unilaterally (As we have recently seen with the US - China shoving contest. Which, of course, had nothing to do with the environment, or carbon emissions, and everything to do with political optics.)

A tariff is generally across the board though, by product type. If one company starts being more "green" than the others in the country of origin, it doesn't generally get hit less by tariffs.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#165

Post by gowld »

sorryforthethro wrote: post #161
sideshowb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CO2 accounting and taxing will be a massive invitation for corruption, gaming and bad actors That's the problem already. We've had a CO2 price for a long time - but it's meaninglessly low. I can only presume because of lobbying from those with vested interests.

Not just simple fraud, but a major hurdle is how to regulate CO2 necessary for producing consumer energy without creating a regressive tax structure. Once CO2 is converted to electricity on the grid, it's fungible and impossible to sort out luxury vs necessity. Imho, government trying to sin-tax away CO2 is result of our failure to invest in technology solutions.

Not so hard. It's fine if any individual tax is regressive, as long is counterbalanced by UBI or other forms of per-capita welfare support. You don't need to measure precisely, as long as you get rough estimates that people pay $Y in various sin-taxes but get $X>$Y in general welfare benefits.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#166

Post by gowld »

everdev wrote: post #127
ptaffs wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, with advertising and brand loyalty, often people spend more than they need to on equivalent goods.

Sure, if it's a marginal cost increase or if you're wealthy. But middle-income families typically aren't going to spend 25-50% more on a comparable product to save on CO2. There was a big push decades ago to buy American, but it largely failed because for the majority of people living paycheck to paycheck, spending 25-50% more to have an American flag sticker on your purchase wasn't worth it.

Also because there is 0 accountability that the flag sticker is honest. Sometimes the only part that's "made in USA" is the effort of applying the sticker.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#167

Post by losteric »

andrepd wrote: post #43
StreamBright wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what most Westerners do not get about China. If you want to reduce emissions stop buying their products.

People do get that, but waiting for people to spontaneously start doing the right thing is just not a very good strategy. That's why we need a carbon tax. To force people to.

Regulations across borders are ineffective, usually useless... and good luck promoting conscientious consumerism.

We need tariffs on imports from polluting countries.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#168

Post by Kephael »

vkou wrote: post #163
Kephael wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the West stops trading with China then they will invade Taiwan and Okinawa and also supply modern weapon systems to North Korea.

This is Tom Clancy fairy-tale nonsense. China wants a nuclear-free Korea, for the same reason that the United States wants a nuclear-free Mexico and Canada. Nuclear super-powers aren't keen on letting their neighboring satellite states limit their foreign policy, by arming them. A carbon tax is not 'stopping trade'. It's an increase to the price of goods that are energy-intensive to manufacture, or ship.

The Chinese aren't going to allow any sort of tariffs that would threaten their rapid industrialization without serious saber-rattling.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#169

Post by dawnerd »

StreamBright wrote: post #4
maaaats wrote: post #2

> In 2010, Norway pledged to support Indonesia with up to 1 billion USD depending on results. It's easy to sit in a developed western country, buying products from other countries, and then complain about their emissions. I'm glad that we're trying to be responsible. It may not be enough or not the right way to do it (some thoughts on this?), but it's something.

This is exactly what most Westerners do not get about China. If you want to reduce emissions stop buying their products.

Unfortunately that's not really an option for most things. And even when you find something thats made "in America" it's usually just assembled here with parts from China.

Re: Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

#170

Post by noir_lord »

everdev wrote: post #127
ptaffs wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, with advertising and brand loyalty, often people spend more than they need to on equivalent goods.

Sure, if it's a marginal cost increase or if you're wealthy. But middle-income families typically aren't going to spend 25-50% more on a comparable product to save on CO2. There was a big push decades ago to buy American, but it largely failed because for the majority of people living paycheck to paycheck, spending 25-50% more to have an American flag sticker on your purchase wasn't worth it.

My partner and I are a middle income family (though comfortable because we live cheap) and we buy based on a bunch of factors including brand loyalty and environment policy (as much as you can find out without it turning into a full time job).
Post reply on HN