News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by gruez on Monday November 14, 2022 @10:22AM (#33595264)
Elites: I think you're overestimating how much of a contribution "elites" add to co2 consumption. They might emit disproportionately higher co2 than the median citizen, but that's canceled out by the fact that they're so few of them.

Companies: Works great in theory[1], not so well in practice[2]. Turns out most people only pay lip service to climate change/environment, and scatter at the prospect of paying out of pocket for it.

[1] https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_E...

Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by ZeroGravitas on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:17PM (#33597400)
Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after. It's a widely used tool, because it's efficient and therefore cheap.

It's only really the US that lags on putting a price on emissions. Mostly because their legislation mechanisms are in the pocket of big oil.

Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by gruez on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:43PM (#33597863)
>Interestingly, Washington State passed a carbon fee proposal that's basically the same as that, shortly after

Source? It took me a few minutes to find what the piece of legislation was called (Climate Commitment Act), but it's surprisingly hard to find what the bill actually does. The first result I found was a website from the state of washington[1], which only contains vague statements like "A market-based solution" and "Cleaner air for overburdened communities", without actual concrete measures. The second result from washington state university[2] isn't much better. It seems like the bill institutes some sort of cap and trade system with details to be hammered out later, which isn't the same as a straight carbon tax (as proposed in the ballot measure) and the financial impact is much less clear. I suspect the latter is why it was passed at all.

[1] https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-Commitment-Act

[2] https://csanr.wsu.edu/the-climate-commitment-act-is-coming/

Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by ZeroGravitas on Monday November 14, 2022 @12:56PM (#33598056)
Cap and trade and carbon fees are broadly interchangeable as pricing mechanisms.

Each specific location has carve outs and exemptions and phase-ins etc. but basically, farmers will be able to earn roughly $40 dollars per ton of emissions avoided, and other large industries will be paying $40 per ton of emissions and that figure will change as they measure progress to meet their commitments to reduce emmisions by 95%.

It might also drop to $30 if they link up their market with California and Quebec.

For comparison, the ballot measure intended to:

> enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020;

> increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met;

and

> use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.

Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by chiefalchemist on Monday November 14, 2022 @02:00PM (#33599092)
Perhaps, but one or two airline flights and you emitted for quite a few people living in poverty (who don't and will never fly).

Elites fly a lot. Own multiple homes. Multiple cars. Etc. I'm not so sure the delta is that wide.

Re:A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name by HKH2 on Monday November 14, 2022 @06:16PM (#33602794)
> They might emit disproportionately higher co2 than the median citizen, but that's canceled out by the fact that they're so few of them.

No it's not. They set a bad example. We can clearly see they put their own pride before environmental conservation.

How can you expect common people to make sacrifices that the elites are not making?