Pollutants Tax

http://politicallyuntenable.blogspot.com/2012/06/carbon-and-toxins-tax.html

Here I propose (rather than reviving any ancient thread that might have existed) a pollutants tax.

Generally goes like this:

• Statistics agency is already compiling information on all sorts of things, if it wasn't already, it now collects the cost of pollution clean up
• Government creates a schedule of costs per type of pollutant (for instance $30/ton of carbon, $80/ton of sulphur)
• This tax is levied against corporations who are inspected by the government
• Anyway who cannot prove their pollution levels are hit with the "expected pollution" tax rate (most likely used for imported products)

Consumers can now shop knowing that at the very least if they buy a high-pollution product they are also paying for the clean up costs.

Hell to the november oscar on that one, high speed. I don't want to pay more for products because of some asinine tax.

The point here is that you pay if you don't buy it if there is no pollutants tax because you have to pay for the clean up via tax dollars. The cost doesn't magically go away.

My preferred method for implementing this is through a cap-and-trade market. Say that the U.S. is allowed to produce so many pollutants every year, and sell that right to companies. Also allow offsets to meet this demand.

So, for example, say the U.S. wants a carbon footprint of one hundred megatons*

. We sell a hundred megatons of carbon permits on the market, to be made available to companies that want to run big coal-fired power plants that fart out massive plumes of black smoke. We also give carbon credits to companies that work on reforestation and afforestation, and allow them to sell those credits to the coal-belchers to offset their carbon production.

@Breadloaf: Not really. Carbon dioxide is not cleaned up; it's shared around the world.

edited 25th Jun '12 7:12:34 PM by Ramidel

Some 300 million odd people who think like this is the reason why environmentalism is a dead-end. They don't care about their future or their children's future, just about what is immediately important to them and to them alone.

It's the same reason why no one cares about rightless labor in the Third World. If they had rights, everything would be more expensive, and as soon as money enters the equation humanity exits the room.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Yeah, I have to agree, Mark. Attitudes like yours are part of the reason the world is in such a mess (not the only reason, of course, but part of it).

I have no problem with carbon taxes, if they actually work. If companies and consumers will only respond to hits in the wallet, go for it.

Be not afraid...

@ Ramidal

Canada is spending billions on carbon clean up but I realise you were half-sarcastic.

I personally don't agree with cap and trade mostly because it appears to not reduce pollution levels. I look more toward the case of Sweden which pollutes at the same rate as China but has a high standard of living. They have a general pollutants tax (not just carbon), and I think they just have a blanket levy against corporations (ie. each ton of carbon costs x dollars).

However, if I can't get a carbon tax, I'd settle for cap and trade.

@ All

The big thing to note isn't whether or not your wallet gets hit. One big point I want to get across here: it gets hit no matter what. So either you pay to clean up someone else's mess, or the person who made the mess pays for it.

Or no one pays and the mess ends up being a problem for the future.

Its an option.

Probably not one our kids will appreciate though.

edited 26th Jun '12 9:00:20 AM by Natasel

Indeed. Either we shoulder the cost in some way today, or we do the thing we've done with pensions; shove the responsibility to a generation in future.

It's time that nations - and supranational/multinational entities - did something about this. I think a pollutants tax would probably work. It affects everyone.

AFAIK, it is only the European Union who are doing much of the world's gruntwork for environmental legislation. Mostly because it covers, y'know, 500 mn people. That's a huge impact. But that's only 7% of the world's population.

I'm not saying the EU's methods are necessarily right, but it appears they (and obviously, a lot of nations too) are the only ones who have an actual working set of ideas to combat climate change.

You know things are going bad for the world when Canada pulls out of Kyoto.

I thought cap and trade is what America has now. And that it's working at precisely absolute crap effectiveness to reduce pollution.

I'm kind of neutral to the idea of a pollutants tax, but hey it if works it works.

Better than nothing.

Rewarding pollution is not the way to go.

IIRC, cap-and-trade regulations were shot down in the US.

It's a shame, really, because a lot of governments are bankrolled by oil companies; precisely those who would not benefit from a polluants tax.

In the EU, there's a furore over the tariffs upon Canadian tar sands. The states of Britain, France, Netherlands, and Germany have withheld their votes from the legislation - which would tariff fossil fuels on the amount of pollution involved in production and burning. Ironically, Britain has been rather critical of Canada's current environmental policy, and yet, they are withholding their votes, due to the intense lobbying of bp [Britain], Total Energy [France], Royal Shell [Netherlands], and some German manufacturing companies. This has created gridlock in the Council of Ministers, as the bill has not got the required super-majority needed to pass.

Nonetheless, a pollutants tax in this way would probably help. Taxing the fuel at source and fuel at burning would probably work.

Anything done to hamper the (EXTREMELY destructive) extraction of oil from the Tar Sands can only be a good thing in my book.

Basically, my message to the EU is: DO IT! DO IT NOW!

edited 26th Jun '12 9:48:58 AM by Balmung

Can the EU effect Canada's policy that way? I'm kind of confused about that. Is it because Canada's in the common wealth thing with England and somewhat beholden to them or what?

@ Bal. It would be brilliant to go through. The Commission (who made the policy) are behind it. The Court of Justice deem it legally airtight. The Parliament voted majority in favour.

However, the Bill is being blocked in the Council of Ministers [like an upper chamber]. As Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands hold a lot of votes (votes are allocated roughly to population size), the bill is deprived of its 75% qualified-majority. I think it has a 60% majority - not sure on that. But nonetheless, the votes of these countries being withheld means that the bill does not get passed, i.e. it is in gridlock.

@ Ace. Not because of the Commonwealth (with Britain! England doesn't exist as a geopolitical entity!). The EU does not use the tar sands in any way. However, this bill, IIRC would raise tariffs on its production. Not sure how, but I think it tariffs it at production; so companies like bp would have to pay taxes to the EU or something. Not sure on the details, but the companies in Alberta would have to pay extra money to someone. Most likely the native communities.

Native communities can't even get police service to catch serial killers here, so I doubt they'd get a share of oil money when even the Albertan government barely dips its pinky into the trade. We're basically just giving the oil away for free and we're being left behind with actual giant craters full of toxic waste. It'll likely cost Canadians tens of billions in clean-up and we don't tax a cent, because (attempting not to use expletives) the Tories are all "low-tax pro-business".

More like high-debt pro stupid.

edited 26th Jun '12 11:03:26 AM by breadloaf

Well, Harper has been bribing European officials (not strictly bribing, but lobbying - hard) since around 2009 (when this bill was first drafted).

Overall, fifteen nations in the Council did not vote for the proposals. Fifteen. Out of 27. That's about 60% of the votes not for the Bill, if I'm right.

The bill has been dropped from discussion until 2013.

So, there we go. Greediness upon the part of big business and powerful interest groups has stopped environmentalism in its tracks. Until 2013, which, will be another stalemate, of course.

Liberals paid lip service to environmentalism but didn't do anything. Tories drop the pretext and then actively campaign for unsustainable development.

Stephane Dion dared to suggest a carbon tax in Canada and got torn to shreds over his "high-tax scheme", even though he was going to lower income taxes to do it (which would have benefited the poor and middle class enormously because they could just choose NOT to buy carbon taxed goods and save money on the income taxes). I'd go further about this but I'd probably become too infuriated to speak about it politely.

Let's force those who are environmentally damaging to clean up their messes and charge lots more for their products in addition to increasing their taxes.

Mark's philosophy is short-sighted and destructive. Environmentalism needs to grow in power and stop being a joke/pastime for housewives with messiah complexes.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

Mostly, environmentalism needs to stop being equated with ecologism.

Totally different ideas.

Ecologism states that society must be rebuilt and that humans must see themselves as equal to other animals, blah blah blah.

Environmentalism still is part of the anthro-centric worldview, and states that the existing structures of society must be altered for sustainable development, and must be worked with. The Green Party are environmentalists, for example; they work with the existing political structures for a greener agenda.

The problem is the language barrier. The word "environmentalist" doesn't exist in french, "écologiste" has its meaning.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

This is the first time I've even heard the word ecologist, and the people who seem to think we need to rebuild society entirely seem to be on the fringe anyway. I don't think quibbling about semantics really needs to be a huge concern here. Getting the Greens into more political offices, yes. Telling other parties that we desire green methods of achieving jobs and so on, also yes. Semantics, eh, leave that for a debate.

I think this is the first time I can actually consider myself to have a dissenting opinion from Breadloaf, huh.

At this point, in a broad sense, I think environmentalism has done itself more harm than good by trying to use the velvet glove in government. Obfuscating the tax code to encourage positive environmental behavior has, for the US at least, resulted in a massive tower of bandaid fixes that corporations exploit for their personal benefit. Meanwhile, it hasn't even resulted in a corresponding slowdown of anti-environmentalist rhetoric - in fact, that rhetoric appears to be on the rise, based on global warming denialism.

I think the time has come to say, you know what, if we don't want someone to do something because it's bad for the environment, let's please just make it ILLEGAL and have done with it. Start levying fines as a meaningful percentage of corporate profit, throwing people in jail, etc. Going about things the 'nice' way does not seem to be working.

There then comes the issue about whether any given country that needs it has the political will to do it, but the same entities that oppose the one would oppose the other just as fiercely, so you might as well go in for the whole hog.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

As much as I would like to agree, the cost of doing that would be horrendous.

Of course, the cost of NOT doing something, anything, to stop the problem of polution is also horrendous.

On one hand, the legal mumbo jumbo and never ending dealing and political grand standing would water down even the most modest reforms into nothing.

Assuming laws/policies would even see the light of day or get enforced.

However, making things that polute outright ilegal would likely kill most of the world's economies.

We are far too dependant on fossil fuels and other polluting industries to go Cold Turkey without effectively going back to pre-industrial era conditions.

A very hard sell.

Oh, I'm not advocating that we nuke standards of living back a century or so for the sake of the environment. But if it's something that we don't want corporations doing because they have a viable, albeit less profitable means of operating without it, I'd much rather just make them to stop doing it rather than 'encourage' them to do so with incentives they don't really need and won't be grateful for.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.