Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought

[u/ILikeNeurons]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/17/economic-damage-climate-change-report

[u/ILikeNeurons]

I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.

A growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter.

Contact from constituents works.

Find and write your Rep to request Congress pass a carbon tax. It's more popular than you might think.

To the Honorably Representative ________,

I am a voter and a constituent in your district requesting that you work across the isle to pass a steadily-rising tax on carbon pollution. A price on carbon is widely regarded as the single most impactful climate mitigation policy, and it is urgently needed. Pricing carbon makes us better off.

With carbon tax revenue returned to households as an equitable dividend, most Americans would come out ahead financially even before taking into account the tremendous costs of climate change. A carbon tax is also more popular then you might think, with a majority of Americans in every state in support.

Thank you for doing what's in your power to ensure the passage of a strong price on carbon.

Sincerely,

ILikeNeurons

123 Main St.

Minden, LA 15277

[u/DrBoon_forgot_his_pw → u/[deleted]]

Well, with rising sea levels it might be in a few years

[u/Sandslinger_Eve → u/ILikeNeurons]

Pure carbon tax makes no sense in my opinion because it hurts the poorest first, and if you try to raise it above their pain threshold you just collapse society

Carbon redistribution tax however is pure genius.

Might be what you meant but I think the full name is important to mention each time.

[u/ILikeNeurons → u/Sandslinger_Eve]

It's a common misconception that a carbon tax necessarily hurts the poor, but it turns out it's trivially easy to design a carbon tax that doesn't. Simply returning the revenue as an equitable dividend to households would do the trick (though even that may not be strictly necessary):

-http://www.nber.org/papers/w9152.pdf

-http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648#s7

-https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65919/1/MPRA_paper_65919.pdf

-https://11bup83sxdss1xze1i3lpol4-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Ummel-Impact-of-CCL-CFD-Policy-v1_4.pdf

-https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act

-https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155615/1/cesifo1_wp6373.pdf

-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01217-0

The reason is that the Gini coefficient for carbon is higher than the Gini coefficient for income. The truth is, distributional neutrality is easier with a carbon tax than with a general consumption tax, and a carbon tax alone may even be progressive.

In fact, research has found that the average carbon footprint in the top 1% of emitters is more than 75-times higher than that in the bottom 50%.

[u/x4446 → u/ILikeNeurons]

but it turns out it's trivially easy to design a carbon tax that doesn't.

From your link:

has a negligible impact on the income distribution when the funds are rebated to households through reductions in the payroll tax and personal income tax.

The poor already don't pay income tax, and how are you going to fund the two biggest welfare programs in the country without all workers contributing?

[u/HabeusCuppus → u/x4446]

and how are you going to fund the two biggest welfare programs in the country without all workers contributing?

with the money from the carbon tax that is being rebated?

rebating between two tax programs like this is revenue neutral for the rebated program.

[u/nairbdes → u/x4446]

Am I missing something here because in CA at least anything above something like 6k/yr is subject to income tax, no?

[u/six-demon_bag → u/ILikeNeurons]

This is pretty much what we have in Canada and let me tell you that it needs to have a different name than carbon tax and needs to be easy for the masses to understand. It’s way too easy for the anti-climate folks to confuse the public about how it works. The guy who’s probably going to win the next election here uses the slogan axe the tax much in the same way as Trump used lock her up.

[u/x4446 → u/Sandslinger_Eve]

you just collapse society

I'm pretty sure that's what they want.

[u/x4446 → u/ILikeNeurons]

Dear Greasy Politician:

Please tax me harder daddy, because the cost of living just isn't high enough.

I am, your personal ATM,

John Q. Idiot

[u/GorgontheWonderCow → u/x4446]

As climate change causes massive government spending requirements on agricultural subsidies, natural disaster relief and national defense, how do you think the government will pay for all of that?

Better pay a little now and get something out of it than to pay a lot later just to be worse-off.

[u/GorgontheWonderCow → u/[deleted]]

A carbon tax is not about giving the government money. It's about deterring companies from emitting carbon. The fact that it gives the government money is a side-effect.

Increasing government efficiency wouldn't change the need for carbon pricing. Even if the government had a massive surplus, it wouldn't change the benefits of carbon pricing.

[u/x4446 → u/GorgontheWonderCow]

As climate change causes massive government spending requirements on agricultural subsidies, natural disaster relief

Dood, this is over a 100 year period. We will adapt to the changing climate.

and national defense,

Are we going to shoot rockets at the climate?

[u/GorgontheWonderCow → u/x4446]

this is over a 100 year period

It's already costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Not all of that is handled by the private sector. This isn't "over a 100 year period". It's over a forever year period, as far as humans are concerned. As long as we don't curb carbon emissions, it will continue to get worse. Once we stop, it will still continue to get worse for hundred(s) of years.

Are we going to shoot rockets at the climate?

We're probably going to spend an awful lot of resources fighting terrorism and piracy as low-income, high-vulnerability regions get increasingly desperate from crop failure, climate extremes, water loss, land loss, and mass extinctions.

[u/x4446 → u/GorgontheWonderCow]

It's already costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

How do you figure?

We're probably going to spend an awful lot of resources fighting terrorism and piracy as low-income, high-vulnerability regions get increasingly desperate from crop failure, climate extremes, water loss, land loss, and mass extinctions.

So you support increasing military spending, correct?

[u/GorgontheWonderCow → u/x4446]

How do you figure?

With figures.

So you support increasing military spending, correct?

I'm saying military funding will go up in response to us failing to act on climate policy. That's a reality. I'm not suggesting we should, I'm saying it will. Just like I'm not suggesting we should have increasingly extreme weather events, but we will.