Green New Deal

[mspohr]

Went to Reno's Hot August Nights last night. Restored old cars parade through downtown. Fantastic cars. Amazing noxious cloud of exhaust reminded me of how much regulations have cleaned up ICE engines.
Free market fairy was passed out on the street.

 

[ohmman]

I entirely support internalizing externalities across the board. I understand that in many cases, it's nearly impossible, but there are some that are big enough that they're clearly the correct choice. We've done this to some minor and inaccurate extent with cigarette and gas taxes. Taxing carbon seems like the obvious first step - expelling carbon is the most widespread activity in the consumer world. Determining the true cost is going to also be somewhat inaccurate, as it'll be based on the best models we can make at the time, but it's better than nothing. Agricultural products, etc., should all be reflective of their true cost.

I'd support legislation to keep people from cutting trees on personal (or federal) property, unless they can show they planted the tree. I don't care if you replace it - you don't get to cut it if you don't have the proper credentials showing it was planted by you or your ancestors. Bob Taylor from Taylor Guitars is undertaking an ebony project in Cameroon, where they are planting trees for harvest in 80-100 years. They GPS tag them and register them with the government, because in Cameroon, the state owns the tree unless you have proof of inheritance.

Paraphrasing the excellent Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Overstory, the earth has been slowly building a savings account for four billion years, and we're trying to extract and spend every penny of it in a lifetime. So yeah, everything's going to cost a bit more. Economic growth will slow to some degree. Sustainable growth can't compare to unsustainable extractive growth when you aren't paying a thing for that extraction.

 

[jerry33]

I'd support legislation to keep people from cutting trees on personal (or federal) property, unless they can show they planted the tree. I don't care if you replace it - you don't get to cut it if you don't have the proper credentials showing it was planted by you or your ancestors. Bob Taylor from Taylor Guitars is undertaking an ebony project in Cameroon, where they are planting trees for harvest in 80-100 years. They GPS tag them and register them with the government, because in Cameroon, the state owns the tree unless you have proof of inheritance.

In principle I agree, but there's a big glaring issue: You buy a house. It has an old tree in the yard which is rotten and threatening to either fall on the house or the road. And you now can't get it removed until some nebulous time in the future when it goes through a committee to determine if you can cut the tree or not. I'd hate to think of the insurance premium rise if a bill like this passes as stated. Also, no one will ever plant trees in their yard because of this.

 

[ohmman]

In principle I agree, but there's a big glaring issue: You buy a house. It has an old tree in the yard which is rotten and threatening to either fall on the house or the road. And you now can't get it removed until some nebulous time in the future when it goes through a committee to determine if you can cut the tree or not. I'd hate to think of the insurance premium rise if a bill like this passes as stated. Also, no one will ever plant trees in their yard because of this.

I feel certain there are common sense implementations that aren’t as strict as I’ve laid it out. The point was really that extractive practices are unsustainable and bear a cost that is in many cases unable to be repayed.

 

[jerry33]

I feel certain there are common sense implementations that aren’t as strict as I’ve laid it out. The point was really that extractive practices are unsustainable and bear a cost that is in many cases unable to be repayed.

Which is why I agreed in principle.

 

[Merrill]

Overall I agree, but for a homeowner who lives in a wildfire area not being able to cut and remove some trees means you will not be able to get homeowners insurance. Over the years I have had to trim and cut trees to comply with CalFire’s defensible space legislation. So as long as they allow that I’m in.

 

[JRP3]

I live in the woods, trees die every year for different reasons. I rarely plant new ones because there are already smaller trees and seedlings that can now grow when I cut down the dead ones.

 

[mspohr]

In principle I agree, but there's a big glaring issue: You buy a house. It has an old tree in the yard which is rotten and threatening to either fall on the house or the road. And you now can't get it removed until some nebulous time in the future when it goes through a committee to determine if you can cut the tree or not. I'd hate to think of the insurance premium rise if a bill like this passes as stated. Also, no one will ever plant trees in their yard because of this.

I think you're being a bit alarmist.
Where I live we have a regional agency which strictly controls land use, building and tree cutting. They have rules and fines for breaking the rules. You can cut trees for "defensible space" and dead trees but you have to have their forrester come out and tag the tree. It's not that difficult and the forrester is a very reasonable guy. Even let me cut a tree to improve my solar exposure.

 

[jerry33]

I think you're being a bit alarmist.
Where I live we have a regional agency which strictly controls land use, building and tree cutting. They have rules and fines for breaking the rules. You can cut trees for "defensible space" and dead trees but you have to have their forrester come out and tag the tree. It's not that difficult and the forrester is a very reasonable guy. Even let me cut a tree to improve my solar exposure.

Having had one tree fall on the house (no damage due to steel roof), one that was actually rotten on the inside and was close to falling (would have done major damage), and one that just died because it wasn't suitable to the climate, I'm sensitized to this issue.

 

[mspohr]

I live in the woods, trees die every year for different reasons. I rarely plant new ones because there are already smaller trees and seedlings that can now grow when I cut down the dead ones.

Good point. When you cut down individual trees in a forest, it makes more room for the other trees to grow so while the cut tree decomposes, other trees will grow to capture the carbon.
The forest where I live was clear cut for the Comstock mines 150 years ago and has grown back with dense, unhealthy trees. Thinning the unhealthy trees improves carbon storage by allowing larger, preferred species to thrive.

 

[ohmman]

I highly recommend “The Overstory” to anyone looking for a good read. The novel tells the story of nine personal interactions with trees and forests, and includes a lot of forest science, cognitive bias talk, and technology. It discusses climate change and the general anthropomorphic impact on the world.

 

[SageBrush]

the general anthropomorphic impact on the world.

One guess should suffice

 

[nwdiver]

I entirely support internalizing externalities across the board. I understand that in many cases, it's nearly impossible, but there are some that are big enough that they're clearly the correct choice.

I think the biggest threat is allowing the specter of external costs to hinder things we need to reduce other external costs like EVs and Solar. Not buying gasoline creates an external cost of lower revenue for roads. We need to find a way to ensure these external costs aren't shouldered by the poor that can't yet afford to give up fools fuel OR by disincentivizing EVs with onerous fees (looking at you WA!). The same goes for solar (looking at you Xcel!!!)

The key is to be thoughtful about it.

 

[Mader Levap]

To get back on topic - I'll give you the $70B for Middle East wars,

Cost of Iraq war. And that's only one oil-related conflict done by USA in recent history. Feel free to continue pretending amount of money spent on oil-related wars is may orders of magnitude lesser than it actually is.

And, of course, people consider that whole "taxpayer pays for health problems caused by oil industry" as indirect subsidy.

even though I think they have nothing to do with oil.

Riigiht. Because in history of mankind people never went to wars over extremely important resources.

If you don't understand any of this, then why are you arguing so strenuously? I hope you're at least getting paid for this.

Nope. Some people just have blind faith in so-called "free market" (something that never existed and cannot exist, but that's just little unimportant detail). Not unlike commies, with blind faith in their own favourite non-existent economic ideology promising paradise if only some pesky things could be removed, really.

Start with the fact that there is a cost to rising CO2 levels which the companies responsible for that rise are not paying....

I can't find that in the tax code or budget. Are you advocating for a carbon tax? And a fart tax?

He is saying your favourite economic ideology has no answer on negative externalities. Among other things.

That is government - they pick the winners and losers.

There will be always winners and losers. We can, at most, try to tilt the table so it is more likely there will be winners/losers that we think deserve it more.

 

[juliusa]

Cost of Iraq war. And that's only one oil-related conflict done by USA in recent history. Feel free to continue pretending amount of money spent on oil-related wars is may orders of magnitude lesser than it actually is.

Sorry, that is water over the damn dam. Just like the current carbon in the atmosphere and the current temperature of the planet.

Because in history of mankind people never went to wars over extremely important resources.

Gotta get out of the past. We are an exporter of oil. No need to fight wars (anymore) to secure our supply.

Nope. Some people just have blind faith in so-called "free market"

Not blind faith. Just reality. The problem is people that have blind faith in the government. How is the war on drugs working out? DUI? Economics is what kept Obama from killing coal, and Trump from bringing it back. It is what is keeping Trump from stopping illegal immigration. People pretty much do what they want, and are more guided by economics than the law. I once heard Chuck Grassley talk about taxes - he said we can make whatever tax laws we want, but people will only give us about 18% of GDP.

There will be always winners and losers.

Yep. “The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.”. ― Ludwig von Mises

 

[nwdiver]

Sorry, that is water over the damn dam. Just like the current carbon in the atmosphere and the current temperature of the planet.

.... ok.... what about Iran? Is that also water under the bridge? The only reason they have any leverage is our pathetic addiction to oil.

Gotta get out of the past. We are an exporter of oil. No need to fight wars (anymore) to secure our supply.

WRONG. It's a global commodity. If demand is 30M bbl/day and ~3M bbl/day gets taken off the market do you think the fact the US is net exporter will stop the price of oil => the price of gasoline from rising in the US?

 

[juliusa]

Not buying gasoline creates an external cost of lower revenue for roads. We need to find a way to ensure these external costs aren't shouldered by the poor that can't yet afford to give up fools fuel OR by disincentivizing EVs with onerous fees (looking at you WA!).

What is your solution to replace the tax revenues from pumping oil? There is a reason people in AK get paid to live there, and TX taxes are so low.

 

[nwdiver]

What is your solution to replace the tax revenues from pumping oil? There is a reason people in AK get paid to live there, and TX taxes are so low.

...... you think the oil will last forever? AK has a wealth fund they need to maintain and TX should be doing the same. Norway was smart. Even after the oil is gone they'll still have revenue. Too bad coal communities didn't think about the future... they're pretty much screwed now.

 

[juliusa]

... ok.... what about Iran? Is that also water under the bridge?

That is the $70B in the current budget for wars. Trump didn't start a war over a downed drone.

WRONG. It's a global commodity.

Nope. Countries need to protect their own oil shipments. There is no reason for us to pay the cost to protect UK oil shipments - they can escort their ships and fight their war.

Yes it is one globe - all these US solutions need to be global to make a lick of different. A go-it-alone approach won't work since we are less than 20% of global emissions, and getting less (as a percentage) each year.

 

[JRP3]

What is your solution to replace the tax revenues from pumping oil? There is a reason people in AK get paid to live there, and TX taxes are so low.

They pay more taxes.