Elon Musk Floated the Idea of a Carbon Tax to Trump, an Official Says - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Tesla Motors Inc. founder Elon Musk is pressing the Trump administration to adopt a tax on carbon emissions, raising the issue directly with President Donald Trump and U.S. business leaders at a White House meeting Monday regarding manufacturing. A senior White House official said Musk floated the idea of a carbon tax at the meeting but got little or no support among the executives at the White House, signaling that Trump’s conservative political orbit remains tepid on the issue. Musk, also CEO of SpaceX, has publicly supported Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. While chief executive at Exxon, Tillerson acknowledged the climate is changing and described a carbon tax as the most efficient means of embedding the cost of carbon in economic decisions from oil companies to consumers. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-26/tesla-s-musk-said-to-float-idea-of-a-carbon-tax-to-trump-ceos[/url]

lol good luck

Please no. The only thing carbon taxes improve is the pocketbooks of corrupt politicians.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51732474]Please no. The only thing carbon taxes improve is the pocketbooks of corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] How? The carbon credit system seems to be working fairly well. It offers a market solution to a market problem, It's essentially perfect.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51732474]Please no. The only thing carbon taxes improve is the pocketbooks of corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] how so?

[QUOTE=Judas;51732686]how so?[/QUOTE] I'm trying to find unbiased sources but holy crap its a topic loaded with global warming denialists. [url]https://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/flash/dn2010-1209.mp4?start=2463&end=2904[/url] Best I can do

[QUOTE=TestECull;51732474]Please no. The only thing carbon taxes improve is the pocketbooks of corrupt politicians.[/QUOTE] Well if regulations are bad and tax incentives are bad, then what's good?

[QUOTE=phygon;51732626]Snip-O[/QUOTE] It was tried here. Results were that our amount of carbon did go down but the money collected from this tax didn't go to further paying for green tech like solar rebates and such. After it was removed, our carbon output double.

I just hope Elon Musk's heart is in the right place. I'm still concerned about his political motives when he said that Rex Tillerson would be a good Sec of State.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51732811]Well if regulations are bad and tax incentives are bad, then what's good?[/QUOTE] Nice job putting words in my mouth. I never said regulations were bad. I just said that carbon taxes will only get abused by corrupt politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of absolutely everything while doing fuck all to actually reduce carbon output. Not only that but they're punishing the average joe who can't really afford to change their carbon output significantly while ignoring the real sources: Coal, natural gas electrical generation, maritime emissions, etc. We could have a suburban in every driveway and still be carbon negative if we'd just stop using coal, natural gas, heavy bunker oil to power our electrical grids and ship our cargo around. We have the technology to phase them out with something that produces fuck all greenhouse gases, have had it since the 1950s in fact. The power of the Atom is a nearly limitless source of energy that can drop humanity's carbon output by a good 35-40% practically overnight. Mass, worldwide conversion of any naval vessel large enough to run on a reactor, mass phaseouts of all fossil fuel powerplants in favor of NPPs, roll out fusion power as soon as it's practical to replace the fission power, and we're good to go.

only way i see this working is if he carbon taxed everything made outside the US, which would 100% piss off everybody, otherwise i dont see it from him

BP has a good coverage of the benefits of a universal carbon tax, and even they completely agree with Musk [URL]http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-challenge-and-climate-change/calling-for-a-price-on-carbon.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Woozlez;51733040]BP has a good coverage of the benefits of a universal carbon tax, and even they completely agree with Musk [URL]http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-challenge-and-climate-change/calling-for-a-price-on-carbon.html[/URL][/QUOTE] This is Elons pitch: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DddPNrzpkw&t=269s[/media] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilBFuVPQw48[/media] [editline]26th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51732868]I just hope Elon Musk's heart is in the right place. I'm still concerned about his political motives when he said that Rex Tillerson would be a good Sec of State.[/QUOTE] Elon has been talking about a carbon tax for a long time. Tillerson has talked about it. Therefore, Elon is trying to get this going. I'm hopefully optimistic about Tillerson. The best way to turn hopeful optimism into results is to work with the guy. Which is what Elon is trying to do.

On the fence about Tillerson. He DID run an oil company but he strikes me as competent and as though he'll take his job seriously. And he hasn't said anything particularly stupid yet so idk.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51732868]I just hope Elon Musk's heart is in the right place. I'm still concerned about his political motives when he said that Rex Tillerson would be a good Sec of State.[/QUOTE] He said he has the [I]potential[/I] to be a good Sec of State based on his global dealings working with Exxon. Big difference

I don't have a reason to not trust Elon. Reading an interview on his recent Rex tweets, he's approaching Trump's administration very strategically.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51732868]I just hope Elon Musk's heart is in the right place. I'm still concerned about his political motives when he said that Rex Tillerson would be a good Sec of State.[/QUOTE] It isn't, Elon wants to hold a monopoly on the car battery industry so he can be the new equivalent to the oil barons. It's why he was so eager to give his car design patents away, get other companies to make cars that use his designs and then he hold a monopoly on the batteries for them. A carbon tax might not be a bad idea but I doubt his motives were pure, petrol is his competition after all.

[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;51733111]On the fence about Tillerson. He DID run an oil company but he strikes me as competent and as though he'll take his job seriously. And he hasn't said anything particularly stupid yet so idk.[/QUOTE] He's ran a oil company, typically a greedy bastard of a business, to go against it would mean he knows better than money. Or he knows money and realises us majority want electric for the benefit of the planet and it's increased reliability (not a car that runs flat after 50 miles)

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51733229]It isn't, Elon wants to hold a monopoly on the car battery industry so he can be the new equivalent to the oil barons. It's why he was so eager to give his car design patents away, get other companies to make cars that use his designs and then he hold a monopoly on the batteries for them. A carbon tax might not be a bad idea but I doubt his motives were pure, petrol is his competition after all.[/QUOTE] The Gigafactory will barely make enough batteries for Tesla's desired number of vehicles. For that to be the case they would have to build a handful of them and cut deals with other car companies to produce batteries. They used to have a deal with Mercedes, but they make their own now. I don't think you're that far off the mark with Tesla wanting to be a EV/Clean Energy giant, but claiming they released the patents so competitors cars would only work with Tesla batteries is a bit silly, since any electric motor will work with any electrical input. Not to mention it would make competitors too reliant on Tesla's supply. Not to mention the batteries are a joint project with Panasonic. Panasonic makes them, in Tesla's factory. The batteries are basically fatter laptop batteries. They used to literally be just laptop batteries.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51732840]It was tried here. Results were that our amount of carbon did go down but the money collected from this tax didn't go to further paying for green tech like solar rebates and such. After it was removed, our carbon output double.[/QUOTE] I feel as if I wouldn't be overly worried about where the money is going so long as the carbon output is going down. It would be preferable to double-down and have the revenue go to cleaner energies for the future but I'll settle for eliminating even part of the problem today.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51732931]Nice job putting words in my mouth. I never said regulations were bad. I just said that carbon taxes will only get abused by corrupt politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of absolutely everything while doing fuck all to actually reduce carbon output. Not only that but they're punishing the average joe who can't really afford to change their carbon output significantly while ignoring the real sources: Coal, natural gas electrical generation, maritime emissions, etc. We could have a suburban in every driveway and still be carbon negative if we'd just stop using coal, natural gas, heavy bunker oil to power our electrical grids and ship our cargo around. We have the technology to phase them out with something that produces fuck all greenhouse gases, have had it since the 1950s in fact. The power of the Atom is a nearly limitless source of energy that can drop humanity's carbon output by a good 35-40% practically overnight. Mass, worldwide conversion of any naval vessel large enough to run on a reactor, mass phaseouts of all fossil fuel powerplants in favor of NPPs, roll out fusion power as soon as it's practical to replace the fission power, and we're good to go.[/QUOTE] You don't even need the tax money to go on green projects. The tax itself naturally forces both companies and individuals towards greener alternatives. Musk's idea is that it's revenue neutral to avoid poor people suffering. If applied properly it would combat coal, oil, and gas. It would push people towards nuclear power and renewable power. It would economically incentivise people towards products produced in a cleaner way.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51734124]You don't even need the tax money to go on green projects. The tax itself naturally forces both companies and individuals towards greener alternatives. Musk's idea is that it's revenue neutral to avoid poor people suffering. If applied properly it would combat coal, oil, and gas. It would push people towards nuclear power and renewable power. It would economically incentivise people towards products produced in a cleaner way.[/QUOTE] So many 'if it was applied properly' caveats in there. I fully expect it to miss every target it should hit and head straight for poor people like me who can't afford to buy a pot to piss in much less replace their vehicle with one that produces less greenhouse gases. Worse still, not only is it taking their hard-earned money away on dubious grounds, but it actually makes it harder for them to change, effectively locking them into keeping the not-so-green vehicle. If they can't even afford to change it before the tax how in seven fucks is making their financial life even more difficult going to get them onto a greener vehicle? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I fully expect any carbon tax the US Government imposes to be worded in such a way that people in my income bracket get fucked in the ass, the entities that need to move away from it will be wholly unaffected, and the proceeds will go directly to pay for some random senator's third solid gold humvee.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51734192]So many 'if it was applied properly' caveats in there. I fully expect it to miss every target it should hit and head straight for poor people like me who can't afford to buy a pot to piss in much less replace their vehicle with one that produces less greenhouse gases. Worse still, not only is it taking their hard-earned money away on dubious grounds, but it actually makes it harder for them to change, effectively locking them into keeping the not-so-green vehicle. If they can't even afford to change it before the tax how in seven fucks is making their financial life even more difficult going to get them onto a greener vehicle? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I fully expect any carbon tax the US Government imposes to be worded in such a way that people in my income bracket get fucked in the ass, the entities that need to move away from it will be wholly unaffected, and the proceeds will go directly to pay for some random senator's third solid gold humvee.[/QUOTE] Well you can't really blame Musk here for suggesting a revenue neutral carbon tax and then the government implementing a non revenue neutral carbon tax. If it's done how Musk suggests then your v8 engine will cost a shit load more to run but all your other stuff will get cheaper. So you roughly end up with the same amount of money but a larger proportion of that is spent on your carbon negative activities.

I'd be for it if it only applied to corporations that could actually change their carbon footprint. If it applies to the average joe, it just makes the poor.. poorer. A good 75% of Americans cannot afford an electric car, while many can't take public transport, travel too far to use a bicycle or walk, have no access to a cab. It's another 'brilliant' idea that forces people to pay for things they can't change.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51732868]I just hope Elon Musk's heart is in the right place. I'm still concerned about his political motives when he said that Rex Tillerson would be a good Sec of State.[/QUOTE] His business is based on what the new administration wants to completely weed out, so his best shot is to try and sweettalk them into not completely nuking him and everything he stands for. He's actually pretty good at converting people to his cause so I trust him.

[QUOTE=FordLord;51734336]I'd be for it if it only applied to corporations that could actually change their carbon footprint. If it applies to the average joe, it just makes the poor.. poorer. A good 75% of Americans cannot afford an electric car, while many can't take public transport, travel too far to use a bicycle or walk, have no access to a cab. It's another 'brilliant' idea that forces people to pay for things they can't change.[/QUOTE] carbon taxes are based on the tons of carbon you emit, the average joe aint gonna do that. the issue is that opponents say it will end up on consumers because of the way prices will inflate but I dont buy that because the tax is on what is normally the beginning of an operation not the finished good

[QUOTE=Sableye;51734923]The issue is that opponents say it will end up on consumers because of the way prices will inflate but I dont buy that because the tax is on what is normally the beginning of an operation not the finished good[/QUOTE] The finished goods price by basic business should (if we're going to talk about one product here) at least cover the cost of production. A better argument against would probably do with interrupting the economy of scales, mass producing goods can make production cheaper and help lower price and increase supply. If you suddenly add an extra cost that only rises with production then you could argue that business won't produce in any economy with a carbon tax. I am for a carbon tax, nothing will drive cleaner industry forward better. It's just how you sell it to people.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51732931]Nice job putting words in my mouth. I never said regulations were bad. I just said that carbon taxes will only get abused by corrupt politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of absolutely everything while doing fuck all to actually reduce carbon output. Not only that but they're punishing the average joe who can't really afford to change their carbon output significantly while ignoring the real sources: Coal, natural gas electrical generation, maritime emissions, etc. We could have a suburban in every driveway and still be carbon negative if we'd just stop using coal, natural gas, heavy bunker oil to power our electrical grids and ship our cargo around. We have the technology to phase them out with something that produces fuck all greenhouse gases, have had it since the 1950s in fact. The power of the Atom is a nearly limitless source of energy that can drop humanity's carbon output by a good 35-40% practically overnight. Mass, worldwide conversion of any naval vessel large enough to run on a reactor, mass phaseouts of all fossil fuel powerplants in favor of NPPs, roll out fusion power as soon as it's practical to replace the fission power, and we're good to go.[/QUOTE] 1.) There is a difference between Upstream and Downstream carbon taxes. You are describing downstream carbon taxes (lets say, taxing the products that are carbon-intensive). Most economists think thats a bad idea and instead say that we should do upstream carbon taxes (tax extraction at the source, so the cost is difficult to pass on. 2.) There are also revenue neutral carbon taxes. These taxes replace existing taxes (let say, remove the sales tax and replace it with a carbon tax). So no, you dont even need to line the pocketbooks of politicians, because you can replace inefficient taxes with carbon taxes. 3.) You aren't going to incentive the widespread adoption of nuclear and renewable energies unless you intervene in the market. The fact is that coal, natural gas, and oil can produce energy waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper in the short run. A carbon tax is an instrument that convinces companies to diversify.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51733229]It isn't, Elon wants to hold a monopoly on the car battery industry so he can be the new equivalent to the oil barons. It's why he was so eager to give his car design patents away, get other companies to make cars that use his designs and then he hold a monopoly on the batteries for them. A carbon tax might not be a bad idea but I doubt his motives were pure, petrol is his competition after all.[/QUOTE] making products more efficiently is not trying to obtain a monopoly, it's the free market. other companies can make batteries all they want, but nobody has (or wants to put down- yet) the capital to make a huge factory to compete, no monopolies here.

[QUOTE=phygon;51732626]How? The carbon credit system seems to be working fairly well It offers a market solution to a market problem, It's essentially perfect.[/QUOTE] And yea even Bernie Sanders proposed this as his platform for 2016 primary.