I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm very worried about climate change, and I would be willing to make any number of sacrifices to _effectively_ combat climate change. However, the question is this:

> _Suppose a proposal was on the ballot next year to add a monthly fee to consumers’ monthly electricity bill to combat climate change. If this proposal passes, it would cost your household $10 every month. Would you vote in favor of this monthly fee to combat climate change, or would you vote against this monthly fee?_

My utility company can barely run their billing website. Paying them $40 a month to "combat climate change" sounds like throwing money into a hole. So no, I wouldn't do that.

Would I vote for legislation that would redirect subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy sources? Yes! Would I vote for legislation that would place limitations on the production of plastics, even if it meant raising the price of consumer goods? Probably!

I know, I know, there's complexity in these issues, but my point is that I'd be willing to pay more to combat climate change. I'm just picky about who I'm paying it to, whether the costs will be distributed justly, and what they plan to do with that money.

> Would I vote for legislation that would redirect subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy sources?

FWIW, there are actually fewer "subsidies" to fossil fuels that could actually be redirected than most people here think. When you read HN articles and comments on the "fossil fuel subsidies", in my experience the bulk of these is "fossil fuel has this and that externality, and users of fossil fuels don't have to pay for it, so we count it as a subsidy". Whether you agree that this actually counts as subsidy or not, it's not like you can redirect it.

But in terms of monetary subsidies - don't fossil companies still get more, in percentage points to their revenue, than green companies? This is something which can be easily redirected.

25% of greenhouse cases come from energy generation [1]

There's about ~144.3M taxpayers in the US [2]. If each of us paid $1200 per year, that's ~$173Bn per year [3].

Considering that a nuclear reactor only costs $9Bn to build - that's 20 per year [4]. Considering that there are only 60 in the US currently, and that's about 20% of all electricity generation, and that Nuclear isn't the most efficient form of energy generation - we should be able to replace ~7% of dirtiest energy sources per year.

~7% * 25% = ~1.75% reduction in greenhouse gases (at least). Considering that we need to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 - in 30 years, this would be ~52%, and this is definitely not the most efficient method... It's reasonable to think this is actually enough.

However - considering the average taxpayer's Federal tax bill is about ~$8k - good luck convincing them to increase that by 15%. If you make ~$150k, this would be an extra ~$4k per year in Federal taxes.

If you're in the top 1% - and you make $450k - it would be an extra ~$19k per year...

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[2] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....

[3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100*12*144300000

[4] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100*12*144300000%2F900...

If you truly care about cost, efficiency, and the environment, you should be looking at Natural Gas plants [1]. They are inexpensive at $60 million each, are more efficient [2] than all other power generators, provide more power (which will be needed for EVs), and is cleaner when taking into account the full lifecycle costs (construction to decommissioning). They also involve less red tape to get constructed, so they can be built quickly.

But you have to look at the decaying grid as well (another plus for Natural Gas because you could afford to do both). A lot of the power generation is lost in the grid. If you invested there, the current generation facilities could operate more efficiently and you could shutdown the dirtiest/least efficient ones over time.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/natural-gas-fired-power-plant...

[2] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...

Right. The correct way to phrase this is probably the same as how government procurement actually works. Say, "Shall we build a large solar farm, and shall we pay to upgrade people's houses," and so on. We can pay for all this stuff out of the general fund (i.e. with debt) and raise taxes when the debt service becomes unpalatable. If you asked Americans whether they'd be willing to pay $1000/year so that every American could have heathcare, they'd probably say no too. But they'd say yes if you ask them, "Shall we have universal healthcare."

I would even argue that this might be a more honest framing than the survey. Raising taxes on the poor really isn't done, but it is at least politically viable to raise taxes on the rich from time to time. Asking someone who makes 30k whether they'd pay $500 to stop climate change isn't even relevant, because they're not the ones who would be footing the bill. The more honest question would be, "Shall we have Buffett, Gates, and Bezos pay $500 on your behalf to stop climate change?" I suspect the answer to that survey would be more positive.

I completely agree. My willingness to pay is directly proportional to my conviction in the effectiveness of the proposed solution.

The internet has revealed us to be very picky shoppers. We do a lot of comparison shopping, looking for the "best" deal on the silliest item. That same skepticism applies to policies, even effective ones. I want to fund the best ideas, and the best ideas should be backed by compelling models and, ideally, empirical evidence.

There's something to be said for the VC mindset here: funding many things, each of which has a low probability of succeeding, and using unicorns to subsidize numerous losses. Tax payers don't like losses, but an example of something kind of similar that the government already does today is science funding.

"My willingness to pay is directly proportional to my conviction in the effectiveness of the proposed solution."

I couldn't agree more with that.

So if it said a higher amount of a bigger sacrifice, you think you would get more support? What do you think would be a appropriate survey question to gauge willingness to make personal sacrifice to prevent climate change?

I think its a reasonable question and in line with what practical measures governments are making today to raise money to combat the issue. Maybe you don't believe in the political process to fix handle this issue, but there really isn't another option. And if you really think there's a good chance that the world will end in the next 100 years, why wouldn't you be willing to throw quite literally a few dollars at it?

I have faith we would absolutely do more things like have more of the giant diesel burning trucks that drive around to pick up degradable cardboard on garbage day at a net energy loss in the name of saving the climate.

We just are not good at anything in the US at this point that requires more complexity than a 280 character slogan.

Exactly my thought. I would assume any such fee would either go to money that would already be spent but now funded by the new fee (For example, the tax rebates on solar installations) or else go to porkish things that pretend to be about climate.

Seriously, I would pay every penny I have and forgo pay for the rest of my life to stop climate change. But there is no entity on earth I trust to actually follow through with such a promise to actually accomplish that result.