It was initially used by BP to shift blame to consumers instead of oil companies.

  • admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    George Shultz, one of the founders of CCL, was literally one of the guys who helped Regan craft his economic policy vision, and I’m sure many of those he brought on with him were part of that field too. I don’t just call anything Reaganomics, but I DO call this shit that way.

    If you seriously want to hear different voices, I recommend you start with David Roberts at Volts: https://www.volts.wtf/

    He interviews everyone, has clear opinions, and backs up his positions with practical politics.

    (edit: maybe start with this one?: https://www.volts.wtf/p/do-dividends-make-carbon-taxes-more )

    I already told you my actual solution. You didn’t listen.

    we continue along the path of e.g. the IRA and invest heavily in alternatives, renewables, and infrastructure development. Fossil fuels are already a significantly more expensive energy source than solar and wind and that gap will only keep growing wider, ESPECIALLY if we delete fossil subsidies. And those learning curves are how we will kill fossils worldwide. Why should a developing nation with flexible climate ethics be importing Russian coal when they could be building renewable energy production that does not require importing a suspect commodity that will be even cheaper for them?

    • pedalmore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?

      https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/george-p-shultz/

      There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.

      As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.

      Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).

      Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee

        But it won’t. Politically radioactive. And in the meantime, you could’ve been advocating for policies that actually have traction. That build constituencies instead of tearing them down.

        But whatever. You’ve got Faith in this policy and there’s no point arguing with it.

        • pedalmore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.