Remix.run Logo
michpoch 8 months ago

> since on average richer people will spend more on fuel

Why would you think so? People driving older cars, not being able to afford to fly - will certainly spend more money on fuel for their car.

leoedin 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

Rich people use more energy. That’s been shown by loads of studies.

Maybe they drive a more efficient car, but they own much larger houses which are heated or cooled consistently, they travel a lot more, and they buy things with embodied carbon emissions.

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

Right, but now you're talking about adding the tax to the whole economy, not just car fuel?

That's close to impossible to implement. You'd need to track production and usage of everything in an extreme detail. Plus tracking all purchases (items + services) to a given person. So complete state surveillance of citizens. Globally.

leoedin 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

We're talking about a carbon tax. By definition it is not on car fuel, but on carbon.

You don't need state surveillance or tracking purchases. You just need to get to the source of the problem. Hydrocarbons leaving the ground.

At the hydrocarbon level, it's much easier to track. Oil and gas is mostly extracted by very large corporations and transported by large infrastructure. You don't care what happens to it once you've produced it - but you do need to put a levy on the hydrocarbons before they're sold on. The people who use those hydrocarbons all have higher costs which pass on to customers.

The biggest problem is international borders. If another country isn't applying carbon tax, then you need to make an estimate of the embodied energy of a product at the point of import. Or encourage them to tax carbon. But neither of those require surveillance. Once the product has been imported, you don't care who buys or sells it because the tax is already paid.

xnx 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> That's close to impossible to implement.

For a carbon tax, I think you only need to track imports, and domestic extraction of coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

„Only” track imports?

xnx 8 months ago | parent [-]

I think customs already tracks this. Smuggling oil and coal into the US at any meaningful scale seems very unlikely.

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

Right, but how do you track carbon in imported goods?

xnx 8 months ago | parent [-]

You don't. We already outsource all kinds of things (pollution, human rights violations) now.

edoceo 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Tax all fuel. So those energy consumption of wealthy cost more?

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

Ok, let's assume you do. Let's tax all fuels 300% in the US. Now all manufacturing stops as your production costs are all over the roof. Everything is imported from countries that do not have these taxes.

What problem was solved here? None.

triceratops 8 months ago | parent [-]

> Everything is imported from countries that do not have these taxes.

Finally a good use for tariffs!

Loudergood 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think flying evades the carbon tax?

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

Yes, if you apply the carbon tax only for the fuel at petrol stations. I am talking about realistic-to-implement solutions.

sokoloff 8 months ago | parent [-]

Aviation fuel is dispensed at a limited number of places; it would be easier (or just as easy) to implement a higher aviation fuel tax than a higher auto fuel tax.

michpoch 8 months ago | parent [-]

It's trivial to implement auto fuel tax - it's already in place in most of developed countries.

sokoloff 8 months ago | parent [-]

There's an auto fuel tax in the US. Increasing that from $0.184/gallon for gasoline and $0.244/gallon for diesel to say $1.50/gallon and $2.00/gallon would ensure massive losses for that party in the next two or three election cycles.

Increasing the tax on aviation fuel to $2/gallon wouldn't produce massive shifts in the next several elections, therefore it's easier to implement.