Live data from Hacker News

Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway

norway.no

171–180 of 234 posts

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

#171
post #150
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t just need a carbon tax. We need the public to support it unlike the French public. So we need to redistribute the carbon tax as UBI. So people say “more carbon tax please!” Climate Justice. Contact Andrew Yang who is running for President and tell him his UBI needs to be funded with a carbon tax!

I think if you had a properly planned tax so you could say this is fair and will fix or at least significantly reduce the risk from global warming then people would be ok with it. The present ineffectual stuff doesn't really achieve much.

You are too naive to think that, in my opinion. It is also unnecessary to rely on this dream about human nature when we can just do the UBI thing which is strictly MORE incentive. Not to mention that it lets us introduce UBI’

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

#172
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hardly anything" = 80% of feed crops, foregone absorption of greenhouse gases (i.e. 32% of all of their carbon costs, cf. https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D29... )

Is the sourcing of seaweed in sufficient quantities free of cost?

The active anti-methane compound from seaweed is likely bromoform:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-016-0830-7

It would be a cheap food supplement since the methane inhibition required only about 2% seaweed in cattle food, which in turn implies a bromoform feed content of only about 35 parts per million. Though no doubt some farmers would prefer to be able to say that they add seaweed rather than a particular chemical to their cattle feed.

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing whatsoever. Why must it? Taxes are used to move money from where it is to where it needs to be. The tax would price goods and services relative to their CO2. Hopefully some things like single use plastic, ICE cars, coal power would become impossible or very near so. If you used some of the proceeds to start a UBI, it might pay to replace an ageing and creaking welfare and pension system. UBI might be suitable…

> Nothing whatsoever. Why must it? If the assertion that a carbon (or whatever else) tax is to cover the "cost" of externalities, then the money needs to go to actually addressing those externalities. Otherwise, it's just a lie to make a general tax more palatable. It also runs into the problem that "sin taxes" have, namely that once a government entity has a consistent stream of income from such taxes that it can sp…

> If the assertion ... actually addressing those externalities

No. We can address those externalities by creating low carbon buildings, energy, and other infrastructure. Those are mostly finite projects. Until we know how high carbon taxes must be to induce the required change, we might have far too little to fund even that, or much in excess. Just like it took many years (this time we need to go quicker) to understand the scale of the North Sea oil dividend. After some years we'll have converted much of that infrastructure and need more long term targets for that money. Being perfectly revenue neutral is NOT the aim. Dramatic and lasting behaviour change is.

It needs to avoid promoting extra spending that cancels out reductions achieved by the tax, and enough redistribution to compensate for the regressive nature of a big carbon tax on goods and services. We don't want people starving as a result. UBI seems it could fit nicely. Doing both seems in the best interest of the planet and UK. There may be better ways of achieving those two aims.

> It also runs into the problem that "sin taxes" have

Yet the UK has had no problem whatsoever, on both sides of the political divide, campaigning against smoking whilst having public health policies to promote quitting and increasing "sin" taxes way in excess of inflation yearly. Smoking rates have dropped to around 10%. Why can't this be exactly comparable and as successful? Sin taxes have quite definitely not had this problem for smoking. Smokers are an endangered species in the UK. A carbon tax seems perfectly analogous here, and ideally suitable for the European context.

> Norway's oil fund is built up on royalties .. It's not a tax on externalities

I am very well aware of that. I did not claim it was such a tax, and it doesn't matter in the least anyway. It was an example of a more intelligent use of a government windfall income.

Creating a long term fund to benefit the UK beats most of the alternatives, and certainly beats the Thatcherite model of pissing it away on tax cuts and consumer booms. Those are the very last things we need for this issue.

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

#174
post #160
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI: "Feeding cows seaweed cuts 99% of greenhouse gas emissions from their burps, research finds" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-metha...

I've read this cows/seaweed story now often enough that I looked into it. It seems it's all based on a study on 12 cows performed by UC Davis [1]. That is... not exactly confidence inspiring. It may very well be a statistical fluke and the reality is much less reassuring. Not saying we shouldn't research in that direction, but this looks way too early to be confident in it. [1] https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/news/…

I don't want to prevent you from testing on a larger sample:)

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

#175
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use some of it to subsidise insulation and better standard buildings, cleaner air and power, better railways etc. Fund a UBI. I'm fascinated at downvotes for this suggestion. What's actually wrong with spending part on lower impact infrastructure and part on a replacement for a broken welfare system?

Your heart is in the right place, but what you advocate isn't currently palatable to anyone, left or right, on the political spectrum. Instead, push for a fee-and-dividend model – not entirely UBI, but similar in spirit. It's what most economists support, and it has enough bipartisan support [0] that there is actually a bill before Congress now that has a chance of passing. [0] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climat…

My heart is also the other side of the Atlantic. :)

Being perfectly revenue neutral is NOT the aim. Dramatic and lasting behaviour change is, and enough redistribution that the solution doesn't create other huge problems.

If fee and dividend is what the US is most amenable to, so be it. The biggest advantage (for the US) of fee and dividend is that it seems the most US market friendly of the alternatives that have been widely discussed.

I have only ever heard it proposed in a US context. It's also the mechanism I know least about. Which is no reason at all not to try. Still, I'd be delighted to see the US, or anyone, successfully adopt it. It may even turn out to be the best of the proposed mechanisms.

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

#177
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hardly anything" = 80% of feed crops, foregone absorption of greenhouse gases (i.e. 32% of all of their carbon costs, cf. https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/54D29... )

Is the sourcing of seaweed in sufficient quantities free of cost?

of course nothing is free but they think it may be feasible: https://www.symbrosiasolutions.com/team

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

#178
post #86
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don’t just need a carbon tax. We need the public to support it unlike the French public. So we need to redistribute the carbon tax as UBI. So people say “more carbon tax please!” Climate Justice. Contact Andrew Yang who is running for President and tell him his UBI needs to be funded with a carbon tax!

UBI just makes landlords richer. Why not have the country simply pick up the carbon tax for individuals?

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

#179
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.

Why? China's per capita emissions are less than half of the US.

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

#180

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.

Why? China's per capita emissions are less than half of the US.

And the volume?
Post reply on HN