5 ms·
There’s absolutely no way to compute the price of the damage that every ton of CO2 is going to do, so whatever value you choose is going to be arbitrary and ult
by nells 4y ago
There’s absolutely no way to compute the price of the damage that every ton of CO2 is going to do, so whatever value you choose is going to be arbitrary and ultimately unfair.
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoWhat’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a positive number adjustable based on large scale statistics does a hell of a lot more to fix market incentives than pricing it at a constant $0 and banning one specific thing (in a way which can’t even be enforced) as a political gimmick.
- nells 4y agoYou can also price it at $0 and NOT ban it.
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoSure, but that does nothing to help with the tragedy of the commons caused by unaddressed negative externalities…
- nells 4y agoThis is more like the politician's syllogism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoExcept it actually addresses a serious problem on two fronts 1) reducing the ability to profit off of actions that cause environmental damage thereby aligning the market interest to reduce such actions 2) funding the investment in reversing the damage whereas your suggestion above is doing literally nothing to help…
- piva00 4y agoAnd why would you price it at $0 if it's already known it does cause damages. Just because you can't fairly price it doesn't mean it costs zero, that's an absurd logic...
- danuker 4y agoA fair minimum tax is one that ensures we stay below catastrophic per-capita emissions, as estimated by the IPCC, created exactly for understanding climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...
- germandiago 4y agoWhy I have to believe this report when I do not see even accurate weather forecasts one week ahead in many cases? I really think that the possibility of obtaining the wrong conclusions are much higher than getting it right, yet the consequences of putting a ton of restrictions is really harmful for many people, especially in developing countries.
- danuker 4y agoThis report is the outcome of thousands of scientists collaborating. What it predicts for developing countries is disaster, which we already see. More droughts in the summer combined with floods in spring/autumn. This leads to food insecurity and ecosystem disruption, which will be more harmful than not doing anything. Weather is hard to predict short-term, but the long-term trends (i.e. climate) are visible.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agohttps://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-mo...
- actuallyalys 4y agoWhy do I have to believe my math teacher when he says he knows the distribution of rolling a pair of dice 1000 times when he cannot even predict the next roll of the dice?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoRight, this includes pricing it at zero which is what we're doing now.