Ban the car campaign
Okay, so I offer a melodramatic solution, a little too excessive?
Well, I admit a "Carbon tax" would be more comprehensive... if the cost of things is set in proportion to CO2 released, then we'll have an economic incentive in the same direction. And the same result comes out... the cost of MANUFACTURING (currently designed cars is increased, say by $20,000 each and the cost of running cars is increased by say $0.50/mile. Result LESS cars sold, LESS miles driven, right?
Well, no, yes and no. Making NEW cars more expensive may encourage people to keep old cars longer even if newer models will pollute less. Imports may not be treated fairly (already lack of clarity in trade - value and unaccounted costs).
I'm partial to the "quota" approach by country. Say the U.S. sets a goal of reducing CO2 by 25% in 10 years - INCLUDING accounting for import consumption. Then every adult gets a "quota" - say x lbs/CO2/year. When they buy anything they need money and CO2 credits. If they don't have enough CO2 credits they can purchase such credits from someone else. So "under-consumers" can make money by consuming less, although they have to make sure their gained money isn't spent on things they need CO2 credits to buy!
It has a fun sort of crazy economic sense. Conservatives might come back with their "breathing credits" point, seeing breathing as creating CO2, but even if accounted for on equal ground, it would be a tiny fraction of CO2 that can be producing by fossil fuels.
I suppose there's LOTS of SHARED resources that need accounting. If a city government is given a quota based by taking a fraction of its citizen's quota, it must also balance its CO2 with available resources or raise taxes to buy resources from other cities.
Overall it makes me tired to imagine so much accounting, but being a banker would too I suppose! A whole new "CO2 credit banking" system would have to be created, or would we let the current bankers in the game?!
And finally there's the "bottom line" issue. If manufacturing costs go up, and other countries don't follow the same, then we're at an economic disadvantage. (Of course there's already a disparity between those who CAN use fossil fuels to produce, and those who don't - like first world farmers "underpricing" third world farmers.)
Overall, I think countries like the U.S. will be the LAST to play fair, since we have the largest advantage now. Other countries CAN and SHOULD stop trading with us to protect their own interests, and will be better off when the crash comes.
It would be fun to imagine a state like Minnesota (or California) could have a CO2 cap and trade system. In the long run participants GAIN, but how to implement a local system where there's no border controls seems to make it infeasible. There's no way to enforce a system that isn't closed - that allows imports to not be accounted for.
More fun to have simplistic campaigns like "bad the car". I mean seriously, a local region or at least like the metro area could implement a goal to reduce overall vehicle miles driven, raise costs, and subsidize alternatives. More later maybe!
Well, I admit a "Carbon tax" would be more comprehensive... if the cost of things is set in proportion to CO2 released, then we'll have an economic incentive in the same direction. And the same result comes out... the cost of MANUFACTURING (currently designed cars is increased, say by $20,000 each and the cost of running cars is increased by say $0.50/mile. Result LESS cars sold, LESS miles driven, right?
Well, no, yes and no. Making NEW cars more expensive may encourage people to keep old cars longer even if newer models will pollute less. Imports may not be treated fairly (already lack of clarity in trade - value and unaccounted costs).
I'm partial to the "quota" approach by country. Say the U.S. sets a goal of reducing CO2 by 25% in 10 years - INCLUDING accounting for import consumption. Then every adult gets a "quota" - say x lbs/CO2/year. When they buy anything they need money and CO2 credits. If they don't have enough CO2 credits they can purchase such credits from someone else. So "under-consumers" can make money by consuming less, although they have to make sure their gained money isn't spent on things they need CO2 credits to buy!
It has a fun sort of crazy economic sense. Conservatives might come back with their "breathing credits" point, seeing breathing as creating CO2, but even if accounted for on equal ground, it would be a tiny fraction of CO2 that can be producing by fossil fuels.
I suppose there's LOTS of SHARED resources that need accounting. If a city government is given a quota based by taking a fraction of its citizen's quota, it must also balance its CO2 with available resources or raise taxes to buy resources from other cities.
Overall it makes me tired to imagine so much accounting, but being a banker would too I suppose! A whole new "CO2 credit banking" system would have to be created, or would we let the current bankers in the game?!
And finally there's the "bottom line" issue. If manufacturing costs go up, and other countries don't follow the same, then we're at an economic disadvantage. (Of course there's already a disparity between those who CAN use fossil fuels to produce, and those who don't - like first world farmers "underpricing" third world farmers.)
Overall, I think countries like the U.S. will be the LAST to play fair, since we have the largest advantage now. Other countries CAN and SHOULD stop trading with us to protect their own interests, and will be better off when the crash comes.
It would be fun to imagine a state like Minnesota (or California) could have a CO2 cap and trade system. In the long run participants GAIN, but how to implement a local system where there's no border controls seems to make it infeasible. There's no way to enforce a system that isn't closed - that allows imports to not be accounted for.
More fun to have simplistic campaigns like "bad the car". I mean seriously, a local region or at least like the metro area could implement a goal to reduce overall vehicle miles driven, raise costs, and subsidize alternatives. More later maybe!
posted by Ares Olympus at 6:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home