Plastic pollution in our seas

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The world’s producers and consumers currently regard the air/environment as a free dumping ground for numerous pollutants, and carbon dioxide.
A CARBON TAX (a fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels) IS THE FAIREST, MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST EFFICIENT, SINGLE POLICY TOOL IN THE FIGHT FOR A HABITABLE ECOLOGY & CLIMATE.

Can't add a thing.

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

A carbon tax will make the wealthy more so, and make the poor poorer.

It depends on the design of the tax. In most functioning societies taxes do not make wealthy more so. They are one way of distributing wealth. But some broad-based, non-progressive taxes DO place a higher burden on the poor vs the rich. Consumption taxes are one, which is why carbon taxes tend to be instituted as revenue-neutral and generally progressive, with lower income folks receiving rebates to offset the unfair nature of the tax.

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

Carbon produced by mankind was not an issue in the last 15 significant climate shifts documented by scientific research and has little bearing on our current situation.

The first part of this statement is true (and largely irrelevant since human civilization didn't exist). The second part is false, according to scientific research.

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

Removing plastics from all of our water supplies, fresh and salt based, is a priority but taxing the working class into deeper poverty is not an acceptable answer.

Absolutely agree; eliminating plastic waste, especially from our waters, is a priority. As for taxes deepening poverty, again that is not the norm nor the intent of taxation. It depends on the design of the tax. Personally I'd prefer to see some sort of progressive carbon tax which would reflect the fact that wealthier folks use more carbon. But that would add to the complexity and economic cost.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

A carbon tax will make the wealthy more so, and make the poor poorer ...

Not necessarily so.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to reflect the true cost of burning carbon. Those costs are borne by those who suffer from the effects (all of us). It is a Pigovian* tax since it returns the cost of global warming to their producers. Taxes allow industries to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon emissions. That's a better alternative for free-market economies, than government regulation.
ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP have all called for the tax. The World Bank reports that 40 countries and 20 municipalities use either carbon taxes or carbon emissions trading. That covers 13% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. The World Bank adds that there are a total of 88 countries who intend to use a carbon tax to meet their Paris Agreement goals. This represents 56% of global emissions. In addition, there are 51 regional and local initiatives.

The objection to carbon pricing (that it will cost average households large amounts of money) is ill-founded, and can be mitigated by smart government policy. Per-capita carbon dividends could be highly progressive (the biggest benefit going to lower income households).

See ➥ https://business.financialpost.com/p...he-policy-tool

And ➥ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1537559269

* A Pigouvian tax is a government cost on activities that create socially harmful externalities. An externality is an activity that creates a negative effect on others in a society but not necessarily the person who does that activity.
Pollution is an externality, for example. The driver of a non-compliant vehicle doesn't necessarily suffer immediately from the exhaust it releases as they drive down the road, but everyone behind them may suffer. Their exhaust may also increase pollution for everyone in the community. The government imposes a Pigouvian tax, on non-compliant vehicles (for instance), to make the driver take on more of the cost of the suffering they may cause. The revenue from the tax is often used to help ameliorate the external cost.

British economist Arthur Pigou developed the concept of externalities. He argued that the government should intervene to correct them by taxing activities that harm the economy as a whole and subsidizing activities that help society as a whole.
For instance, in 2002, Ireland began taxing the use of plastic bags. Within a few weeks, plastic bag usage fell 94 percent. One year later, everyone had bought reusable cloth bags. The revenue goes to the environment ministry for enforcement and clean-up.

[Cadence]

I think the mind set that my occasional soda bottle isn't going to make a difference needs to be changed. Yes it is the big guys but a bunch of little guys together make an impact.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I think the mind set that my occasional soda bottle isn't going to make a difference needs to be changed. Yes it is the big guys but a bunch of little guys together make an impact.

Indeed. ✓

1,000,000 (little guys) x 1 each = 1,000,000
1 each (big guy) x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000
Both = 2,000,000

[transmitterdan]

Smart government policy....erm that’s a fantasy I’m afraid.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I think the mind set that my occasional soda bottle isn't going to make a difference needs to be changed. Yes it is the big guys but a bunch of little guys together make an impact.

On CF, you're preaching to the choir; cruisers are more aware than most about how to live efficiently, as well as the beauty and "rightness" of unspoilt nature.

For many people though, on the subjects of pollution and carbon they think that everything starts and ends with individual actions, and it just ain't so. Most of the levers to pull are in the hands of government and industry. Many of our individual bad practices and behaviours are encouraged by the big interests who profit from them, and who actively thwart any attempts to gain a better understanding of the problems these actions cause. Let alone make changes...

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Smart government policy....erm that’s a fantasy I’m afraid.

And of course some object to any government action on religious grounds

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not necessarily so.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to reflect the true cost of burning carbon. Those costs are borne by those who suffer from the effects (all of us). It is a Pigovian* tax since it returns the cost of global warming to their producers. Taxes allow industries to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon emissions. That's a better alternative for free-market economies, than government regulation.
ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP have all called for the tax. The World Bank reports that 40 countries and 20 municipalities use either carbon taxes or carbon emissions trading. That covers 13% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. The World Bank adds that there are a total of 88 countries who intend to use a carbon tax to meet their Paris Agreement goals. This represents 56% of global emissions. In addition, there are 51 regional and local initiatives.

The objection to carbon pricing (that it will cost average households large amounts of money) is ill-founded, and can be mitigated by smart government policy. Per-capita carbon dividends could be highly progressive (the biggest benefit going to lower income households).

See ➥ https://business.financialpost.com/p...he-policy-tool

And ➥ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1537559269

* A Pigouvian tax is a government cost on activities that create socially harmful externalities. An externality is an activity that creates a negative effect on others in a society but not necessarily the person who does that activity.
Pollution is an externality, for example. The driver of a non-compliant vehicle doesn't necessarily suffer immediately from the exhaust it releases as they drive down the road, but everyone behind them may suffer. Their exhaust may also increase pollution for everyone in the community. The government imposes a Pigouvian tax, on non-compliant vehicles (for instance), to make the driver take on more of the cost of the suffering they may cause. The revenue from the tax is often used to help ameliorate the external cost.

British economist Arthur Pigou developed the concept of externalities. He argued that the government should intervene to correct them by taxing activities that harm the economy as a whole and subsidizing activities that help society as a whole.
For instance, in 2002, Ireland began taxing the use of plastic bags. Within a few weeks, plastic bag usage fell 94 percent. One year later, everyone had bought reusable cloth bags. The revenue goes to the environment ministry for enforcement and clean-up.

The very real fact of "external costs" is what's completely missing from our system. The profit is extracted, and the external costs are shoved onto the working people, or the government. The champions of the "people" like it that way. It's the cause of most of our problems.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

the fact that wealthier folks use more carbon.

You state this is a fact. Are there studies that actually back this up? IME, wealthier people indulge in newer, more energy-efficient homes, solar panels, Teslas, etc. They have the luxury to indulge in organic, fair-trade and carbon-neutral goods. Do you really think those paltry rebates the gov't is handing out will make up for the increased prices of food and goods, costs to heat our homes, and costs of basic transportation?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You state this is a fact. Are there studies that actually back this up? IME, wealthier people indulge in newer, more energy-efficient homes, solar panels, Teslas, etc. They have the luxury to indulge in organic, fair-trade and carbon-neutral goods. Do you really think those paltry rebates the gov't is handing out will make up for the increased prices of food and goods, costs to heat our homes, and costs of basic transportation?

Higher efficiency does not mean using less. Thanks to the well studied Jevons Paradox, higher efficiency often leads to more resource usage, not less.

But yes, wealthier people generally use more resources, and in this case more carbon. It can be seen at both the large scale, where the typical American or Canadian uses many times more resources per-capita than the average global citizen. It can also be seen at the small scale. Just compare the average house size of a rich person vs a poor person. Or number of cars, or flights taken, or vacations, or any number of other doodads owned.

Yes, wealth translates into more ... otherwise, what's the point of being wealthy?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

You state this is a fact. Are there studies that actually back this up? IME, wealthier people indulge in newer, more energy-efficient homes, solar panels, Teslas, etc. They have the luxury to indulge in organic, fair-trade and carbon-neutral goods.

Realistically, the wealthier on average travel more, own larger residences or multiple residences, larger or multiple vehicles.

But MUCH more IMPORTANT - the activities that produce and maintain wealth, whether it's through running a business, a senior position at a big firm, or simply through earning investment profits - are all activities with their own carbon footprint. That expanded footprint is from the business activities themselves, their employees/subordinates acting and travelling on their employers' behalf, their offices and facilities, their partners and suppliers, etc etc.

Do you really think those paltry rebates the gov't is handing out will make up for the increased prices of food and goods, costs to heat our homes, and costs of basic transportation?

Well, you might be ignoring the possible savings from the behaviour changes that we hope to see. Things like better home insulation, choosing smaller vehicles or taking alternates, choosing local food over imports, etc.

But anyway, in some implemented programs, the rebates have been helpful. Btw, do oil companies rebate the peak prices to the poor when the oil price fluctuates? Those fluctuations have been more significant than the steady small increase of a carbon tax.

How do you feel about the food price increases caused by poorer harvests and other agricultural failures caused by weather/climate?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Higher efficiency does not mean using less. Thanks to the well studied Jevons Paradox, higher efficiency often leads to more resource usage, not less.

But yes, wealthier people generally use more resources, and in this case more carbon. It can be seen at both the large scale, where the typical American or Canadian uses many times more resources per-capita than the average global citizen. It can also be seen at the small scale. Just compare the average house size of a rich person vs a poor person. Or number of cars, or flights taken, or vacations, or any number of other doodads owned.

Yes, wealth translates into more ... otherwise, what's the point of being wealthy?

All assumptions. Your assumptions. Any data to back up that "fact"?

And we're not talking about the relative wealth of Canadians and Americans to the third world - we're talking about the difference in the carbon footprints between the wealthy and the poor in Canada and the US. It comes down to more than just doodads. A wealthy person can afford to shop "local", shop "sustainable", shop "eco-consciously." Poor people are more likely to be in Walmart buying cheap polyester sh*t that's shipped from half-way around the world.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Realistically, the wealthier on average travel more, own larger residences or multiple residences, larger or multiple vehicles.

Ibid.
Or they work harder, longer hours. 90 hour work weeks don't give them much time to travel. A lot of wealthy people are wealthy because they don't blow their money on a lot of crap. They might have nicer stuff, but don't necessarily have more stuff.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But MUCH more IMPORTANT - the activities that produce and maintain wealth, whether it's through running a business, a senior position at a big firm, or simply through earning investment profits - are all activities with their own carbon footprint.

Where do come up with this? How do you put a carbon price on investment profits?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

How do you feel about the food price increases caused by poorer harvests and other agricultural failures caused by weather/climate?

Non sequitur. Drought, disease, frost, too much rain, etc. etc. - these are all wildcards when it comes to agriculture. Do you expect me to say that I enjoy paying more for food when there's a bad year? Of course not; that's ridiculous. What does this have to do with carbon taxes?

[Cadence]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;3033309]On CF, you're preaching to the choir; cruisers are more aware than most about how to live efficiently, as well as the beauty and "rightness" of unspoilt nature.

For many people though, on the subjects of pollution and carbon they think that everything starts and ends with individual actions, and it just ain't so. Most of the levers to pull are in the hands of government and industry. Many of our individual bad practices and behaviours are encouraged by the big interests who profit from them, and who actively thwart any attempts to gain a better understanding of the problems these actions cause. Let alone make changes...

I'm not sure restating it is preach to the choir? I see to many posts from people
not in the choir, so to speak.


deAnd of course some object to any government action on religious grounds [/QUO

[transmitterdan]

So we should all strive to be as poor as possible so as to save the planet? Yeah, that’ll work.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Can't add a thing.



It depends on the design of the tax. In most functioning societies taxes do not make wealthy more so. They are one way of distributing wealth. But some broad-based, non-progressive taxes DO place a higher burden on the poor vs the rich. Consumption taxes are one, which is why carbon taxes tend to be instituted as revenue-neutral and generally progressive, with lower income folks receiving rebates to offset the unfair nature of the tax.



The first part of this statement is true (and largely irrelevant since human civilization didn't exist). The second part is false, according to scientific research.



Absolutely agree; eliminating plastic waste, especially from our waters, is a priority. As for taxes deepening poverty, again that is not the norm nor the intent of taxation. It depends on the design of the tax. Personally I'd prefer to see some sort of progressive carbon tax which would reflect the fact that wealthier folks use more carbon. But that would add to the complexity and economic cost.

When scientists admit (like you just did) that humans didn't cause the first 15 climate shifts in the last million years, the argument that human carbon is causing this one just lost all merit..