It absolutely would, and they've been pushing for that for ages. New taxes just aren't tenable in government right now, even if it means avoiding the worst of Climate Change which impacts everyone

If I had to bet I would say we're >50% chance we get somewhere around $1T in Dem spending which will be close to 100% paid for with new taxes.

BUT it doesn't look like there will be much in the way of hitting emitters. In fact it looks like we'll be giving the incumbents money to 'green' which I don't trust at all.

Albeit with some penalties attached for accountability which is kind of a potential tax.

I find the utility industry weird in that it's so regulated yet they are allowed to make profits sanctioned by govt agencies. Just nationalize it or regionalize it.

Taxation does seem to be the best way to let the market do what it thinks is the best way to achieve the goal you set.

Someone once retorted to me, "well won't some businesses go bust?" - to which I do not reply glibly since job losses are overreported but still important, but simply "That is the whole point".

> carbon tax?

No you want an emissions trading scheme instead of a carbon tax. Only this way the government can actually enforce strict upper limits on CO2 emissions („cap“) and allow economic subjects to sell their emission rights for profit („trade“). Compared to a carbon tax „cap and trade“ makes the regulation of carbon emissions more efficient both for all market participants and the government.

In theory. Then the government gives free carbon credits to industries that are supposed to reduce their emissions.

You've just described Tesla's entire business model. They sell carbon credits to enable polluters to keep polluting.

That's quite a disingenuous way to describe the situation. Without ZEV credits, the polluters would keep on polluting.

With ZEV credits, the polluters, for now, keep on polluting, but they have to subsidize the development of clean automotive tech, and fund their own competition. This is definitely a good thing, and give them a big incentive to stop polluting (as much) so they can stop paying for those ZEVs.

> but they have to subsidize the development of clean automotive tech

More like they subsidize bitcoin-created pollution.

I don't know if you meant it this way, but your statement comes across very negatively. Just a reminder that the carbon credits are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: give a leg up to green companies.

My mind is spinning with these carbon credit things right now.

You can trade them! Like a stock market!

If /wallstreetbets started buying all these up (not sure of the supply right now), they could fleece dirty industries.

There's a cap on valuation. You can buy them from producers or pay the ceiling cost per credit from the state (e.g. California).

Now, if the WallStreetBets folks want to go into clean mobility, I'll pop the popcorn and watch that show for a few days.

I couldn't find anything about a "cap on valuation" on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit) or (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=carbon%20credit%20valu...)

Would you mind pointing me in the way? Even if there is a cap, as long as the current price is below it, there's a market.

For anyone else who'd never heard of carbon credits:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13...

So, if these carbon credits exist, is it possible to coinify them and boost their value? Because it would seem the more valuable they are, the more financial incentive there would be to reduce carbon emissions.

Only if it considers the total emissions required for making and using a particular vehicle. If I buy a 10 year old civic to drive for the next 5 years, I will be producing MUCH less emissions than what's released when building and using a brand new tesla. This will never happen though, because the virtue-signalling 'green' politicians and companies still have a bottom line which is MUCH more important for them than any real improvement.

Engineering Explained youtube channel tackled this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

The verdict appears to be that the answer to this question is a bit more complicated then a blanket "Its better to buy a new car for the environment" but its highly dependent on gas milage and time of ownership, as well as new gas car vs new hybrid car vs new electric car. He does take into account carbon needed to build the cars too. It seems that in most cases a new EV will be better for the environment then your 10 year old honda in roughly 4 years. Skip to 6 minutes in the video for when he starts showing compiled data of when its better to buy a new car vs keep old.

The CO2 emissions of 10400 kg for producing new tesla is taken directly from tesla's own marketing materials ('impact report') and arguably highly inaccurate as admitted by the author. I'm willing to accept his revised figure of 20800kg however.

Next, moving on to the pollution and externalises (besides emissions) required to produce a tesla - he correctly points out that acquiring several of the metals involves human trafficking, pollution, release of toxic chemicals, etc (he gives no useful numbers). He then moves on to state that's not a big deal because the relative weight of these metals in one car is much smaller than the total weight of the car? What a bizarre argument.

> It seems that in most cases a new EV will be better for the environment then your 10 year old honda in roughly 4 years.

2011, manual, 10 year old civic, gets 29mpg not 25mpg, which even based on the bullshit numbers from tesla's marketing pamphlet means it's better for the environment to buy a 10 year old civic and drive it for 5 years. If we use more realistic numbers you can probably buy 90% of 5-10 year old car models to drive to 5 years and emit less CO2 than a new tesla.

Also, people buying 10 year old civics generally already have economy and frugality in mind and aren't loaded with cash, they often don't have the option of buying a tesla. Trying to economically punish them for this is just counterproductive.