Because the problem with carbon is that the cost of emitting it is not reflected in the market price of the things emitting it. This is called an externality in economics. You fix the externality by taxing the carbon emission at a level that covers the externality. After that you let the much more efficient market sort out what emits and what doesn't because it does a far better job than than any grouping of hacker news commenters expressing what ever combination of the seven deadly sins you think makes them hate the most productive people in society. Markets work and envious, wrathful authoritarians don't. You just end up with another episode of great moments in unintended consequences going down that road.
>Markets work and envious, wrathful authoritarians don't.
So EPA, FDA, etc regulations should be replaced with fees for poisoning everyone rather than outright bans, because to desire freedom from such concerns is to be a jealous tyrant?
The short answer is: some should be replaced, some should be cancelled outright for being stupid, and some are great ideas that should continue. Those two institutions are massive and encompass such a large variety of things that they have things in all categories (should be taxed instead, should be cancelled, and should stay banned).
The technically correct answer but practically silly answer is: yes because the correct charge for the externality of poisoning everyone would be asymptotic and unaffordable by anyone so it would amount to a ban.
Also the concern is not about being a jealous tyrant, the fact of the matter is markets almost always work better than dictating what to do, especially in the long term due to reacting to new information more effectively and changing course more effectively than an authoritarian regime.
When something is banned any action including planning to do it at all are criminal conspiracies and its hard to change this. When something is taxed its an easier ask to reduce the cost, to play games with finances and parent child company relationships, or just go bankrupt and not pay. The penalties, costs, resolutions for not paying your bills are completely different by design compared to the tools to respond to active plans to commit crimes thus using fees to control things nobody should ever do is ill conceived at best.
Insofar as market based solutions I don't know why you imagine they should work. People are in general hideously stupid, immoral, incapable, greedy, and useless. The only way to make them behave with any modicum of sanity and decency is for someone educated in the topic of interest without a dog in the fight to stipulate based on objective standards the kind of things one must and must not due in order not to fuck their fellow man.
The fact that this at present remains less than ideal doesn't mean we ought to trust the same immoral pieces of garbage with less controls on the notion that they will do a better job that way rather than trivially corrupt the over-complicated process. By and large we know very well in most instances exactly what one should and shouldn't do we don't need a market based solution to figure it out we need a less bought and paid for government to actually implement what we already know.
You are arguing against the technically correct but practically silly answer when I am not making that argument (except for the very specific case of carbon emissions and what you are allowed to output carbon emissions for. CO2 emissions are not a life and death situation any time soon, they cause potential range of harm in the far future on some spectrum of probability with another spectrum of probability for completely mitigating the problem before it causes serious harm through technology and that makes up the bulk of the externality that needs to be priced).
Do we really have to rehash how and why markets work better in 2023? I mean, we spent the last century watching places that adopted freer markets succeed and places that went in the opposite direction failing, we saw communism fail a couple times, we watched communists that embraced markets turn themselves around (although they now look a lot more like facists, which is very concerning), etc. They likely work precisely because so much of humanity is hideously stupid, immoral, incapable, greedy, and useless and free markets allow those that aren't to supply the needs of the rest while building up capital, increasing influence and spreading capability throughout the system. On the other hand authoritarianism might have flashes of excellence but more often than not excellence has dumbass kids or friends that replace him or other factors change and the formerly excellent authoritarian doesn't pivot like the multitude of independent actors in a market can and then that flash is gone and we are back to stagnation for the society organized along authoritarian lines.
Your third paragraph's main flaw is that WE don't know very well in most instances exactly what one should and shouldn't do. YOU think you know that and YOU may be too hideously stupid, immoral, incapable, greedy and/or useless to know when YOU are wrong. With a market solution you can be all of those things and it's usually self regulating because you lose your ability to influence anything by blowing your resources on stupid, while people that get it right end up with more resources to bet on their predictions in the future.
>Do we really have to rehash how and why markets work better in 2023? I mean, we spent the last century watching places that adopted freer markets succeed and places that went in the opposite direction failing
No, we spent the last century watching the utter depravity of free market capitalism be reigned in by regulations. Free markets don't maximize public welfare, they maximize profit for successful marketers.
Your comment is the equivalent of looking at the cherry on top and drawing conclusions about the palatability of the ice cream sundae while ignoring that the rest of it is being eaten by maggots.
Also maximizing profit for successful individuals in the market is equal to maximizing public welfare IF regulation is successfully mitigating market power and externalities, which is exactly what I have been arguing for here. Everybody knows the outcome of a totally free market is monopoly and there is a role for government in breaking up/regulating those potential monopolies to mitigate their market power as well as in spots where there are natural externalities that need to be priced in. That I seem to have to recap all of this before making an argument that a specific regulation is incorrect is a bit concerning, as the above is basically settled in economics and the current argument is what should be regulated and how (which is the discussion we are having here regarding a national speed limit on flying and how it is incorrect to argue who changing the law will benefit regarding carbon output when we can just tax the carbon at the amount that most likely covers the externality and not have to make those judgement calls (and risk getting them wrong as we often do).)
Free markets are excellent in picking which shoe store ought to succeed and how many are needed in town. Setting by regulation a list of thou shalt and thou shalt not for various industries isn't communism nor authoritarianism its a normal function of government. The fact that you can't tell the difference virtually disqualifies you from further discussion. Nothing incidentally is self regulating.
We ended up with food safety laws because people did things like knowingly sell unsafe adulterated milk, causing thousands of infants to die (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal). If you do that these days, you will simply go to jail.
Or get executed, as happened with China's 2008 milk adulteration scandal.
You're asking how taxes and fees are different from criminal penalties? I guess the simplest way to put it would be that you go to prison for not paying enough of the one, whereas you'd go to prison for paying too much of the other.
Taxes work in some cases, but we do bans as well sometimes when it makes sense. That isn't authoritarianism; it's just regular governance. Or you could call it civilization.
In terms of climate change, there isn't really any budget of "safe" CO2 emissions left -- we've used it all up by largely ignoring the problem up until now.
The world can't realistically just stop using fossil fuels right now, because so much of our infrastructure depends on it. But we can stop wasting fuel on things we don't need. One of those things we don't need is the vast majority of air traffic that isn't transporting high-value time-critical cargo or getting people where they need to go to complete a specific job (and if it could have been done with a Skype call then no, it isn't a need).
If you want to tax something, you have to define it, measure it, and report it. You need a system for collecting the taxes, a system for enforcing the collection, and a system for validating that the reported numbers are correct. You will need more regulations and more bureaucracy than if you had simply banned it.
Banning something is a solution that prevents some people from doing what they want. Taxing something is a solution that subjects a (potentially much) larger group of people to a reporting and tax burden and random inspections. If it's authoritarianism you are concerned about, you have to contrast the sizes of these groups and the potential harms from the banning and tax collection to determine which solution is worse.
Which is a tax on jet fuel, not on carbon emissions. If you raise the tax to cover the negative externalities, you create an incentive to use other fuels that may be less efficient and more harmful but cheaper. If you extend the tax to cover the use of all fuels in aviation, you need a mechanism to prevent people from using fuels bought for other purposes.
Regulation is difficult, especially when you are trying to outwit the market.
There is also sufficient regulation in place to make sure jets don't put random garbage in their fuel tanks. Not that you need it, because it would damage the engines.
I have no idea what you think a passenger jet would switch to?
Not random garbage but fuels the engines are specifically designed to use. After the regulations are in place, in order to circumvent them.
If writing regulations that have the intended effect without significant downsides was as easy as you suggest, tax planning would not be a big business.
How do you define an airline? Especially if the company is active in multiple fields of business. Would a business that operates both planes and trucks have an advantage or a disadvantage under your tax scheme?
How do you deal with refueling at international destinations and possible carbon taxes in the destination country?
Do you actually want to tax carbon emissions or climate impact? A synthetic fuel could plausibly be carbon neutral, but burning it at the cruising altitude would still have an impact on climate change.
I don't need to define an airline. The tax applies to anyone fueling a plane, and I was just saying that airlines are huge and they're not going to hide.
A business with other things has no advantage or disadvantage.
> How do you deal with refueling at international destinations and possible carbon taxes in the destination country?
Pick an option. It won't make much difference.
> Do you actually want to tax carbon emissions or climate impact? A synthetic fuel could plausibly be carbon neutral, but burning it at the cruising altitude would still have an impact on climate change.
We can have that as a possibility. Probably it's worth wording the law so that the tax scales with the remediation cost.
First, you are thinking about the airlines that exist today, rather than the businesses that would exist under the new regulations. If it's more tax efficient to operate the hypothetical supersonic business jets under a multi-industry conglomerate, that may well be what's going to happen.
Second, international refueling has historically been the main reason why jet fuel cannot be taxed properly. In many European countries, gas has long been much more expensive than jet fuel. If you try taxing jet fuel without coordinating the tax scheme with nearby countries, the end result is increased emissions. Planes will refuel under a more favorable tax regime, fly with a heavier fuel load, and maybe even trade some payload for fuel. Airlines may also route their flights suboptimally to take better advantage of cheaper fuel.
Third, if you want to tax climate impact, it's not enough to tax fuel. You have to collect data on where the fuel is actually used and build new systems for ensuring that the reported data is correct. And then you need a model for calculating taxes from the data, which is going to be a politically contested issue. Especially when the model is changed according to the latest scientific understanding.
> I don't see how business structure affects my suggestion at all. The main tax would be on fuel purchases.
Including fuel used by trucks when the same fuel could also be used in planes? If you tax it, businesses that operate both trucks and planes are at disadvantage. If you don't, you create opportunities for tax evasion.
> So make it an EU thing. And the US can do pretty well by itself despite that.
The EU has to deal with major hubs outside its regulations in London and Istanbul. As for the US, Toronto is conveniently located for many domestic routes.
> And you can charge planes at landing based on any fuel they recently used that wasn't taxed enough.
Assuming that you are allowed to do that, according to various tax treaties and free trade agreements you would like to keep.
> Nah you don't have to do that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and don't try to make taxes too complicated.
Unfortunately it's 2023 and not 2003. The window of opportunity for a good outcome has already closed, and even an ok outcome requires understanding the difference between carbon neutral and climate neutral.
And as I mentioned, there is an alternative to making taxes too complicated: banning activities that are obviously wasteful.
Assessing a tax doesn't actually clean the air. All it does is ensure that only the rich have the right to fuck everyone else over. If the government committed to funding carbon capture at a rate of at least as much as they would've in the counterfactual where there was instead a ban plus the additional amount funded by the carbon tax revenue, taxing the externality would probably be adequate redress, but that isn't ever going to happen.
You have to both put the entirety of the tax towards it and ensure that the fact that you're funding it through the tax doesn't decrease the amount of additional funding you put towards it or else that decrease effectively decreases the tax rate (at least as far as carbon capture is concerned). The second part is harder than the first.
This is what happened when lotteries started spreading across the US. The proceeds were earmarked for schools, so naturally, the property tax rates (which pays for most school funding) was held in check, resulting in no actual increase in school spending.
Why is that irrelevant? Must we permit everything that might be of benefit to someone, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else?