Re: CO2 and global warming
From: George William Herbert (gherbert_at_retro.com)
Date: 09/26/04
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Next in thread: Dave O'Neill: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Reply: Dave O'Neill: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Sep 2004 21:04:17 GMT
Alex Terrell <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks for your detailed input, which is appreciated, even if we
>disagree on most things below.
>
>gherbert@retro.com (George William Herbert) wrote:
>> Turn it from a progressive tax into a regressive tax.
>>
>No - focus tax cuts on lower earnings, that's replacing a progressive
>tax with a progressive tax.
Per-capita US gasoline consumption is around 460 gal/person/year.
An additional $3/gal tax as you propose is about another $1,400
per person. Gas usage is fairly constant across economic levels.
A poor family of 4 with typical usage is going to see an additional
tax of $5,600/year, which exceeds their total taxation right now by
large margins.
If that is not a regressive tax, I don't know what is.
You have to do the numbers on the effects, and you haven't...
>> >- Reduced the cost of tax collection and compliance. Gasoline taxes
>> >are just about the most efficient taxes to collect.
>>
>> But the absolute cost of other tax methods is still low.
>
>Cost of avoidance though is quite high.
Cost of avoidance by legal tax loopholes is high.
Those loopholes are open because of legislation
and at the mercy of future legislative action.
It's a question of will and high level goal.
>> >- Reduced imports from Oil Exporting Countries (which will help to
>> >drive down the price of Oil).
>>
>> Or do nothing to the price of oil, because China and India's demand
>> increase will fill the gap.
>
>In other words, it won't go up as fast as it would otherwise.
It will also slow down production some; the economics of oil
production rates and pricing are a particularly nasty knot given
the various political factors, technical factors, and how many
different nations and organizations (OPEC) are involved.
>> >- Encouraged people to live closer to their place of work, thus
>> >cutting congestion
>>
>> This sort of change requires that there be housing closer to their
>> place of work, which requires that there be space to build housing
>> closer to their place of work, which is not physically present
>> in a lot of places. Or, it requires knocking down existing
>> structures close to places of work and replacing them with
>> high(er) density housing.
>
>Or it requires improved public transport, which would be a benefit in
>any case.
Public transport is only cheaper in one measure: fuel consumption.
In all other measures it costs more.
If CO2 emissions were not at issue, the cheapest solution is to
build as many roads as we can so that as many people can drive
as want to. Some people can't afford to, but society is subsidizing
their trips by diverting other taxes into transit. If everybody
had to use it then there's nowhere to subsidize it from, and the
total economic impact of transportation will be higher, another
net drag on the economy.
>It would also have the benefit of reversing the zoning
>effect, whereby work places are dead at night, and suburbs are dead by
>day (this is already hapenning in many cities, where the city centre
>population is increasing)
I don't know of any reason why the zoning effect is a societal problem.
>> Even if this is possible, it is not instantaneous, it is not cheap,
>> and it's a huge disruption to the economy.
>
>Which is why the switch over needs to happen over a decade or so.
Which is not accomplished by imposing a $3/gal tax.
>> And it has the minor side effect that the new, expensive housing
>> pushes out lower income people who currently live near their work.
>
>Or raises their wealth as they rise with the neighbourhood.
If and only if they own their houses.
Which is less true for poor people than middle income people.
>Planning authorities are aiming to prevent this by insisting that new City
>Centre developments have a certain percentage of social housing.
True.
>> Which is another regressive tax on the poor, who now need to
>> commute more to reach their jobs.
>
>Only if you allow a world where the poor aren't allow to live any
>where near the rich.
Let me give you a real world example: the San Francisco Bay Area.
The poor can live wherever they can afford to. This is the US and
people are free to move around. And it's the SF Bay Area, which
is fairly egalitarian and progressive even by European standards.
The reality is that as the economy and job growth come to various
subareas around the bay, each time it happens the poor are displaced
by incoming higher paid workers, and in large part despite the
building of low income housing the poor end up having to move
further away from job centers... out to Contra Costa County,
or the Central Valley, where they face 2-3 hour commutes.
There are certainly things wrong with the planning in this
area, but the reality of the situation is that the economics
shift faster than social and government planning can keep up,
and the poor keep getting squeezed out.
>> >- Created a market for diesel cars, as in Europe. Diesel cars of like
>> >performance emit much less CO2 than petrol/gasoline cars.
>>
>> There's already a market for diesel cars.
>
>Like 50% as in Europe?
No. But it's there.
>> Diesel cars, however, emit too much particulates in the exhaust
>> to comply with current environmental regulations. There's this
>> little problem with carcinogenics.
>
>Not any more - this is a legacy issue. And in about 10 years I think
>most cars will be diesel electric hybrids.
The tech edge diesel engines now are cleaning up. Those motors are
not in widespread production. They require the low sulphur diesel
as well, which is going to cost more to produce, which is going to
be a net drag on the economy.
"Legacy" implies "no longer a problem". The problem is still
very active.
>> >Against that, there will be a blip in inflation. You hope that workers
>> >will not demand more because their take home pay will have increased.
>> >
>> >If it was just economics, this would make sense. US consumption of oil
>> >would fall. Kyoto targets would be met.
>>
>> If you draw an artificial boundary around a subset of the effects
>> you can define this as a success. The problem is, we societally
>> can't just go and do that.
>
>Not sure I follow this. A boundary could be: We in the West have
>reduced CO2 emissions, but overall world wide CO2 emissions have
>risen. That's better than no one reducing emissions. And when others
>come on board, the pioneers can sell their know how to the laggards.
No. The societal effects of making life worse for the poor
in the west are a major problem, as is the recession that it
will cause.
The west will not economically be in a position to carry through
with reforms, and to help the rest of the world adopt lower
emission energy sources, if we damage our economy now.
>> >But it's not just about economics. It's also about vested interests.
>> >Big oil, Arab states, Governement tax collectors and tax advisors
>> >would lose out. Detroit might a little, though with a decade's notice
>> >they might start producing economical cars. Moderately poor people
>> >with long commutes would suffer.
>>
>> That is a remarkably short sighted view of the impact.
>>
>> The real impact would be to make life much more unpleasant
>> for many of the poor, not the rich.
>
>Some of the poor. But more of the poor, including the most poor would
>benefit. Though as with any change, the losers complain and the
>winners say nothing.
How are the most poor going to benefit? The most poor take the
largest economic hit under your approach in the US, and nobody
will win.
>> Any change that takes longer than Detroit's tech and plant
>> investment cycle is something Detroit (and all the other
>> international car producing centers) fundamentally will
>> just roll with, and they know it. Their objective is not
>> to produce larger cars for the sake of larger caredness;
>> they chase maximizing profits. If they'll make more money
>> somehow else they'll do that. If cars cost more to
>> make then people will pay more to buy them. Which in
>> the end is another regressive tax on the poor.
>
>Cars will get cheaper. But fuel efficiency would become a buying
>criteria, as it is in Europe.
Higher economy cars cost more to make, once you start serious
reductions in emissions past where reasonably efficient modern
motors take you (30-40 mpg depending on car size). Hybrid cars
cost a lot, as does conversion to aluminum or composite parts...
>> The government fundamentally cares little about how it
>> collects taxes. But it *does* care that it doesn't screw
>> up the relative level of progressive vs regressive taxation,
>> as causing poor people more economic hardships is a known
>> major net loss to society.
>
>Your point being?
That your plan is not in the interest of any government,
because it has severe unintended negative effects.
>> This whole issue is one of those annoying situations where
>> the generally progressive people keep pushing solutions
>> which will in the end be radically destructive to the
>> poor, and the generally conservative people are pushing
>> to keep a status quo in large part because they want to
>> avoid those destructive effects, and avoid loss of profits
>> in businesses.
>
>Your point being?
I think it was obvious.
>> I would point out that effective loss of income by the poor,
>> plus loss of profits in bigger businesses, equals a recession.
>> Volountarily walking into a recession is foolish. A whole lot
>> of people who have been un or underemployed for the last few
>> years, including a lot of poor people, will react rather
>> violently if this issue is forced on them.
>
>I think you haven't thought this through. I'm not proposing changing
>the regressive / progressive balance of taxes here. That is a seperate
>argument, with pros and cons to each approach.
Yes you are. Your proposed tax IS REGRESSIVE.
You don't get to just wave your hand and say it isn't.
You have to analyze it and see what the effects are.
I did, and they're regressive. You don't show any
evidence of having actually analyzed it... rhetoric
is not economic analysis.
The problem isn't that easy.
>> What the US and Europe do about Kyoto is of secondary
>> importance. The US could return to 1990 levels tomorrow,
>> and the growth in China's emissions over the next few
>> years would completely overwhelm the gains. What the US
>> and Europe do to find long term real solutions is going
>> to be the ultimate fix to CO2 emission. And the available
>> money for R&D and for technology and economic shifts to
>> new sustainable energy is directly dependent on how
>> successful our economies are for the next ten years.
>
>No, it's mostly dependent on the incentives available to find
>solutions. That's why the US is already falling behind in energy
>efficieny technologies.
There are plenty of incentives to find solutions.
The problem is, the solutions aren't easy and cheap.
Imposing tax penalties on people for whom solutions
are too expensive to impliment quickly doesn't improve things.
>Anyway, reducing income taxes is a sure way to boost growth and
>investment.
Not if you increase other taxes to more than compensate.
People's free income doesn't change magically if you shift
tax types around and keep the total tax burden the same.
If you effectively regressively tax the poor more as your
solution does, it will require more social spending to deal
with the consequences, requiring more taxes on the middle
class and rich to deal with, reducing available growth
and investment moneies.
>> Hybrid cars becoming commonplace, thermal depolymerization,
>> lightweight cars using aluminum and composites instead
>> of steel, etc. are all quite possible in the next
>> decade, but have transition costs associated with them.
>> And they won't just happen if people are too poor
>> to afford the transition costs. And they certainly
>> wont' happen for China and India if the US and Europe
>> can't afford them.
>
>Aluminium cars are already being produced in Europe, and exported to
>the USA.
And have already been produced in the US as well.
Proof of concept is not the question... The Fiat X1/9
was around decades ago.
The transition from "A few cars" to "Most cars" is going to
be a HUGE shift in technology of production and in the
vendor chain.
-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Next in thread: Dave O'Neill: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Reply: Dave O'Neill: "Re: CO2 and global warming"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
