A post EV era

[Andres125sx]

Seriously guys? You continue using money as the only reference? Anyone with a big enough account can do whatever he/she wants?

Then...
How do we value or pay an atmosphere full of GHG?
How do we value or pay an increase of 2ºC of seas?
How do we value or pay destroying forests?
How do we value or pay a hole in the ozone layer?


I´m a capitalist, but not an extremist who consider everything has a price, including lives and the planet like you are suggesting . There are things wich don´t have a price and it does not matter how many zeros are put in the paycheck, no fortune can replace ozone, the atmosphere or a balanced climate or environement.

[DChemTech]

Seriously guys? You continue using money as the only reference? Anyone with a big enough account can do whatever he/she wants?

Then...
How do we value or pay an atmosphere full of GHG?
How do we value or pay an increase of 2ºC of seas?
How do we value or pay destroying forests?
How do we value or pay a hole in the ozone layer?


I´m a capitalist, but not an extremist who consider everything has a price, including lives and the planet like you are suggesting . There are things wich don´t have a price and it does not matter how many zeros are put in the paycheck, no fortune can replace ozone, the atmosphere or a balanced climate or environment.

Using money to express things at least makes it tangible - and people need something tangible to, hopefully, be more aware of the reality of it all. It's not easy to put a price on CO2 etc., but you can. Credible studies using the best available climate models put it somewhere around $450 per ton of CO2, but the spread is quite large (depending on which economic phenomena are included - but mostly, the price depends on human behavior). And, more worryingly, the climate models are linear - they do not include thresholds/points of no return, which do exist in reality. As such, they are likely to give an under-estimation of the real costs of emissions; and it's a sole factor anyhow. Yet, despite these shortcomings, every study essentially shows the same: on the long term, investing in avoiding climate change now is cheaper than repairing climate damages later. The first scenario typically leads to a ~5% global GDP drop, the latter to ca. 20% drop (with ~100% drop in some African countries). Even if putting a price on clean air seems wrong, these numbers strengthen the case for stringent action.

Now, if we would actually have to pay for that $450-or-so per ton CO2 individually (such that who emits much, pays much), rather than collectively (as we do now - penalizing those who live clean, subsidizing those who pollute), things may actually change. The price of polluting choices goes up, making less polluting ones more attractive. If we would actually re-invest the pollution levy into developing clean tech, constructing clean energy plants, etcetera, we may actually have a shot at changing something. Yes, that does mean that the ones that can afford it can keep polluting and just buy it off. But is that really an issue? If the investments lead to a drawdown in pollution elsewhere, that's fine with me. And there is still the financial incentive for them to choose cheaper options.

There are of course a lot of nuances. A proper pollution price is hard to estimate, and the emissions of certain products will be an estimate too - but a reasonable estimate is fairer than paying nothing. It can't be introduced cold turkey - there should be a buildup towards it, increasing year-by-year, which should be clear trajectory that can be anticipated by all stakeholders, public and private. It should be universal, no exceptions as is the case for current CO2 credit systems. And it should be used to cover actual environmental damages - either repair of existing, or prevention of new. It will also suffer from the prevention paradox - the more successful, the lower the pollution price will become (the added cost of a ton of CO2 is higher in a world with rampant climate change than with limited) - and the more people will complain the price was too high (as they do for acid rain, and for the ozone layer).

Oh, and of course, there is the biggest challenge: preventing damages requires to pay for something now, while the benefits manifest later (in the form of something not happening). While in the current system, we pay very little and the damages, then unavoidable, manifest substantially later. Which is society does not currently pay $450 per ton CO2 emitted - we will pay that in 30 or 50 years, or mostly our kids will. And humans are concerned with whether they can pay for their icecream today. Not whether they can still pay for basic nutrition in 50 years.

Anyway, utopic as it is, a pollution price is the fairest way in which environmental problems can be tackled while maintaining a liberal system - personal freedom, but not absolved from responsibility as is now the case. A pollution price will likely mean that those currently financially challenged will be more so; that will have to be countered by changes in the taxation system, but that is a political issue not to be discussed here (anyway, we should not use the notion that, in the current system, a pollution price will disproportionally affect the poor as a reason to block a pollution price; if a fair solution does not fit in a flawed system, fix the flawed system, don't block the fair solution).

Of course, there's the alternative approach: more qualitative warnings and banning polluting technology. It's a fair alternative, although I do not subscribe to it (I have no issue with banning the most polluting tech al together, but it can easily go too far and also lead to banning feasible alternative clean tech), but it is also the approach that has been tried for many years now and lead to nothing. If people already have a hard time being convinced by future quantitative damages - qualitative damages are even harder to imagine. And that is why I am in favor of putting a price on things, ideally as solution, but even if just for illustration.

[Just_a_fan]

Seriously guys? You continue using money as the only reference? Anyone with a big enough account can do whatever he/she wants?

Then...
How do we value or pay an atmosphere full of GHG?
How do we value or pay an increase of 2ºC of seas?
How do we value or pay destroying forests?
How do we value or pay a hole in the ozone layer?

The ozone layer was a relatively easy fix - alternative refrigerants were readily available and so it could be dealt with "behind the scenes" without the general public really being affected.

Reducing GHG, preventing deforestation, etc., all require the public in "the West" to make changes to their lives. Some of those changes will be relatively inconvenient, some will cost people money in one way or another, some will be both inconvenient and pricey. Those are the things that those who do not wish to make changes will play upon in the minds of the general population.

Enforcing the move to EVs, for example, imposes inconvenience and cost on individuals. Inconvenience because the charging network (and the time required to charge) are not nearly as convenient as petrol/diesel. Price because changing any vehicle will have a cost associated with it. These are the things that some will highlight in an attempt to derail long term changes.

[Just_a_fan]

Now, if we would actually have to pay for that $450-or-so per ton CO2 individually (such that who emits much, pays much), rather than collectively (as we do now - penalizing those who live clean, subsidizing those who pollute), things may actually change.

The UK has a reasonable level of fuel duty and many people with "gas guzzlers" will be paying £300-£400 per ton, effectively, which is not far from your $450/t figure. People with limited budgets obviously try to drive cars with better fuel economy and so pay proportionally less. People with EVs are paying almost nothing in duty - whatever duty is applied to domestic electricity supplies (which is not much) or is applied to the public charging network suppliers.

That seems fine, until one remembers that electricity is often generated using fossil fuels and is thus responsible for emissions, even though they are not, at present, charged to the same extent as road fuel.

If everyone in the UK swapped to EVs, assuming the infrastructure could accommodate that change, etc., some form of duty would then be required on EVs - if for no other reasons than to replace the tax (which is what fuel duty is) that the Government takes and then spends on whatever it is the Government spends our taxes on.

So it isn't as simple as "make people pay to pollute" because actually the pollution charge is really just another tax. That figure will need to be found from elsewhere and EV drivers will probably end up paying some other taxation to cover the loss of fuel duty.

It's a very complicated subject with many side branches that all need to be considered.

[vorticism]

Reducing GHG, preventing deforestation, etc., all require the public in "the West" to make changes to their lives.

Not necessarily 'require.' The West (Europe and its diaspora) account for less than 10% of global population. The West has been on a course of replacement or sub-replacement rate population growth for half a century. The USA is approaching 50% non-Western population demographics. What's therefor more presciently required, if anything, is population and emissions control amongst the other 90% of global populations.As for deforestation, major deforestation threats are primarily centered around the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia -- all non-Western areas.

[DChemTech]

Now, if we would actually have to pay for that $450-or-so per ton CO2 individually (such that who emits much, pays much), rather than collectively (as we do now - penalizing those who live clean, subsidizing those who pollute), things may actually change.

The UK has a reasonable level of fuel duty and many people with "gas guzzlers" will be paying £300-£400 per ton, effectively, which is not far from your $450/t figure. People with limited budgets obviously try to drive cars with better fuel economy and so pay proportionally less. People with EVs are paying almost nothing in duty - whatever duty is applied to domestic electricity supplies (which is not much) or is applied to the public charging network suppliers.

That seems fine, until one remembers that electricity is often generated using fossil fuels and is thus responsible for emissions, even though they are not, at present, charged to the same extent as road fuel.

If everyone in the UK swapped to EVs, assuming the infrastructure could accommodate that change, etc., some form of duty would then be required on EVs - if for no other reasons than to replace the tax (which is what fuel duty is) that the Government takes and then spends on whatever it is the Government spends our taxes on.

So it isn't as simple as "make people pay to pollute" because actually the pollution charge is really just another tax. That figure will need to be found from elsewhere and EV drivers will probably end up paying some other taxation to cover the loss of fuel duty.

It's a very complicated subject with many side branches that all need to be considered.

Which is exactly why it should be a levy that is used to finance climate action, not a general tax that is used to finance other things (so that there exists a general dependence on it, as is the case now). Ideally, there would be a kilometer-based road tax that is independent of the means of fuel to finance road services, and a separate climate levy in the fuel price invested solely in climate action (and aside from that, general taxation to cover other things).
But yes, that is not easy, it asks for a reform of the tax system. As said, rather fix the flaws and move to a fairer system than block fairer options because they don't fit with the current flawed system, but I won't pretend that it's easy in practice.

[DChemTech]

Reducing GHG, preventing deforestation, etc., all require the public in "the West" to make changes to their lives.

Not necessarily 'require.' The West (Europe and its diaspora) account for less than 10% of global population. The West has been on a course of replacement or sub-replacement rate population growth for half a century. The USA is approaching 50% non-Western population demographics. What's therefor more presciently required, if anything, is population and emissions control amongst the other 90% of global populations.As for deforestation, major deforestation threats are primarily centered around the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia -- all non-Western areas.

More simply put; it should be net-0 in 2050 regardless of where you live. Which is a different challenge for the typical Westerner than for the typical Chinese or Sudanese or Arab. And a different challenge for a rich suburb Westerner than for a rural one than for a minimum-wage grocery stocker.

[Just_a_fan]

Reducing GHG, preventing deforestation, etc., all require the public in "the West" to make changes to their lives.

Not necessarily 'require.' The West (Europe and its diaspora) account for less than 10% of global population. The West has been on a course of replacement or sub-replacement rate population growth for half a century. The USA is approaching 50% non-Western population demographics. What's therefor more presciently required, if anything, is population and emissions control amongst the other 90% of global populations.As for deforestation, major deforestation threats are primarily centered around the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia -- all non-Western areas.

The West has to lead by example. If you want people in developing countries to take a certain path, you have to be willing and able to do likewise. Saying "you can't have these nice things that we have because of the pollution associated with them" whilst continuing to have those nice things, is going to lead where? It's going to lead to those developing countries saying "up yours, mate".

China has a third per capita emissions than the US. India has a tenth. Both have huge populations. If they follow the US down the current emissions road, there really will be a problem. If you want the 1.5 billion people in each of China and India to rein in their emissions growth, there's no way it will happen without leading by example. Europe has much lower per capita emissions than the US. Why? The reality is that a lot of China's emissions are generated by industry that has been off shored their from the West, particularly Europe. We have pushed the production of so much stuff over to China that they are, in effect, making our emissions for us. Again, something that is often, conveniently, ignored.

Deforestation is driven, in part, by the demands from "the West" for cheap meat, cheap wood, things like palm oil, etc. So one can't simply say "their forest, their problem".

It is this shifting of blame that screws attempts to make progress. And the blame shifting is done in an attempt by those in the West to keep their "nice things" and not to have make any compromises or pay any costs to change. That's understandable - we all want to have the things we like and we all can conveniently forget the associated issues that those things cause somewhere else in the world.

[Just_a_fan]

Now, if we would actually have to pay for that $450-or-so per ton CO2 individually (such that who emits much, pays much), rather than collectively (as we do now - penalizing those who live clean, subsidizing those who pollute), things may actually change.

The UK has a reasonable level of fuel duty and many people with "gas guzzlers" will be paying £300-£400 per ton, effectively, which is not far from your $450/t figure. People with limited budgets obviously try to drive cars with better fuel economy and so pay proportionally less. People with EVs are paying almost nothing in duty - whatever duty is applied to domestic electricity supplies (which is not much) or is applied to the public charging network suppliers.

That seems fine, until one remembers that electricity is often generated using fossil fuels and is thus responsible for emissions, even though they are not, at present, charged to the same extent as road fuel.

If everyone in the UK swapped to EVs, assuming the infrastructure could accommodate that change, etc., some form of duty would then be required on EVs - if for no other reasons than to replace the tax (which is what fuel duty is) that the Government takes and then spends on whatever it is the Government spends our taxes on.

So it isn't as simple as "make people pay to pollute" because actually the pollution charge is really just another tax. That figure will need to be found from elsewhere and EV drivers will probably end up paying some other taxation to cover the loss of fuel duty.

It's a very complicated subject with many side branches that all need to be considered.

Which is exactly why it should be a levy that is used to finance climate action, not a general tax that is used to finance other things (so that there exists a general dependence on it, as is the case now). Ideally, there would be a kilometer-based road tax that is independent of the means of fuel to finance road services, and a separate climate levy in the fuel price invested solely in climate action (and aside from that, general taxation to cover other things).
But yes, that is not easy, it asks for a reform of the tax system. As said, rather fix the flaws and move to a fairer system than block fairer options because they don't fit with the current flawed system, but I won't pretend that it's easy in practice.

That starts to feel like double taxation - an existing tax and then an additional one. That's never popular with the electorate and thus, of course, with politicians.

To get people to change, the best way is to make it as cost neutral for them as possible.

In the UK, there has been a move by Government to implement a ban on all new ICE-powered cars by the end of this decade. That gives people time to change - most people wouldn't be able to just go out and buy a new EV, even if you added an additional tax on the ICE they have. And with car supply stalling at the moment due to chip shortages, even if they want to change to an EV, they can't do so quickly.

[Just_a_fan]

Reducing GHG, preventing deforestation, etc., all require the public in "the West" to make changes to their lives.

Not necessarily 'require.' The West (Europe and its diaspora) account for less than 10% of global population. The West has been on a course of replacement or sub-replacement rate population growth for half a century. The USA is approaching 50% non-Western population demographics. What's therefor more presciently required, if anything, is population and emissions control amongst the other 90% of global populations.As for deforestation, major deforestation threats are primarily centered around the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia -- all non-Western areas.

More simply put; it should be net-0 in 2050 regardless of where you live. Which is a different challenge for the typical Westerner than for the typical Chinese or Sudanese or Arab. And a different challenge for a rich suburb Westerner than for a rural one than for a minimum-wage grocery stocker.

Net-zero alone isn't enough and yet it will also be a huge leap for many. It isn't enough because it doesn't deal with issues such as deforestation - that affects us all because the areas that are being felled are hugely important to the air quality of the planet, not just locally. It doesn't deal with issues such as the pollution of water - both rivers and the seas they run in to - the Pacific plastic "garbage patch" being a key example. This affects not only marine life, it affects human life too - the pollutants get in to our food.

Until people get it in to their heads that everything that happens on the planet affects everyone on the planet, we're screwed. Sadly, for far too many, profit comes before all.

[DChemTech]

The UK has a reasonable level of fuel duty and many people with "gas guzzlers" will be paying £300-£400 per ton, effectively, which is not far from your $450/t figure. People with limited budgets obviously try to drive cars with better fuel economy and so pay proportionally less. People with EVs are paying almost nothing in duty - whatever duty is applied to domestic electricity supplies (which is not much) or is applied to the public charging network suppliers.

That seems fine, until one remembers that electricity is often generated using fossil fuels and is thus responsible for emissions, even though they are not, at present, charged to the same extent as road fuel.

If everyone in the UK swapped to EVs, assuming the infrastructure could accommodate that change, etc., some form of duty would then be required on EVs - if for no other reasons than to replace the tax (which is what fuel duty is) that the Government takes and then spends on whatever it is the Government spends our taxes on.

So it isn't as simple as "make people pay to pollute" because actually the pollution charge is really just another tax. That figure will need to be found from elsewhere and EV drivers will probably end up paying some other taxation to cover the loss of fuel duty.

It's a very complicated subject with many side branches that all need to be considered.

Which is exactly why it should be a levy that is used to finance climate action, not a general tax that is used to finance other things (so that there exists a general dependence on it, as is the case now). Ideally, there would be a kilometer-based road tax that is independent of the means of fuel to finance road services, and a separate climate levy in the fuel price invested solely in climate action (and aside from that, general taxation to cover other things).
But yes, that is not easy, it asks for a reform of the tax system. As said, rather fix the flaws and move to a fairer system than block fairer options because they don't fit with the current flawed system, but I won't pretend that it's easy in practice.

That starts to feel like double taxation - an existing tax and then an additional one. That's never popular with the electorate and thus, of course, with politicians.

To get people to change, the best way is to make it as cost neutral for them as possible.

In the UK, there has been a move by Government to implement a ban on all new ICE-powered cars by the end of this decade. That gives people time to change - most people wouldn't be able to just go out and buy a new EV, even if you added an additional tax on the ICE they have. And with car supply stalling at the moment due to chip shortages, even if they want to change to an EV, they can't do so quickly.

It's not double taxation, in fact I would not call a climate levy taxation at all; it pays for real costs associated with production, costs that are now effectively subsidized by society (albeit years down the road - a credit bill stacking up) and thus paid through regular tax. If climate costs are split from regular tax, that may also reduce somewhat. At t = 0, the sum of climate levy and tax should equal the current tax. After that, yes, the levy part will ramp up for some time. But if we do nothing, so will regular tax to pay for damages. Splitting the two at least makes climate costs (hopefully for action, not damages) more insightful.

So yes, paying those costs now will make life more expensive on the short term, but that is anyhow necesarry to keep it affordable on the long term (to avoid the societal credit card from skyrocketing in decades, and with that, the real taxes). It's a hard sell, as said, people care more about their ice cream now than their bread in decades. But it's a necessary one.

[DChemTech]

Not necessarily 'require.' The West (Europe and its diaspora) account for less than 10% of global population. The West has been on a course of replacement or sub-replacement rate population growth for half a century. The USA is approaching 50% non-Western population demographics. What's therefor more presciently required, if anything, is population and emissions control amongst the other 90% of global populations.As for deforestation, major deforestation threats are primarily centered around the Amazon, the Congo, and Indonesia -- all non-Western areas.

More simply put; it should be net-0 in 2050 regardless of where you live. Which is a different challenge for the typical Westerner than for the typical Chinese or Sudanese or Arab. And a different challenge for a rich suburb Westerner than for a rural one than for a minimum-wage grocery stocker.

Net-zero alone isn't enough and yet it will also be a huge leap for many. It isn't enough because it doesn't deal with issues such as deforestation - that affects us all because the areas that are being felled are hugely important to the air quality of the planet, not just locally. It doesn't deal with issues such as the pollution of water - both rivers and the seas they run in to - the Pacific plastic "garbage patch" being a key example. This affects not only marine life, it affects human life too - the pollutants get in to our food.

Until people get it in to their heads that everything that happens on the planet affects everyone on the planet, we're screwed. Sadly, for far too many, profit comes before all.

Maybe net zeroes is better: zero water pollution, zero deforestation, etc.

[Just_a_fan]

It's not double taxation, in fact I would not call a climate levy taxation at all; it pays for real costs associated with production, costs that are now effectively subsidized by society (albeit years down the road - a credit bill stacking up) and thus paid through regular tax. If climate costs are split from regular tax, that may also reduce somewhat. At t = 0, the sum of climate levy and tax should equal the current tax. After that, yes, the levy part will ramp up for some time. But if we do nothing, so will regular tax to pay for damages. Splitting the two at least makes climate costs (hopefully for action, not damages) more insightful.

So yes, paying those costs now will make life more expensive on the short term, but that is anyhow necesarry to keep it affordable on the long term (to avoid the societal credit card from skyrocketing in decades, and with that, the real taxes). It's a hard sell, as said, people care more about their ice cream now than their bread in decades. But it's a necessary one.

Here in the UK, we already have a "climate levy". We pay Vehicle Excise Duty (known as "car tax" by Joe Public). That VED is based on the vehicle's emissions. Mine cost me over £600/year. An EV would be £0. Then there is the fuel duty I pay with every litre bought.

We also have a new car "tax" that is based on emissions. An EV is £0 but mine (if it was new today) would be £2365 for the first year and then £165/year. There's also an "envy tax" (as it's sometimes known) which is on all non-EVs over £40,000 list price. That's £520/ year for the first 5 years just because you can afford a nice car (£40,000 isn't exactly over the top for a nice car these days, is it?)

So if you buy a new decent-level SUV in the UK today - you could be paying nearly £5000 just for emissions in the worst case, before any fuel duty which, of course, also hits the higher emitters because they simply use more fuel.

And with all of that, SUVs are still popular choices in the UK, albeit people are likely choosing more fuel efficient ones and or hybrids. Obviously, hybrids give much better emissions returns and so the emissions taxes are much lower. That's a good thing, but I think it's driven more by the likes of the EU requiring fleet-wide lower emissions than it is driven by customers.

[Tommy Cookers]

... The reality is that a lot of China's emissions are generated by industry that has been off shored their from the West, particularly Europe. We have pushed the production of so much stuff over to China that they are, in effect, making our emissions for us. Again, something that is often, conveniently, ignored.....

by the same 'principle' .....
as the industrial revolution was GB etc largely exporting manufactured goods that industrialised the recipient countries
why should GB etc be held responsible for the current level of atmospheric CO2 ?

[Just_a_fan]

... The reality is that a lot of China's emissions are generated by industry that has been off shored their from the West, particularly Europe. We have pushed the production of so much stuff over to China that they are, in effect, making our emissions for us. Again, something that is often, conveniently, ignored.....

by the same 'principle' .....
as the industrial revolution was GB etc largely exporting manufactured goods that industrialised the recipient countries
why should GB etc be held responsible for the current level of atmospheric CO2 ?

Everyone is responsible. That's the point. And everyone has to play a part in the changes that are required. The west started the ball rolling and have helped to keep it rolling. Now they want others to do all the work stopping that ball. That's just not fair or reasonable.