flwyd: (Vigelandsparken thinking head)
The Boulder Daily Camera published my letter to the editor about why a carbon tax would be more effective than a wealth tax at fighting climate change, in response to an opinion piece published last week.
Tom Mayer’s call for a wealth tax rightly points out that the wealthiest 10% of the population step with a disproportionately large carbon footprint, and justly calls for those who contribute most to climate change to pay a large share of the bill to fix the problem. As a well-to-do and climate-concerned Boulderite, I’d be happy to pay a higher tax to cover my share of excess pollution. But there’s a more effective way to do it than a wealth tax.

A wealth tax would take the same 2% from the owner of a solar panel company as it takes from the owner of a coal mine. A wealth tax would value a $5,000 car the same as a $5,000 bicycle. And a wealth tax wouldn’t see a dollar from someone who spends all their money on international flights, because money spent on consumption doesn’t accumulate as wealth. In other words, a wealth tax doesn’t reward people for reducing their climate impact, just for owning assets, no matter how clean or dirty.

A carbon tax would make the biggest climate polluters pay the biggest price while simultaneously creating an incentive to reduce carbon emissions and thereby save money. The folks who make their money from fossil fuels will be on the hook for the damage they cause while entrepreneurs leading the clean energy transition will see a reward. An electric bicycle will become a better investment than a gas-powered car, and carbon-intensive products will be more expensive than sustainably built ones.

The wealthy have bags of tricks to hide wealth to avoid tax. A carbon pollution fee at the mine or well would be easy to enforce and reward people for doing the right thing by reducing emissions.
flwyd: (step to the moon be careful)
Imagine what would have happened if environmentalists had proposed that the nations of the world make a shared investment in clean energy, better and more efficient housing development, and comfortable and efficient transportation systems. Opponents of global warming would have had to take the position against the growth of these new markets and industries and for limits. Proponents could have tarred their opponents as being anti-business, anti-investment, anti-jobs, and stuck in the past.
— Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, “The Pollution Paradigm”

In this chapter, the authors make the case that the pollution-focused tactics of environmental activists are inappropriate for addressing global warming. Carbon dioxide, unlike CFCs or mercury, is not in itself problematic—the trouble is that we emit too much of it. Rather than focusing on limits, they want the environmental movement to call for investments in new and better energy sources; rather than worrying that there are too many people on the planet, they think we should create more efficient cities.

The authors don't cast this as an issue of balance, but as a Taoist I will. The proper ratio of carbon emission and ingestion must be maintained on a worldwide basis, much as an individual needs the right balance of inhaled oxygen and exhaled carbon dioxide. We won't reduce the planetary fever by suddenly stopping to breathe. Instead, we must steadily work to rebalance our sources of energy. With better technology, we can save our carbon dioxide budget for situations where fossil fuels are especially useful.
July 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2025

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Subscribe

RSS Atom
Page generated Sunday, July 27th, 2025 06:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios