News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:It's Global Warming, Stupid by twoodfin on Thursday November 01, 2012 @01:06PM (#4728525)
Flagged as inappropriate for HN, but if we're going to have this discussion:

It would greatly help the "we must do something" crowd if they spent some time working out exactly what that "something" would be, posting it for public comment and refining as needed.

I am sympathetic to the idea that leveling off and eventually reducing global CO2 emissions would be a sensible thing to do, but the key word there is "global". China is already the world's leading emitter by a good margin and will likely continue to increase their emissions, regardless of what happens in the West. Indeed, if we make energy and its uses more expensive here, the likelihood is that at least some of those emissions will simply migrate to China, where they will be cheaper but likely greater for the same degree of production.

I have yet to hear a proposal that is likely to both have an effect that justifies its cost (carbon taxes are wildly regressive, and removing that feature is tricky!), and is not absurdly unlikely to ever come to pass.

The cap and trade bill mentioned in this article fails the first test, I believe.

Re:It's Global Warming, Stupid by abhimishra on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:20PM (#4728900)
And yes, we do need to agree at a global level and be willing to pay more for certain goods/services as a result. The entire economic system will just re-balance itself around that, if we as a global society agree that the costs of inaction are greater.

Another note: while China is the world's leading emitter, they also have contributed the most to abatement of emissions according to some (example: http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/Global_Policy_Tracker_2...) Let's not forget that the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while China did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Kyoto_Pr...).

Re:It's Global Warming, Stupid by abhimishra on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:17PM (#4728885)
I am not sure that carbon taxes NEED to be regressive - we could definitely use some of the revenue from carbon taxes to offset lower-income groups, as is sometimes done with other regressive taxes.

Another way to look at this is a simple cost-benefit analysis: is the cost (I mean more just than the monetary face value) of having a regressive tax more than the cost of potential issues that result from not addressing emissions? If so, we should do it anyways.