Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering carbon payment from Norway • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #230

BurningFrog wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US can impose tariffs on trade with the US . If they wanted to impose it on China's oil trade with Saudi or Russia, it would have to be done militarily. And that still leaves the question how to impose a carbon tax on China's domestic coal and oil.

The purpose of carbon tarrifs is not to punish other countries. The purpose of carbon tarrifs is to make foreign dirty-energy-intensive products less competitive, compared to less dirty-energy-intensive ones. Because we already have a way of making domestic dirty-energy-intensive products less competitive. It works great. It's called a domestic carbon tax. They remove the immediate complaint of "If we impose a local…

OP talked about a carbon tax, as am I.

You're talking about "carbon tarrifs", which I've never heard of, and don't know what they are.

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

#232

Post by pofjer » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 6:15 AM UTC

bjlorenzen wrote: post #202

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 pure speculation. Meanwhile, our government is actively invading and occupying how many countries?

0?

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

#233

Post by vkou » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 7:36 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #231

vkou wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of carbon tarrifs is not to punish other countries. The purpose of carbon tarrifs is to make foreign dirty-energy-intensive products less competitive, compared to less dirty-energy-intensive ones. Because we already have a way of making domestic dirty-energy-intensive products less competitive. It works great. It's called a domestic carbon tax. They remove the immediate complaint of "If we impose a local…

OP talked about a carbon tax, as am I. You're talking about "carbon tarrifs", which I've never heard of, and don't know what they are.

A carbon tariff is a carbon tax, but on external goods, that come from countries which don't have carbon taxes of their own.

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

#234

Post by sorryforthethro » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 3:01 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #165

sorryforthethro wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I absolutely disagree. Inserting the government into the average citizen's balance sheet can and will be corrupted.