There are taxes which have their effects scale with other variables, such as tobacco tax stops increasing poverty if there is no tobacco consumption.
The same treatment is needed with carbon tax. A tax which collects no money should have no effects.
Both good points
Speaking of a de-carbonized economy, it should probably disable certain dilemmas. I just had the fracking dilemma come up even though both petrol and carbon taxes are producing 0. If there is no carbon emissions, then there are no customers for the product of fracking, therefore there is no dilemma.
It’s so wack that decarbonization is so easy to negate yet the environment is so difficult to influence.
It’s made Carbon and Petrol Tax completely irrelevant despite struggling with the environment all game.
I agree that Carbon and the Environment could be better balanced. That said, that there are impacts of the tax even when it collects zero money makes sense - it influences what is possible and what would be made/built. And this is less personal that Tobacco, because of the scale of one industry and one habit vs. the carbon impact of literally everything we touch.
I mean you still have fracking if you haven’t outright banned it. It just would be very expensive.
Environment and CO2 are partially decoupled even in real life. You may be CO2 neutral/negative, but you maybe quite extractive.
Oh for sure! But surely the problems of waste, biodiversity, water purity, and air quality are way easier to address than net-negative CO2. I mean cities can and have turned around their air quality in a few years and they broke a reforestation record in Ethiopia in 2019 but people doubt whether the developed countries can go negative by 2050.
It makes you wonder if the oversimplification of this problem is this way because they are planning an overhaul in an expansion like I wondered the other day.
It’s unlikely that Cliff would put this in an expansion. I think that he would focus more on advances electioneering as ge mentioned before, if he does release an expansion at all.
I don’t know if those problems are easier to fix than CO2 negative. I think CO2 might be easier, because getting there would still rely on extraction. Getting there while being sustainable would be the toughest.
