[peacetreefrog]

Well, depends what you mean by "at fault". I agree it's better to believe in global warming than deny it exists, but I agree with Cochrane that many of the attempts at at fixing it so far are basically "worthless value-signaling gestures".

Cochrane thinks (not sure I agree with him) that the onus right now is more on the traditional left than the right.

"...climate policy advocates have gone far beyond a technocratic idea of simply, well, reducing carbon. 'And nuclear energy' is usually noticeably absent. Carbon capture technologies, equally good at reducing carbon are usually noticeably absent. Other agendas like 'climate justice' creep in -- worthy or not, anything else that creeps in means less carbon reduction per dollar. A carbon tax reduces carbon any way that reduces carbon, which is really good at, well, reducing carbon, and not getting distracted with other agendas. That is a strong reason why carbon taxes, and especially such taxes in return for less regulation are resisted on the left."

Whether you agree re: who is at fault, given that most people on HN are prob on the "do something about climate change" end of the spectrum, if you are personally skeptical of a carbon tax vs something like the green new deal or Jay Inslee's climate change plan, I'd encourage you to look into it more.

Cochrane's blog post and and also this would be good places to start:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-n...

[olivermarks]

'it's better to believe in global warming than deny it exists' - this sums up the belief system aspects of the current hysteria. Cynics say the commercial goal of claims human pollution is super heating earth's atmosphere (which may be true) is to extract taxation from everyone on C02 use. Good stewardship of the planet is clearly in everyone's best interests but falling into the clutches of avaricious ecocapitalists who tax you on everything is only going to empty your wallet and restrict your movements, while probably not solving any environmental concerns.

[crazygringo]

This feels like such a straw man.

First, people on the left who are resisting carbon taxes are mostly because they believe cap and trade is a better solution, which many economists agree with.

Second, what has some notion of "climate justice" got to do with anything? I don't see any evidence politicians on the left are somehow getting distracted by "value-signaling".

Third, where does the idea come from that a carbon tax must be matched with less regulation elsewhere? That's a pure right-wing dream to try to match the two together, there is no connection.

What this essentially sounds like is a Republican talking point that it's all Democrats' fault because Democrats aren't succeeding, despite Republicans refusing to help and therefore making it impossible to succeed. The doublespeak and hypocrisy makes your head spin...

[peacetreefrog]

I don't think it's a straw man. Look at the two examples I cited.

This is the first thing that comes up when you google 'green new deal':

"A Green New Deal is a big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change. It would mobilize vast public resources to help us transition from an economy built on exploitation and fossil fuels to one driven by dignified work and clean energy."

https://www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal

And here's AOC's chief of staff on the green new deal: "“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” "

Second is Jay Inslee, the democratic running for president who has made fighting climate change the centerpiece of his campaign.

https://www.jayinslee.com/climate-mission

Look at his four points. Point three is "fighting for environmental justice & economic inclusion". Two of the other points are subsidies, one for clean energy, the other for a jobs program. The last one -- getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuel industries -- is a good idea. Control f'ing for the word tax (as in carbon tax) gives no results. Neither does cap, nor trade.

[radicalbyte]

I would have agreed with you twenty years ago: back then implementing a global tax of $10 per ton on CO2 and increasing it to $100 per ton over a 20 year period would have been an excellent and extremely cheap solution.

Only I assumed that the "dirty" lobby killed that.

We're now at the point where if we want to keep a similar quality of life without destroying the planet something like the Green New Deal is going to be needed. Not necessarily from a technical standpoint but from a political one - such as change drastically improve the situation for a lot of people and will greatly decrease the risk of amoral fanatics winning again in the biggest economy in the world.