Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Apparently carbon taxes are not punitive, because anyone who wants to save money on carbon taxed gasoline can always purchase an electric car.
Are Carbon Taxes The Solution To Global Warming?
Quora , CONTRIBUTOR
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Am I correct to say that carbon taxes are not a solution to global warming? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.
Answer by Michael Barnard, low-carbon innovation analyst, on Quora:
There is a belief that taxes (such as carbon taxes) are punitive or punishing, hence the misconception that carbon taxes aren’t part of the solution set useful for climate change.
This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion.
Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior, along with regulations. In behavioral economics, there’s something referred to as induced demand. This is a directly observable behavioral trait of groups. If something is cheap, people will figure out how to use it and more of it will be used. You can see this with building new roads which become congested almost immediately and you can see it with dumping sewage into rivers instead of treating it where that is allowed by lack of regulation and penalty.
…
Let’s look at a couple of examples.
A couple are considering the purchase of a car, the second largest single expense most people have after their home. They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like. The price of gasoline and projected future price of gasoline is part of the conversation. A 20 mile per gallon car might cost a couple close to $1,600 in annual gas bills at $2.40 a gallon. A carbon tax might raise that to $3.00 a gallon which would increase their annual gas costs to perhaps $2,000, about $400 more. Meanwhile, a 50 mpg PHEV or a full electric car could drop their annual gas expenditure substantially. Filling up with electricity is half as expensive as filling up with gas at $2.40 a gallon on average in the USA, and closer to a third as expensive at $3.00. That means that buying an electric car might save them $800 without a carbon tax or up to $1,200 with a carbon tax. $1,200 is $100 a month. For most couples that’s material. They’re more likely to make a decision to buy a Chevy Bolt or a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3 instead of a gas car. They have a choice and are incentivized to make one choice over the other. This doesn’t penalize them, but it does shift behaviors to preferential ones.
…
Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/19/are-carbon-taxes-the-solution-to-global-warming/
Why didn’t we climate skeptics think of that? Poor people won’t suffer from high carbon taxes, all they have to do is dump the $500 jalopy and produce USD $22,000 or so to buy a cheap electric car, and whatever additional money is required to replace the electric car battery every few years.
“They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like.” Okay, the authors have shown themselves to be nothing but PC morons and I no longer feel the need to read the article. They have insulted my intelligence and I would not ever buy a new electric car after reading this—probably not a used one either. Electic cars are off the table forever. I hope that was the goal.
So you buy the electric car and save on gas. The roads deteriorate so everyone’s taxes are raised and everyone HATES you and your faux virtue now. Or, in the best possible outcome, a tax is put on electric vehicles to cover road damage. There goes your cost savings.
[ “Taxes … are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior” ]
What behavior does the Income Tax change?
Tax work and you get less work.
That”s why raising income tax thresholds increases employment.
In the UK we have a more invidious tax on employment – employer’s National Insurance. That encourages businesses to use fewer workers as well.
Maybe it is early and I have not had my coffee…. changes behavior. yes indeed, but is someone looking ahead?
Fads change, local governments and municipalities, one day see green trendy programs as a way to encourage young high income earners into their tax base.
What happens when things like EVs are no longer a fashion statement, when enough people own them that they are no longer a statement of individuality, of being self superiority? When these same governments suddenly see them as a source of endless captive funding. Or opportunists discover ways of making a “buck” off the vulnerabilities of EVs.
Think about this, just because the percentage of EV vehicles increases does not mean the infrastructure to support them will actually be built. Business models-priorities change. Counting on a EV manufacture to build support charging stations is really taking a leap of faith. Cities? Forget it, after the few photo opp locations are completed some politician will rub greasy hands together and redirect any dedicated funds to his own vote buying schemes.
What you will see is independent capitalistic adventurers set up their own recharging facilities, charging exorbitantly expensive rates.
You may even see mobile charging units that use portable generators to rescue (exploit) hapless travelers that have strayed to far from the nearest charging station.
like I said, it is early for me, but times change and there is always a way to make a honest if not ethical dollar.
michael
This applies to ‘cheap’ electricity as well.
Electric vehicle drivers can drive much further (holidays, more day trips, etc) which increases the overall cost and does not change behavior.
Do these people not know of the Law of Unintended Consequences or Murphy’s Law?
EV drivers can’t actually travel far for holiday, since it takes half a day to recharge. Kind of tethered to home base by the power cord.
Melbourne to Sydney in only three days.
If I assume for a moment that we had a “carbon tax,” exactly where does the money go ?
There is a shortfall in SSA revenues, the military and highways need some rebuilding, schools can always absorb a few billion dollars, and their is always “cowboy poetry.”
So allow we to repeat, exactly where does the money go ?
“Replace that electric car’s battery every few years.” Eric Worrell better start reading up on electric cars if he doesn’t want to produce laughable boners like that little gem. The estimated lifespan of the Telsa Model S battery pack,if memory serves, is well beyond 12 years – 15 to 18 years as I recall. In other words, the battery will likely outlast the car and by the time it needs to be replaced, won’t cost very much.
However, there is no good reason to assume that people will not move to electric cars in droves and end the gas powered car era when batteries get further reduced in cost (which is coming) due to newly developed nanotechnological methods of producing cathodes. With inexpesnsive batteries, a gas powered car cannot compete with an electric, either in fuel or maintenance costs or reliability or build costs. Doesn’t Eric understand just how much electrification simplifies an automobile? Just count the number of parts, for a starter. Disregard the Tesla Model S – that car is over the top in every department, including cost.
“With inexpesnsive batteries, a gas powered car cannot compete with an electric, either in fuel or maintenance costs or reliability or build costs.”
EVs can’t compete with ICE cars in terms of convenience and dependability. Not even close. People are willing to pay for that real value. EV battery technology just isn’t there yet, and there’s no guarantee that it ever will be.
I keep wondering what it would be like to be stranded in an EV during a blizzard.
I keep wondering what it would be like to miscalculate (due to temp, road grade, load, etc) and run out of juice somewhere. A little bit more problematic than hitching a ride to a gas station and borrowing a gas can – “Pardon me. Do you happen to have a 3-mile-long extension cord that I could borrow for about 10 hours?”
Ha ha!
Unicorn farts & rainbows cost less?
Take off the taxes on gas and recompute…
Less parts, but very expensive. That photo on the top of the page would cost around $22,000 US, whereas my Kia Rio cost $7,000 Aust. Even if I have to pay high petrol taxes, I save over the life of the car.
Batteries ARE expensive to replace, but the manufacturers hide this by putting replacement costs into the warranty, etc. If one believes everything one reads about EVs and never looks at large scale usage, I suppose one can buy into the “cheaper EV” models. On the other hand, real life is not ever portrayed by the sellers, who insult people’s intelligence trying to sell the car. I refuse to buy from PC people who would lie about anything to sell a car. If you want to “believe”, feel free.
The sales pitch reminds me of the 60’s advertisement for the Fiat 500 ‘estate’. Showing a 4-person family loading luggage ready for a holiday. Well, I had one, and my head just cleared the roof. 2 small passengers (no luggage) and it was full. Then there was the time I took the 200+ pound Chief Engineer of Fiji Airlines back to his hotel from the airport…
arthur4563 June 21, 2017 at 5:30 am
Well the Model S battery pack has not been “out” there long enough to make claims of 15-18 years.
What would be a better measure is total maintenance hrs per vehicle type not just “S”. Also the repair and replacement costs. If a line item is 20,000 k US (as I have seen on one forum) its a show stopper. A new engine for a IC runs less then a 1,000.
Heck at that price you could actually buy one and store it for 25 years down the road. Oh and before you disagree, WW1 aircraft engines have been located packed in boxes and used in the restoration of aircraft at Rinebeck airdrome New York.
Proven Tech vs unproven tech
michael
If batteries keep getting cheaper at the current rate. In about 150 years they will become affordable.
I have a drawer fuel of duff rechargeable batteries. Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps EV owners will have similar faults.
Nameplate life expectancy is not the same as actual life expectancy. Tesla develops those estimates by rapidly cycling batteries in a controlled temperature. Once the battery leaves the lab, it becomes exposed to all sorts of environmental conditions for which it is not designed
Tesla has made a lot of progress on the life expectancy of their batteries. But, you put that car in Arizona or Florida and it will lose capacity much faster than a more moderate climate. If you put it in Michigan or Alaska, the battery may not start in the winter time without heating.
Maximum life expectancy is also achieved by carefully controlling both the charge and discharge rates. Plus, according to what some here have said, you shouldn’t discharge below 10% or charge above 90% to get maximum life expectancy. (that also cuts 20% off your range.)
I wonder how much life expectancy is lost every time you use one of those superchargers to charge the battery pack in just 1 hour?
“Plus, according to what some here have said, you shouldn’t discharge below 10% or charge above 90% to get maximum life expectancy. (that also cuts 20% off your range.)”
That’s sort of an error. The quoted capacity should include the charge and discharge capacities. For instance, the technology may be capable of reaching 4.3V, but Tesla might rate their capacity at a max voltage of 4.2V. Predatory side reactions occur at the higher voltage.
There is also an irreversible capacity loss on first charge. This should be in the 8-10% of theoretical capacity of the materials. Some companies include the irreversible losses in their nameplate capacity to make their batteries sound better, but most do not.
What is the range of a Model S at 110 kph in 40C heat with the A/C going flat out?
I drive a Commodore and get a range of 800-850km.
Sorry, rhetorical question, electric car drivers stick to the cities.
Battery life is one thing, but performance past 50% of that life battery performance deteriorates rapidly. You will be charging more often and travelling shorter distances. Battery performance is also drastically affected by temperature. So what Telas claims is pure fiction.
I have always been skeptical of those arrogant and egotistical souls who believe they can use taxes to engineer and modify human behavior as required to achieve some desired societal outcome. They are the high priests of the faith who decide what is evil and what is good, and they apply the taxes appropriately to achieve the desired engineered outcome from society.
To make matters worse, these displays of arrogance and over-inflated egos are not confined to engineering and modifying human behavior with taxes. They are planning a climate engineering conference in Berlin later this fall. Heck, if they can engineer human behavior, they certainly should be able to engineer the Earth’s climate as well, right?
http://www.ce-conference.org/
“……..Climate engineering is an increasingly encountered topic within political, scientific, and cultural discussions of climate change. Building on the success of the first international climate engineering conference in 2014 (CEC14), by organizing CEC17 in October 2017, we strive to continue critical global discussions by bringing together the research, policy, and civic communities to discuss the highly complex and interlinked ethical, social and technical issues related to climate engineering. The conference will provide a thorough and timely update on the latest developments in the field…..”
….
….
“…..More than 10 years have passed since Paul Crutzen’s seminal article in Climatic Change sparked an unprecedented surge in discussions of options for reflecting sunlight away from Earth to reduce the impacts of climate change. Together with proposals for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the topic has developed from a fringe issue into an interdisciplinary conversation that is increasingly recognized as one of the central challenges in contemporary climate change research and politics….”.
All of this, in fact, repulses me.
Isn’t it puzzling how the left knows that taxing fuel will decrease it’s use but try to make us believe that increasing other taxes will not decrease economic activity.
The mark of the modern Liberal-Left is to hold two contradictory opinions on a wide range of issues.
Thus taxes on things they don’t like, like cigarettes and carbon reduce consumption, but taxes on labour or work or investment (corporation tax) will not.
True Tim, but maybe 3 or 4 contradictory opinions that they are willing to share.
They dream of a world minus billions of people they don’t know the least thing about. The believe in full freedom to lie, cheat, steal, and riot and kill those who do not agree with their opinions; while seeking to deny all rights to those who disagree.
By the way, remember the occupy mobs in 2012 who came just before the election then disappeared and the BLM movement which came for the 2016 election and starting fading after Nov 2016?
How violent, how disruptive, and how damaging to America is the movement the radical leftists are planning for 2020?
+1
The Green Crowd is in love with Life Cycle Assessments which strive to attribute GHG emissions to human activities but ignore the benefits of CO2 to society. On obvious fallacy to energy LCA is that this approach often ignores reality. In California, the ARB claims that EV’s reduce GHG emissions by about 40% vs conventional gasoline vehicles. That may be close to accurate when the battery is new, but as it ages and requires more frequent charging, the charge-discharge cycles consumes more power than when new causing an increase in GHG emissions which have not be accounted for in the “Total” life cycle of that product. Also, the assumed benefits to EV’s only apply to CA grid average GHG emissions which are about 0.75 lbs/kw-h vs well above 1 for most places in the US. This change alone makes EV’s emit as much GHG’s as a conventional gasoline vehicle.
Thus the “Carbon Tax” to change behavior actually does nothing but increase taxes and shift purchases to favored technologies which were probably investing heavily in the politicians that made the laws favoring EV’s in the first place.
Having lived in the LA Basin for 30 years, I predict that EV’s will become the scourge of the freeways. Knowing how people behave, I think this is the likely scenario:
–People will forget to recharge their EV at night.
–They will either see that they have insufficient charge to complete the day’s drive or ignore the charge level altogether (more likely).
–They will run out of charge on the freeway creating massive traffic jams and irritating commuters by being stuck in the fast lane or carpool lane (which they are entitled to use simply because they have an EV)
–More likely than not, someone will shoot them and the press will blame crazy drivers of gasoline vehicles for being insane instead of looking at the real cause of the problem.
What gets me in all of this is, while I can’t say for certain, intuition suggests to me that Michael Barnard probably thinks that Donald Trump is actually stupid.
I may be wrong but I’ll bet on it.
So if carbon taxes aren’t “punitive” then they must be “coercive.”
That is the real point – a tax is not punitive unless it is levied at a very high rate.
But changing behavior when I don’t want to is simply coercion
Vote defensively to defeat the advocacy threat of stupid and deception.
The problem is that a majority of voters are voting to increase taxes on other people, not themselves.
In their minds, they are voting intelligently.
One leftist recently tried to defend the recent shooting of Republicans in DC as being self defense, since Republicans were threatening to take away ObamaCare.
Armed robbery isn’t punitive. It just changes the behavior of the person being robbed.
100 a month saving won’t cover ANY EV that takes me where I want to go, when I want to go (and return). That will soon vanish as governments (aka regulators) switch to mileage taxes. To say nothing of my domestic energy bills going up by at least that amount to cover subsidies to the renewables feeders. Don’t talk to me about SCC….
Energy taxes aren’t punitive, all you have to do to avoid them is turn off the heat in the winter.
I’m working on another work around involving wood and a stove. That way, I stay warm and still cut energy taxes. I still need propane for backup and overnight, but I hate being prisoner to the propane companies. My current one isn’t bad, but that rarely lasts. Forget taxes, the prices alone seem punitive in many cases.
More to AGW point;
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/why-the-russians-conceived-the-global-warming-scam/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%20Jun-20-2017&utm_medium=email
Hanging, drowning, and burning witches wasn’t punitive; it was to get them to change their behavior.
“This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion. Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. ”
Superficially, this is true. In this example, it is the height of hubris. Carbon taxes are enormously regressive. They affect the middle class and poor much more than the wealthy.
It’s hard to believe, but our nation has shifted from a progressive tax structure to a regressive structure over the past 30-40 years. This is the biggest driver behind the lack of opportunity and the growth in income inequality.
In the 1950s & 1960s, payroll taxes accounted for less than 10% of government revenue. Now, payroll taxes are more than 35% of government revenue — all the while, the government revenue as a percent of GDP has been unchanged. Payroll taxes are almost exclusively middle class taxes. Add to this the other mandatory costs (non-tax) enabled by the government and we are now a Banana Republic.
In a “Free” country, as we “supposedly” are, the government is NOT supposed to be influencing or changing consumer or corporate behaviors ! This is the fundamental problem with democrats and democrat policies !
The state STARTS by pushing people to “shift behaviors to preferential ones” (“preferential” defined by who and on what ground?). Where will it STOP?
They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior,
key phrasing right there.
I think Commie Bob nails the reality about the liberal elite hating the poor and happily doing anything to marginalize them. To add to the latest catalogue of actions to hurt them, in London it is now proposed that in addition to making sure only those wealthy enough to buy new cars every few years will be allowed to drive in the city area, it is also being planned to have an additional mileage tax. This will help to ensure only the right sort of people will have the use of London’s roads, including those able to afford absurd electric cars.
In another example of the absolute hypocritical claptrap the liberal BBC/Guardian types indulge in, in today’s Times we have rockstar luvvie Brian May whining that having paid £10k for a flight in first class by British Airways, he was outraged that he couldn’t actually see the ground from his window.
Doubtless those traveling in the rest of the plane would have felt for his pain. Perhaps Mr May and his ilk will feel better about life when the poor are unable to travel anywhere because of enviro taxes and will be confined to their slums with overpriced electricity and water available for only an hour each day and no heating (too much CO2 emmission) and airplanes will be just a spacious private lounge for the hard done by rich. No more deplorables to get in the way then.
Environmentalists have this nagging problem with economics, so they have devised a solution. Make the solution uniformly exorbitantly expensive, and make this the new normal so there is no net difference among people. Costs of all of society are just at a new, exorbitant level. Consider it like inflation. After all, we Western cultures are already a long way from living on a dollar a day, so instead of living on $200 a day, make is an environmentally friendly $1000 a day for everyone. Then all your clean dreams become affordable to all.
Here’s what I posted in response to Michael Barnard’s answer :
Michael Barnard ( BA English Literature & Environmental Studies, University of Toronto ) immediately responded to me
Frankly , being called “deniers” and subject to all sorts of continual subtle or not so- insults by these “people” , it’s hard not to insult back . I guess the insult was “This guy must live on taken tax money .”
A raser strap across the butt, too, is not punishment. Rather it was just a way to change childrens’ behavior in the olden days.