#fuck the carbon tax

[genx3791]

[derseprinceoftbd]

Sustainability | David Mitchell's Soapbox

A fantastic video that starts off as one of Mitchell's trademark humorous rants and turns into a really really great, simple diatribe about how capitalism, politics, and enviromentalism work.

[badolmen]

Saw a post and just want to say: yeah ‘carbon offsets’ are usually bullshit. Sure some smaller land owners might actually be planting diverse native trees in proportion* to their carbon emissions. But as someone who’s worked with The Big Ones? Absolutely horseshit.

8/10 times they find a landowner with a crappy high graded beech-birch thicket and say to the owner: ‘Hey. We’ll pay you to not cut these trees you weren’t planning on/won’t be able to cut for a profit for the next 20-40 years anyway, and you’ll get a kickback.’ Ofc the owner says yes and the Big One can pat themselves on the back and show their stockholders ‘see we’re sooooo interested in reducing our carbon footprint’ when they’re straight up Doing Nothing.

When a Big One does engage in actual tree planting it is always a monoculture. There is not an economically viable way to plant the number of trees needed to proportionally offset their emissions* without it being a thoughtless monoculture without regard for site specificity and seedling survival rates.

How about instead of doing fuck all or wasting time and resources planting monocultures these big companies actually reduce their emissions instead of using their near infinite well of wealth to increase their emissions because they can always buy more crappy stands or pay a little more to plantation owners?

*Fun fact: we are barely at the cusp of carbon research being able to answer the long term + actual potential of carbon storage of different stands based on their age and species composition. We know that younger stands grow faster and therefore capture carbon at an increased rate compared to older stands. Realistically, a large older stand will capture comparative levels of carbon to a small younger stand. You just did a huge clear cut? Congrats that’s now a massive carbon sink you can get paid to ignore it the way you would be anyway for the next 50-60 years. Unsurprisingly this does information does not incentivize the conservation of old growth stands, because the most Carbon Efficient thing to do would be to cut all the old growth for timber (preserving it from decomposition and releasing carbon in most cases) and let new, young, fast growing forests replace them. Who cares about ecological nuance? We’re storing more carbon this way!

[lasseling]

The ‘Climate Emergency’ is a Myth, Says Nobel Prize Winner John Clauser. Here’s Why He’s Right

In a recent lecture, Nobel Laureate physicist John Clauser exposed how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models and analyses

[six-of-ravens]

OH FUCK YEAH I CAN PAY FOR SHUDDER ANNUALLY!!!!!

[nando161mando]

how carbon credits work 👇

[deliciousobservationcandy]

Updating my lil journal space.

I like living with my bf, and having a real bed. Work is well, hopefully getting better, (not really but it's work so whatever), still I now have time to dedicate to my bigger RL projects to hopefully be independent. Honestly other than gas costing a limb, and everything going majorly up in price due to high gas costs. It's picking up, and I feel content.

[nc-vb]

I’m crying, someone on tt said that my city is District 12 and Toronto (an hour away from me) is the fucking Capitol AND THEY ARE NOT WRONG but 😵‍💫

[solarbird]

A lot of people are making decisions this weekend. Let’s help them make the right ones.

Locally, I’m sure a lot of people in Washington State are doing their voting this weekend, and for all of us, please vote no on all statewide initiatives. That’s no on all of them. They’re all funded pretty much entirely by a California Republican hedge-fund manager who wants to be our new Tim Eyman – even the Seattle Times called him that – and he needs to be told to fuck off right out of the gate.

I wrote up the individual reasons here, but if that’s too much to read right now, basically it’s like this:

I-2117 and I-2066 are there to ramp up climate change by burning more fossil fuels and block the state from promoting climate-neutral power solutions

I-2109 is a massive MAGA-style tax cut for the state’s wealthiest 4000 people and literally nobody else, and finally,

I-2124 is intended to torpedo the state’s long-term health care programme, and will do a great job of bankrupting families while driving them into truly shitty minimal- to zero-coverage private plans.

All very MAGA, all very horsecrap, all very PLEASE VOTE NO.

In the presidential race, I still think the story of Elon Musk – Trump’s to-be director of fiscal policy – stating outright that Trump’s plans will tank the economy has been woefully, piteously under-covered by the press.

If you know anyone who has ever said they were voting Republican ‘for their wallets,’ please, please, please, show them this. Show them the original sources, show them Musk’s own words.

Because Elon’s right – Trump’s plans will tank the economy. That’s what he wants to do, destroy it, and then build it back up I’m pretty sure as a quasi-gold-standard-but-probably-crypto-based system, deflationary, and utterly ripe for the looting. People like him will profit insanely, just like they did in post-Soviet Russia, while the ordinary people – you, me, people who don’t matter in his world – will have to, in his words, “embrace the pain.”

Tell them that’s what their vote is going to bring to their wallets this year if they vote for another term of Trump. Pain.

If they don’t care about the lives of LGBT people, if they’re racist dickbags who kinda want Trump’s mass ethnic purge, if they’re hungering to put women back in our “place” and let are willing to let the whole world literally burn by reversing every bit of climate progress we’ve made and dumping as much more carbon pollution as possible into the air all for a fucking tax cut they won’t even get…

…ask them if they also want to take it in the shorts, in the form of taking it in the wallet, as a reward.

Because they will. And not just in tariff-driven compound inflation, either.

Again, Trumps’ biggest allies – in particular Elon Musk – say his plan will absolutely tank the economy. Everyone but the ultra-rich will suffer, and all of us will just have to “embrace the pain.”

That’s what they want. Elon’s just plain saying it.

Make sure they goddamn well know.

2 days remain.

[genx3791]

[sea-salted-wolverine]

Canning is so fuckin satisfying.

Edit: the TERFs have found this post so let's point out that traditional cooking techniques have absolutely nothing to do with the garbage you're espousing as "traditional values". fuck off and learn some basic human decency.

Imagine the feeling of having exactly the right amount of leftovers to perfectly fill the Tupperware. And then that over and over again because the jars come in standard sizes and you can do the math beforehand. Something is satisfied in the monkey brain when you get to cram a bunch of things in containers. You get to watch the cooling jars go plop-polop as they seal themselves and you never have to worry about them going bad. Even if you forget about them for years you will never run into the adhd food tax. Its literally the single most sustainable way to store food, there's no refrigeration, no perpetual carbon foot print or fee. You can reuse the jars for decades. You can do one jar on a stove top or you can scale up and do dozens at once. Sunlight gleaming through jars of canned veggies is one of the most gorgeous things you can see in this life. You can gift them and you don't even have to wrap it because unless you're canning some really odd shit its always appreciated. There isn't much that can't be canned and you can start mixing things up until you have a simple meal that just needs to be warmed up ready to go at all times. If you're concerned about allergies you have complete control about what's going into your canned goods. You can do big jars or teeny jars or fancy jars and the jars are cheap.

Magnificent monkey brain activity. I've been possessed by spirit of a woman from 1846.

[centrally-unplanned]

In news to no one, a lot of policy activism is done without considering the politics behind the policy. Take fracking bans in the US. Is there a coalition big enough to support some form of ban on fracking? Yes - or at least there was, it is something that happened after all, it must be viable in some form.

Why is a fracking ban political viable? Because 100% of that coalition is technocratic global warming advocates pushing for carbon taxes and mixed-energy grid transitions, comfortable with limited reductions in living standards in order to achieve the goal? Lol fuck no. That is some of them! Oil as an energy source is a carbon emission, it isn't great, it is a valid reason to pursue it. But they are a minority of the coalition. Some of them are "hard enviro-left" types who also oppose nuclear for example, and either aren't very coherent or are coherent-enough full stack degrowthers, fringe but real. But more, I bet the majority, are environmental NIMBYs - you can ban fracking because they don't like the idea of it happening here. They will support policies to restrict development in new areas of the US that might change the natural environment and cause issues for them close to home.

What they will not support is anything else that makes the policy viable.

They will also block solar installations on NIMBY grounds, or things like transmission lines. They won't actually support carbon taxes or radical changes in how they live to reduce environmental impacts. And most importantly, they will not actually support higher energy prices. LIke at all. The moment you try to "ban" oil or gas imports, this coalition is a ghost. Which means the only impact from a fracking ban is to shift production from the US to other countries - ones that, on average, have a worse track record of environmental enforcement to boot. It doesn't achieve anything at all for the goal of global emissions. The power has to come from somewhere after all! There is no coalition for lowering energy consumption.

This obviously isn't any issue for some random poster online, you aren't dictating policy, support your ideal approach! I support government deployment of exowombs and Kowloon Walled City 2: Immigrant Enclave Boogaloo, trust me I get it lol. But if you are an actual political operative, with influence in policy, understanding this dynamic is literally your job. Spending political capital on fight X, that only does anything if you also win fight Y & Z, and you have no hope of winning those, is deeply counterproductive. There is no substitute for smart strategy. (And it isn't like there aren't better ideas out there - permitting reform for green energy projects is like sitting on the table guys)

[lasseling]

WEF Took $100 Billion in Profits from ‘Carbon Taxes’ Last Year

The WEF is gloating that the unelected globalist organization raked in a whopping $100 billion in profits from “carbon taxes” last year alone

[princehendir]

Love how all the ballot measures this year were like "do you want to defund every library in the state and pay teachers less" or "do you want to make it so that it's illegal to put any kind of limit on carbon emissions or industrial runoff" and in the voter's guide it's like "ARGUMENT FOR: lower taxes. Great way to show the libs who's boss. More freedom, less fentanyl, etc. ARGUMENT AGAINST: are you fucking insane?"

[octuscle]

Suitcase Alert! I've a Symposium in New York for tax law. Yes, it's really annoying and I'd like to do something more interesting than that in my life and career. The airport lost my suitcase. I really need it because my notes for my speech are in it. They promise to send it soon. Now I get one but that's not mine! I'll sue them!

Yeah, there's really little you can do with this suitcase. the owner pretty obviously doesn't work in a white-collar job. Fuck, this is really hard now. At least you got the hotel to clean your suit and shirt. Even if the laundry in the suitcase looks old, worn and cheap, at least it's obviously freshly laundered. No one will notice. At the most, there is a risk that someone will see the socks. You have to stand if possible, then no one will see it. What sucks is your lecture. You spend the night before the symposium in the hotel and reconstruct everything from memory. You can't do anything anyway. You sit in your dirty underwear in your hotel room and wait for your suit to come back from the cleaners.

The next morning everything looks perfect. You have finished your presentation and can probably deliver it quite freely now. Suit and shirt are cleaned and ironed. Underwear and deodorant are fortunately in the suitcase. Old Spice. Not quite your style. But it will do for today.

To the congress centre you take the metro - faster than a taxi. And more sustainable. After all, your lecture is about the fiscal valuation of carbon dioxide emission papers. You should be credible there. A quick glance at the clock. Yes, everything is running like clockwork. But your balls are itching like crazy. And crazy things are going through your head. Now keep a clear head, you're the opening speaker. Show what you've got.

"Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed colleagues, dear friends, sustainability is one of the most important issues facing our society today and in the foreseeable future…" You have to pause for a moment… "The stuff ya're doin' with fuckin taxes is like proper difficult." Breathe in, Breathe out. "it's just like on the farm, if ya screw up, ya havta clean it up. N' if someone else does it, the one who did the shit has to pay. N' if the guy who did the shit is like smart, he'll get the money 'ack from uncle sam." Something is not going right. Not right at all. Whispering in the auditorium. You look down at your feet for a moment. No one will see the socks that don't match your suit. Because your feet are in dirty cowboy boots. "Um, ladies n' gentlemen, when ya emit carbon shit like that, that is like, when ya bla that stuff out, that's shit. That's what the people in Washington say. I dinnit give a shit about that shit. Hav any of ya ever seen this like? let the Chinese n' the fuckin' Europeans take care of it. After all, us are the fuckin' world police for the louses ova ther. USA! USA! USA!" A lady from the congress organisation comes on stage, thanks you for your original views and pulls you off the lectern.

"Dudes, thank yawl very much an havuh great day ," you say as a farewell. The lady asks you if she should call a doctor. "Naw, ma'am, Ahm fahn" you reply. You pull a tin of chewing tobacco out of the back pocket of your jeans. "Can Ah go now, or do yawl still need help hare? Ah don't lahk thuh big city thet much. Hif it's okay, Ahl make mah way home ." The lady asks if you have anything left in the cloakroom. "Nah, it's all in mah pickup truck, ma'am ".

You breathe a sigh of relief as you drive out of the underground car park and even more so when you cross the bridge. Open the windows, turn up the radio. The big city is impressive. But you really feel at home working in the oil field and with your buddies in the workers' barracks.

[gamingavickreyauction]

It's often said, as a truism, that while climate change is caused by systems, your individual choices can still make a difference, but might not actually be true- not just that you are small, but that the difference your consumption makes is actually zero.

Standard economic analysis

The standard economic analysis is that if you buy more carbon-intensive goods, that has two effects: it increases the total quantity of carbon-intensive goods sold, and it increases the price of carbon-intensive goods (only marginally, because you are small).

This means that while you buying one unit of carbon-intensive goods doesn't increase the amount of carbon-intensive goods as sold by one, it still increases them, and the amount it increases it by depends on the price elasticities of demand and supply (i.e. the slopes of the curves). If supply is very inelastic, we expect it to make close to 0 difference, and if demand is very inelastic we expect it to make an almost one-for-one difference. Suppose PED = PES and you emitted one extra tonne of CO2, the net effect of that is only an extra half tonne of CO2.

Aside: do these diagrams actually work? Yes. This result seems counterintuitive: the price of electricity isn't going to be put up just because you used more electricity this year, so it isn't going to result in others using less - there will be no offset. And this is correct, the world comes in discrete changes. But if enough people use more electricity, prices will go up, and you have no way of knowing whether you're the one who'll push it over the edge or raise the price of electricity from 29p to 30p. So we just look at averages, and on average you will raise prices by the amount shown on this diagram (i.e. very small, because you are very small, but enough to offset an amount of consumption that matters for our purposes).

Accounting for the government

But this standard economic analysis takes place in a policy vacuum. I mean, the same welfare effect would also hold if the government's climate policy was optimal because something something envelope theorem, but the government's policy is ummmm not optimal. In any country. Governments are not trying to set a socially optimal rate of carbon tax (which would be crippling to many industries) they are trying to do something more like reduce emissions enough to satisfy an electorate that doesn't care much, and no further, because they don't want to shrink the economy.

In an idealised version of this strategy, individual actions actually have 0 effect, regardless of PED or PES, because of the policy feedback mechanism: a British person emits one less tonne of CO2 so the UK government go 'oh look an extra tonne of CO2 we can emit without exceeding our internal targets' and spend less on mitigation to cancel it out.

Whilst your individual effect is small and unlikely to be noticed by policymakers, many people's changes will be noticed, and your emissions might be the straw that broke the camel's back, so we can treat the government as if their targets are responding to your individual emissions, just like in the aside. Note it isn't the official targets that matter, but how much governments privately feel they can get away with.

If the government are decided to emit 500MTe, then 500MTe are going to be emitted by someone, regardless of if you're the one doing it. You didn't help the Bangladesh farmer who's losing their livelihood because of harsher monsoon seasons, you just helped Clyde who wants to pay less tax on his SUV.

This argument hinges on this policy feedback mechanism actually being one-for-one, which we don't know, and which is fundamentally an empirical question. Specifically in the long-run. I'm sure it's not actually one-for-one- and if we model the government as maximising some utility function of economy and environment, it can't be.

We would also need to multiply this 'do your actions have purpose (because government is a fuck)' coefficient by the 'do your actions have purpose (because markets is a fuck)' coefficient to find out the actual effect of your actions. The crux of my argument is that the government's fuck coefficient is likely to be very small.

What is the government's fuck coefficient?

The long-run government fuck coefficient is built up over years of repeatedly adjusting policy to look more like what the government wanted to do anyway: if the government undershoots their carbon budget one year, the government will want to take that as license to emit more the next year, and whilst this won't be one for one- it might be quite small- over many years it will add up to mean emissions were basically what they would have been anyway.

Policy and emissions are slow to adjust- maybe a year after you reduced emissions by a tonne, policy change adjustments have only offset it by 10%, leaving a government fuck coefficient of 0.9 which seems pretty good (it means you had 90% as much effect as you thought your were having). Then the next year the government has 0.9 extra tonnes in their budget, and again their policy only offsets 10% of that, leaving a government fuck coefficient of 0.81 after 2 years. This continues year after year, so that in 30 years time, the government fuck coefficient is 0.042- i.e. you think you've saved a tonne of CO2, but because of the policy feedback mechanism, your net effect is only 42kg. Lets call this 10% figure the government fuck decay rate (GFDR).

Maybe the GFDR is lower than that, which would mean your individual consumption has more impact for longer. But as long as this GFDR is constant over time, your impact exponentially decays over time. The government fuck coefficient goes to zero. Remember, this isn't your effect on annual emissions decaying over time, it's your effect on cumulative emissions - this means your individual actions really are being undone. Not that annual emissions adjust back to the status quo but cumulative emissions do.

The government fuck coefficient after t years is (1-GFDR)^t

Self criticism like some kind of Maoist

The one weak point in this analysis I can see is it assumes governments' emission preferences care about cumulative emissions, not just annual emissions - i.e. that governments will think they can get away with doing less this year because they did more last year, or ten years ago. This is what gives a GFDR that isn't 0. If they largely don't think like this, the GFDR could be way less than 0.1 per year, leading to a government fuck coefficient that isn't near 0 even decades in the future (and what really matters is what the effect is decades in the future when hopefully governments will doing the right amount of mitigation, at which point there is no more decay).

The GFDR might also decrease over time, as after a certain amount of time historical emissions may basically be considered water under the bridge.

But if the GFDR is anything close to 0.1, we have to accept that, bizarre as it seems, saving energy today doesn't actually result in there being less carbon in the air in 50 years.

This doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it means our actions should be entirely focused on shifting government preferences, rather than on changing consumption habits. Assuming my analysis is correct.