So the idea is that companies should have to pay a fine for all of the environmental damage that they create. The problem is that, for polluters, society bears the brunt of the costs, but the power company gets all of the financial benefit.
That is the idea behind carbon credits. It's not a bad idea.
The problem with a tax on carbon emissions though is that we cannot measure the damage that has been done to the environment from CO2 emissions very well.
So, my solution is this. Start just tracking CO2 emissions, and start measuring sea temperature changes in 2025. But, make the temperature changes tracked by like 20 worldwide thermometer stations that are audited by a panel of five scientists, 2 of which are picked by the power companies, 2 are picked by some environmental PAC, and the 5th one picked by Thermo Fisher.
For every 0.1 degree up that the annual sea surface temperature rises over the last high water mark, you assign a penalty with a really high price tag, like $500B. Then, you divide the total increase in CO2 emitted in the atmosphere by the total CO2 released by each power plant for their share of those emissions that they don't buy credits for.
Set the high water mark as the highest average sea temperature on record.
So, for example, if the temperature rises 0.1 degrees over the high-water mark, and total tons of CO2 emitted worldwide since 2025 was 50 billion tons, the penalty of emitting one ton of CO2 since 2025 would be $10.
That would put the worst polluting power plants in the US, which put out about 20 million tons a year, with penalties of around $200 million per 0.1 degree increase. An average NG power plant might put out about 3 million tons a year, so that penalty would be $30 million.
So you can quibble with the numbers, but the penalties wouldn't be that great unless we see something like a 2 degree change over the high water mark. You make the power companies put their money where their mouth is.
This way power plants have to pay for their contribution to actual changes in temperature caused by their specific CO2 emissions. You get the power plants to pay for the environmental costs that they create. This would obviously have to replace all of the emissions costs for CO2 for the country.
Someone check my math to see if I am way off. But, I'm more interested in what people think about the concept of making power plants pay for thier environmental costs?
That is the idea behind carbon credits. It's not a bad idea.
The problem with a tax on carbon emissions though is that we cannot measure the damage that has been done to the environment from CO2 emissions very well.
So, my solution is this. Start just tracking CO2 emissions, and start measuring sea temperature changes in 2025. But, make the temperature changes tracked by like 20 worldwide thermometer stations that are audited by a panel of five scientists, 2 of which are picked by the power companies, 2 are picked by some environmental PAC, and the 5th one picked by Thermo Fisher.
For every 0.1 degree up that the annual sea surface temperature rises over the last high water mark, you assign a penalty with a really high price tag, like $500B. Then, you divide the total increase in CO2 emitted in the atmosphere by the total CO2 released by each power plant for their share of those emissions that they don't buy credits for.
Set the high water mark as the highest average sea temperature on record.
So, for example, if the temperature rises 0.1 degrees over the high-water mark, and total tons of CO2 emitted worldwide since 2025 was 50 billion tons, the penalty of emitting one ton of CO2 since 2025 would be $10.
That would put the worst polluting power plants in the US, which put out about 20 million tons a year, with penalties of around $200 million per 0.1 degree increase. An average NG power plant might put out about 3 million tons a year, so that penalty would be $30 million.
So you can quibble with the numbers, but the penalties wouldn't be that great unless we see something like a 2 degree change over the high water mark. You make the power companies put their money where their mouth is.
This way power plants have to pay for their contribution to actual changes in temperature caused by their specific CO2 emissions. You get the power plants to pay for the environmental costs that they create. This would obviously have to replace all of the emissions costs for CO2 for the country.
Someone check my math to see if I am way off. But, I'm more interested in what people think about the concept of making power plants pay for thier environmental costs?
