Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Well, I think most of the population would have that idea - don't deal with it until there is some sort of magic pill that will fix the situation. Like fixing this was like going to Home Depot to pick out supplies to fix a hole in the drywall. I don't think that approach will get us anywhere - results based processes are typically much less effective than process based ones.

In any event, the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating. Like I said earlier, 1000 ppm is feasible by the turn of the century. From what I read, that's the level that also starts to turn towards poor effects on our respiration. Seems like something we ought to try and avoid.

That is an approach, but a plan would detail how much the carbon tax needs to be and how rapidly that will impact fossil fuel usage.

I'm not opposed to some carbon tax, but it would have to be "painful" in order to be even moderately effective.

The Effect of a Gasoline Tax on Carbon Emissions | NBER

Their preferred estimates imply that a 10 cent tax increase would decrease U.S. carbon emissions from the transportation sector by about 1.5 percent and decrease total U.S. carbon emissions by about 0.5 percent. To put this estimate in context, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.1 percent annually between 1990 and 2007, so a 10 cent gasoline tax increase would approximately offset half a year of growth in total U.S. emissions.

Under Biden's Plan, Energy Prices Go Up, And That's The Point - American Energy Alliance
Under Biden's Plan, Energy Prices Go Up, And That's The Point - American Energy Alliance

A $20 per metric ton carbon tax equates to a 16.6 cent per gallon surcharge on gasoline. In 2022, the $50 per ton carbon tax would increase Canadian gasoline prices by about 42 cents per gallon or about 8 percent. The price of coal in 2022 would more than double with a carbon tax surcharge of about $100 per metric ton. Natural gas prices would increase by about 10 cents per cubic meter in 2022 compared to current prices of around 13 cents per cubic meter—about a 75 percent increase.
Canada expects the carbon tax to increase the demand for carbon-free electricity. In 2019, however, Canada generated 58 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric power, 15 percent from nuclear, and 7 percent from renewable energy. Only 18 percent of its electricity came from fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. The majority of Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions are not from the generating sector, but from the industrial sector, which is subjected to an Output-Based Allocations system (similar to cap and trade).
Those carbon taxes, which at $50 per metric ton seem rather large, are insufficient for the country to meet its emission-reduction targets under the Paris climate accord. Canada’s parliamentary budget officer says the country’s carbon tax would have to increase over the coming years to meet emission-reduction targets. Canada’s budget officer, Yves Giroux, estimates the tax will have to increase to $117 per metric ton by 2030 if it is applied to all industries. And, if the government caps the tax at $50 per metric ton for large industrial emitters, households and other sectors of the economy would have to cover the difference, requiring a tax of $289 per metric ton in 2030.

The US already pays taxes. Several trillion per year, just counting the Feds.

I'm saying shift taxes from other revenues sources to carbon taxes.

Money still comes out of Americans' pockets and ends up in the US Treasury, just like today, but we do it in such a way as to have an outcome that we prefer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax


It's more that the US is one of the only developed countries NOT doing much of anything...

I understand the concern about shifting of taxes... I do.

So obviously it would have to come as a package deal to reduce taxes elsewhere. Otherwise it's dead in the Senate.

I think a carbon tax is a good idea, as I said, so long as we realize its limitations.  I think it should be increased on a regular schedule, perhaps we start at $10 per ton and increase that every other year by $10 for a decade.  Then the monies would go into a trust fund of some sort designated perhaps for infrastructure improvements, or perhaps to reduce the FICA tax, or perhaps to simply get the SSTF funded, maybe all three.

If nuclear power were a realistic option, we could I think in 15 years replace every coal plant with nuclear, they produce the same sort of electricity.  Natural gas would be used for peaker plants, maybe batteries come on faster than expected.  Maybe we should subsidize EVs, I'd put a limit of ~$40 K per vehicle on any  tax credit, meaning the expensive ones wouldn't get a dime.  Whoever can build a decent $35 K EV would get maybe $5 K.

We could do this, it wouldn't be terribly painful, it would have SOME impact on CO2 levels, just a very small one.

The goal is two fold, in my mind:

1.  To facilitate a shift to a lower carbon intensity energy system, over time, and
2.  To help fund needed priorities.

Tax what you don't want and fund what you do.  We just should be realistic about how much of Item One this could achieve.