Re: Ask Congress and President Biden for a price on carbon!

Robert Virkus

Meant ... Have a piece of the pie too if they choose..

On Thursday, October 14, 2021, Robert Virkus <contrarian0@...> wrote:
I just prefer rewarding companies if they go green as opposed to punishing them if they don't. The market will take care of the dinosaurs. There is no reason the companies producing polluting energy sources cannot transition to greener sources and have a piece of the pie took they choose. If managed well the transition doesn't have to be painful. I prefer the carrot but folks here seem to prefer the stick. 

On Thursday, October 14, 2021, Stan Aten <s.aten@...> wrote:
A properly carbon tax would reduce the use of carbon and encourage individuals and businesses to change their source of energy.   It is cheaper than government subsidies and mandates because it allows the market to decide which is the best method for reducing carbon emissions.

If carbon taxes are high enough, then oil and gas companies won't flare so much oil and gas into the environment.    It will raise prices but part of the tax could be rebated to consumers and part could be used to help individuals and businesses reduce their carbon emissions.

It would encourage the replacement of fuel guzzling vehicles with newer vehicles that get better gas mileage or use electricity.

This concept was used to reduce the production of fluorocarbons quite successfully.

On Thursday, October 14, 2021, 10:58:32 AM CDT, Robert Virkus <contrarian0@...> wrote:

Are you in favor of massively increasing the price of gasoline at the pump? Or bleeding oil companies dry so they make no profit?
Would you like the gasoline supply to dry up overnight? 

On Thursday, October 14, 2021, R. Michael Martin <mm@...> wrote:
It is pretty simple as all communities in the developed world today do this for decades.

For this business waste problem, how about we start with pollution that is scientifically proven to cause massive human health problems and death?

Time to add it to the economics as that free ride (subsidy) that you and I and everyone pays needs to end today.

On Oct 14, 2021, at 09:24, Robert Virkus via < io> wrote:

So who gets to decide exactly what is this waste and how much it costs since that is not already in the economics now? 

On Thursday, October 14, 2021, R. Michael Martin <mm@...> wrote:
This is not taxation nor a penalty. It is paying for your waste like all citizens do.  

And in this case their higher cost if they are wasteful businesses will lead people to make other choices so that is absolutely ideal for the competitive free market. 

On Oct 14, 2021, at 08:36, Robert Virkus via < io> wrote:

An extra tax on businesses is just a higher price for consumers and causes inflation for everyone. You cannot punish businesses for supplying what civilization needed over the last century. 

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021, R. Michael Martin <mm@...> wrote:
We each and all pay for waste in our everyday lives…and businesses must as well after getting a lot of passes on that for most of the industrial age.  Price on carbon is just a price for your waste/trash…want to pay less, produce less.

On Oct 13, 2021, at 14:32, Larry via <rlhowejr@...> wrote:

For those who want to do a deeper dive, please read this attached 40 page essay by Tariq Fancy, August 2021. (Note: the yellow highlighting in the pdf file is mine.)


Here are a few relevant excerpts:


“Economics points to one inconvenient truth about climate change policy. And that is that in order to be effective, the policies have to raise the price of carbon, or CO2, and in doing that correct the externality of the marketplace,” Nordhaus said in a lecture at Stockholm University, two days before the Nobel ceremony.


“We have to get billions of people, now and in the future. Millions of firms. Thousands of governments… to take steps to move in the direction we want. And the only way you’re going to do that effectively is to

increase the price of carbon.” The idea behind a carbon tax is simple: if you make the entity creating the negative externality pay the costs of it (say, through a pollution tax), their incentives change and thus their behavior changes — and our existing system of business, markets, and competition starts to innovate toward greener alternatives. It’s kind of like making a basketball player pay fines whenever they cause harm to fans; if those costs are high enough, players will think twice before playing recklessly and instead find new ways to win cleanly.


While a carbon tax is not perfect, and must come accompanied by a broader set of sweeping policy measures, Nordhaus’ central point is worth noting: if you want to change the behavior of all of the players in the game, you have to change the rules of the game for everyone.

<2021-08 Tariq Fancy essay.pdf>

Join to automatically receive all group messages.