It’s spread to being used by more entities than just BP, but the blame-shifting purpose remains the same.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source (e.g. taxing it enough to fully compensate for its negative externalities), not by trying to guilt-trip individuals.
The same trick is played with recycling. Blame the end consumer for a supply chain completely out of their control.
The biggest polluters are corporations and we stop their pollution by regulation. These mega corps would have you believe that it’s really your fault PFAS are everywhere because you shouldn’t have bought those Teflon coated products. Nevermind the fact that Teflon is everywhere a nonstick surface is needed.
Yep. The personal responsibility gambit (or should I say fallacy?).
It was such a clever idea, starting with Coca Cola’s “Litterbug” campaign (where they campaigned against bottle deposits under the guise of wanting “personal responsibility” over “regulations.”)
It’s “up to the consumer” to make the right choices. It just so happens that the meat from decently treated animals is five times more expensive and that you have to drive 100 miles to buy it. Or that being environmentally conscious has been made into a tiring exercise in futility where you constantly have to inconvenience yourself.
As an added bonus, individuals trying to convince other individuals to inconvenience themselves in the same way can be painted as obnoxious, holier-than-thou and insufferable. A real double win for unscrupulous big business.
The fact that teflon is still everywhere should be proof enough that regulations are worthless in the face of capitalism (a feature of course, not a bug)
Not really, PFAS have been almost completely unregulated. It is just in the last 2 years that we are starting to see PFAS regulations globally. Up until that point, we allowed companies to literally just dump them down the rain or in a lake.
If regulations were so worthless, you should be asking yourself why every single industry fights new ones. Why the supreme court in the US has taken a position to kill Chevron Deference which weakens federal agencies ability to regulate.
The failure isn’t regulations, the failure is a government system that severely neuters the ability of a government to regulate. The failure is a bunch of science denying corporate captured politicians that don’t care how they destroy the planet.
No, the failure is capitalism and those corporations not wanting to be regulated owning the governments making the regulations.
Which is precisely why any regulation under capitalism is toothless bunk, since it is designed by and for the corporations, to make sure they can keep making money despite it.
Once in a while having a regulation actually come in in time for it to have any impact is like a broken clock being right twice a day, not proof that regulation under capitalism do anything (you claim that teflon now being regulated means regulations work, but can you seriously not see that it taking that long to get bare minimum regulation after decades of pollution and poisoning of consumers is proof that regulations are merely a lip service paid by government to the public to pretend like they’re acting in our favour?).
The point isn’t - don’t regulate industry, it’s - at the point where industry has control of government, regulation is meaningless and always in their service, otherwise they wouldn’t concede (a little like greenwashing - the oil companies commit to producing x amount of green energy, but what they don’t tell you is that that x amount is a tiny fraction of their entire production capability, which they’ll continue to use oil for. We’re never going to get them to stop using oil, because they just don’t have to, no legislation will ever be allowed to pass that will stop them. Which is why eating the rich and blowing up their pipelines is the answer, but I digress).
Eh, don’t really disagree with what you are saying. The problem is money and industry influence in politics and it’s something that needs to be eliminated. I don’t quiet take your point that regulations don’t matter. Assuming money and industry influence are removed from politics we’d see laws and regulations more line with the public interest over corporate interest.
Even if we fully ditched capitalism, you’d still need/want regulations setting the bounds on how government can/should operate.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to be this extremist, there are other ways to solve climate change. But since we’re already trying to fix it getting rid of capitalism would be the best way because we wouldn’t be fixing just the climate issue, we’d also be fixing a whole slew of other issues that are just next in line after the climate issue.
Plenty of other ways from a carbon tax – not least of which because the carbon tax has itself proven to be a convenient industry distraction that sucks air out of the room.
Especially since it’s not clear removal tech will ever be able to ramp up sufficiently to cover continued burning.
A carbon tax is an albatross. It’s not even worth seriously discussing. It’s ten steps beyond politically infeasible – probably even more infeasible than actual prohibition. It’s innately regressive even if you try to do weird structural things like progressively returning the money (because the return is just going to be economically inefficient and complex tax codes ALWAYS benefit the poor and vulnerable the least).
And most importantly, the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. We have already pumped out too much and we must move towards pumping no more.
The fossil industry would in many ways LOVE for a carbon tax solution because that would be the exception to prove the rule that continued extraction will be allowed forever. That their business model, which has plenty of cash already, can drill baby drill.
And in the meantime, we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn’t even make sense - you’re saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we’d have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It’s not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn’t even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn’t to say it’s politically feasible, but you haven’t offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone’s behavior by pricing in externalities. It’s very much viable and equitable, and if you think it’s somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you’re simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let’s use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that’s not where I’ll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.
Why does CCL, an organization that was founded by a bunch of neoliberal/Reaganomics businessmen specifically to advocate for setting up a carbon tax, advocate for a carbon tax. Hmm, let me think about that for a few minutes and get back to you…
There’s so many voices in the climate movement saying the same things I do – that chasing carbon taxes and similar politically radioactive policies is terrific waste of time and that we should instead focus on building incentives and public works towards research, infrastructure, and energy investment. But chase that white whale, have fun.
You can’t just call any market based solution “Reaganomics”, but ok. It’s logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren’t actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven’t done it, I must conclude you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I’m not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.
I’m really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can’t actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).
George Shultz, one of the founders of CCL, was literally one of the guys who helped Regan craft his economic policy vision, and I’m sure many of those he brought on with him were part of that field too. I don’t just call anything Reaganomics, but I DO call this shit that way.
If you seriously want to hear different voices, I recommend you start with David Roberts at Volts: https://www.volts.wtf/
He interviews everyone, has clear opinions, and backs up his positions with practical politics.
I already told you my actual solution. You didn’t listen.
we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?
There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.
As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.
Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee
But it won’t. Politically radioactive. And in the meantime, you could’ve been advocating for policies that actually have traction. That build constituencies instead of tearing them down.
But whatever. You’ve got Faith in this policy and there’s no point arguing with it.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source
I like this. Balance the cost equation of recycled plastic vs new plastic vs glass/metal (since glass and metal are basically infinitely reusable and recyclable) for single use and minimal use items so they’re more expensive and it tips the scales making many things far more financially-responsible to both produce and consume in a climate conscious manner
It will then turn out to be completely uneconomical to use fossil fuels at their true price, as it should’ve been.
Renewables are ALREADY out-competing fossils joule for joule and learning curves are only making that delta bigger over time. The US has seen a spate of utilities buying up coal power plants just to shut them down because it is so uneconomical to operate them, yet still we have politicians vowing to support coal just because they like it / to own the libs.
The issue is that there are people who want to use fossil fuels. Many nations’ entire economies depend on it. So they’ll keep doing it. They’ll sell and use the fuels in places that don’t tax them, if they have to. They’ll literally build demand. They’ll push to get every molecule out of the ground and sold, even as returns diminish.
Not to even get into the conservative lunatics who want to keep using them on principle, even knowing they are an economically bad deal.
Even if you could get a carbon tax passed in the US (which is a giant, giant, giant “fat chance”), it’ll have more leakage than the tattered Depends worn by all of our politicians.
Meanwhile, like with any tariff, the people hurt most by this carbon tax won’t be the producers. Saudi Arabia is not going to agree to pay our taxes. Instead, it’ll be the end consumers. Regressively, with the poorest and most vulnerable consumers who cannot afford to immediately electrify hurt the worst.
The philosophy of the IRA is the way to win this fight. Invest, incentivize, and do it progressively. Building a constituency all the way.
It’s spread to being used by more entities than just BP, but the blame-shifting purpose remains the same.
Climate change can only be solved by regulating fossil fuel production at its source (e.g. taxing it enough to fully compensate for its negative externalities), not by trying to guilt-trip individuals.
Yup.
The same trick is played with recycling. Blame the end consumer for a supply chain completely out of their control.
The biggest polluters are corporations and we stop their pollution by regulation. These mega corps would have you believe that it’s really your fault PFAS are everywhere because you shouldn’t have bought those Teflon coated products. Nevermind the fact that Teflon is everywhere a nonstick surface is needed.
Yep. The personal responsibility gambit (or should I say fallacy?).
It was such a clever idea, starting with Coca Cola’s “Litterbug” campaign (where they campaigned against bottle deposits under the guise of wanting “personal responsibility” over “regulations.”)
It’s “up to the consumer” to make the right choices. It just so happens that the meat from decently treated animals is five times more expensive and that you have to drive 100 miles to buy it. Or that being environmentally conscious has been made into a tiring exercise in futility where you constantly have to inconvenience yourself.
As an added bonus, individuals trying to convince other individuals to inconvenience themselves in the same way can be painted as obnoxious, holier-than-thou and insufferable. A real double win for unscrupulous big business.
The fact that teflon is still everywhere should be proof enough that regulations are worthless in the face of capitalism (a feature of course, not a bug)
Not really, PFAS have been almost completely unregulated. It is just in the last 2 years that we are starting to see PFAS regulations globally. Up until that point, we allowed companies to literally just dump them down the rain or in a lake.
If regulations were so worthless, you should be asking yourself why every single industry fights new ones. Why the supreme court in the US has taken a position to kill Chevron Deference which weakens federal agencies ability to regulate.
The failure isn’t regulations, the failure is a government system that severely neuters the ability of a government to regulate. The failure is a bunch of science denying corporate captured politicians that don’t care how they destroy the planet.
No, the failure is capitalism and those corporations not wanting to be regulated owning the governments making the regulations.
Which is precisely why any regulation under capitalism is toothless bunk, since it is designed by and for the corporations, to make sure they can keep making money despite it.
Once in a while having a regulation actually come in in time for it to have any impact is like a broken clock being right twice a day, not proof that regulation under capitalism do anything (you claim that teflon now being regulated means regulations work, but can you seriously not see that it taking that long to get bare minimum regulation after decades of pollution and poisoning of consumers is proof that regulations are merely a lip service paid by government to the public to pretend like they’re acting in our favour?).
The point isn’t - don’t regulate industry, it’s - at the point where industry has control of government, regulation is meaningless and always in their service, otherwise they wouldn’t concede (a little like greenwashing - the oil companies commit to producing x amount of green energy, but what they don’t tell you is that that x amount is a tiny fraction of their entire production capability, which they’ll continue to use oil for. We’re never going to get them to stop using oil, because they just don’t have to, no legislation will ever be allowed to pass that will stop them. Which is why eating the rich and blowing up their pipelines is the answer, but I digress).
Eh, don’t really disagree with what you are saying. The problem is money and industry influence in politics and it’s something that needs to be eliminated. I don’t quiet take your point that regulations don’t matter. Assuming money and industry influence are removed from politics we’d see laws and regulations more line with the public interest over corporate interest.
Even if we fully ditched capitalism, you’d still need/want regulations setting the bounds on how government can/should operate.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to be this extremist, there are other ways to solve climate change. But since we’re already trying to fix it getting rid of capitalism would be the best way because we wouldn’t be fixing just the climate issue, we’d also be fixing a whole slew of other issues that are just next in line after the climate issue.
Plenty of other ways from a carbon tax – not least of which because the carbon tax has itself proven to be a convenient industry distraction that sucks air out of the room.
Especially since it’s not clear removal tech will ever be able to ramp up sufficiently to cover continued burning.
A carbon tax is an albatross. It’s not even worth seriously discussing. It’s ten steps beyond politically infeasible – probably even more infeasible than actual prohibition. It’s innately regressive even if you try to do weird structural things like progressively returning the money (because the return is just going to be economically inefficient and complex tax codes ALWAYS benefit the poor and vulnerable the least).
And most importantly, the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground. We have already pumped out too much and we must move towards pumping no more.
The fossil industry would in many ways LOVE for a carbon tax solution because that would be the exception to prove the rule that continued extraction will be allowed forever. That their business model, which has plenty of cash already, can drill baby drill.
And in the meantime, we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?
Then why does CCL actively promote carbon fee and dividend as its most beneficial policy? Your logic doesn’t even make sense - you’re saying the fossil lobby would love to be taxed further? Nonsense. If that were true, we’d have a carbon fee enacted decades ago. It’s not innately regressive, and your reasoning doesn’t even make sense because your entire premise rests on complexity = bad, not any actual logic. This isn’t to say it’s politically feasible, but you haven’t offered a politically feasible method for just stopping drilling altogether. All a carbon fee does is offer a revenue neutral way to slowly and surely shift everyone’s behavior by pricing in externalities. It’s very much viable and equitable, and if you think it’s somehow harder than banning fuel and banning capitalism you’re simply not being serious. We have a market mechanism to prevent bad behavior - taxes and fees. Let’s use them. Feel free to ban extraction too, but that’s not where I’ll be focusing my personal lobbying efforts.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
Why does CCL, an organization that was founded by a bunch of neoliberal/Reaganomics businessmen specifically to advocate for setting up a carbon tax, advocate for a carbon tax. Hmm, let me think about that for a few minutes and get back to you…
There’s so many voices in the climate movement saying the same things I do – that chasing carbon taxes and similar politically radioactive policies is terrific waste of time and that we should instead focus on building incentives and public works towards research, infrastructure, and energy investment. But chase that white whale, have fun.
You can’t just call any market based solution “Reaganomics”, but ok. It’s logically inconsistent to say that carbon taxes are favored by industry and neoliberals, when those very people aren’t actually pushing for carbon taxes. Since neoliberals and industry have a stranglehold on policy and they haven’t done it, I must conclude you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite some of the voices "in the climate movement " that are against carbon taxes? I’m not seeing them. What I see is trust the science, and the desire to build political momentum that will results in the science based solutions coming into effect. Things like ending fossil fuels subsidies, requiring utilities switch to renewables, increasing vehicle emissions standards, incentives for electrification, and yes, carbon taxes.
I’m really curious what your actual solution is here. How are you going to get everyone to leave the oil and gas in the ground? A white whale is something you can’t actually find - seems like destroying capitalism or whatever your vague idea is fits that description much better than pricing in externalities via a tax, something that can very simply be layered in to our market structures with our current institutions (and something that is actually happening in dozens of countries, but is somehow impossible according to you).
George Shultz, one of the founders of CCL, was literally one of the guys who helped Regan craft his economic policy vision, and I’m sure many of those he brought on with him were part of that field too. I don’t just call anything Reaganomics, but I DO call this shit that way.
If you seriously want to hear different voices, I recommend you start with David Roberts at Volts: https://www.volts.wtf/
He interviews everyone, has clear opinions, and backs up his positions with practical politics.
(edit: maybe start with this one?: https://www.volts.wtf/p/do-dividends-make-carbon-taxes-more )
I already told you my actual solution. You didn’t listen.
What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/george-p-shultz/
There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.
As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.
Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.
But it won’t. Politically radioactive. And in the meantime, you could’ve been advocating for policies that actually have traction. That build constituencies instead of tearing them down.
But whatever. You’ve got Faith in this policy and there’s no point arguing with it.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.
I like this. Balance the cost equation of recycled plastic vs new plastic vs glass/metal (since glass and metal are basically infinitely reusable and recyclable) for single use and minimal use items so they’re more expensive and it tips the scales making many things far more financially-responsible to both produce and consume in a climate conscious manner
Removed by mod
No problem, we can tax it at 20’000 % or whatever is the correct amount.
It will then turn out to be completely uneconomical to use fossil fuels at their true price, as it should’ve been.
Same goes for wasting freshwater and waterways/groundwater pollution. The tax needs to reflect the damage.
Market mechanisms will still work, we just need to prevent companies from externalising the cost of the damage they are causing.
Renewables are ALREADY out-competing fossils joule for joule and learning curves are only making that delta bigger over time. The US has seen a spate of utilities buying up coal power plants just to shut them down because it is so uneconomical to operate them, yet still we have politicians vowing to support coal just because they like it / to own the libs.
The issue is that there are people who want to use fossil fuels. Many nations’ entire economies depend on it. So they’ll keep doing it. They’ll sell and use the fuels in places that don’t tax them, if they have to. They’ll literally build demand. They’ll push to get every molecule out of the ground and sold, even as returns diminish.
Not to even get into the conservative lunatics who want to keep using them on principle, even knowing they are an economically bad deal.
Even if you could get a carbon tax passed in the US (which is a giant, giant, giant “fat chance”), it’ll have more leakage than the tattered Depends worn by all of our politicians.
Meanwhile, like with any tariff, the people hurt most by this carbon tax won’t be the producers. Saudi Arabia is not going to agree to pay our taxes. Instead, it’ll be the end consumers. Regressively, with the poorest and most vulnerable consumers who cannot afford to immediately electrify hurt the worst.
The philosophy of the IRA is the way to win this fight. Invest, incentivize, and do it progressively. Building a constituency all the way.