The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.
The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.
Yes but climate change will have dramatically negative effects in agriculture in the long term. The cost of food can’t always be a silver bullet objection to climate regulation. We can undoubtedly find ways to grow food with less carbon cost if there is economic incentive for it, and long term impacts need to be considered even more than short term when we consider how bad the projections are.
Also, here is something I’d like to share. This guy is talking about beef, but it applies to all agriculture. Veggies maybe even more.
As a family of 4 our weekly food bill has gone from 150 a week to around 250 plus a week for the same foods in just a couple of years. That’s a thousand dollars plus or minus a month over the past 3 years.
I know that food prices may not mean much to you. But when you have kids you can’t say “oh I’m out of money so everyone is eating ramen”. Whether you like the fact that food is a consideration for me or not. I can guarantee that a lot of other people are concerned about this as well, and the right will use it as a talking point.
Then when you add in the fact that electric tractors aren’t a thing. Then the blame falls on the government. Also, I’m not saying that the rest of it is bad. Even though my power bill is over 400 a month in the summer, and my 1200 a month rent is now 1800 a month in 3 years.
But yeah I guess I’m crazy to worry about food and other things for my family. You’re right though. I should just suck it up and plant trees who’s shade I’ll never enjoy using my family as fertilizer.
So … let the world burn?
Just saying. So much of our money is spent on forced QOL improvements. They are kind of like sin tax with cigarettes. It has become a huge part of what we pay just to live in the US.
There are sin taxes that are voluntary like the price of cigarettes. Don’t want to pay that much for them then stop smoking and everyone benefits. Liquor (at least in my state) is sold in state run stores, and at a huge markup. Once again don’t want to pay it, then don’t drink.
Then there are semi-voluntary sin taxes. For instance, the price of cars in the US. There are brand new car models being sold in third world countries by the same companies that sell in the US for cheap as hell. All because to sell a car here in the US they have to have extra safety features that cost a lot. Likewise in the US if you own a car it HAS to have insurance. That law isn’t that old comparatively speaking. I say these are semi-voluntary because in most parts of the US you HAVE to have a car, but technically you can live in the US without a car.
Then there are non-voluntary sin taxes. These would be sin taxes on fuel. Even if you don’t have a car. Your groceries get to the store with fuel. Yours probably comes from coal or petroleum. Putting a sin tax on these things raise the prices of everything for everyone. You can’t live without power. You can’t live without food. The the groceries have to be delivered, and kept at a reasonable temperature. The ripples from fuel alone are immeasurable. It takes fuel to grow it, get to the store, and keep it cool.
I’m saying that if it’s something that we can’t live without, and the government’s decides to make them pay more money. Then maybe the government needs to figure out a way that the cost doesn’t just get passed down to us.
Because if every time their bill goes up they pass it down to us. Well, then there is no incentive for them (the heavy polluters) to change.
Why does it have to be either or? I’m saying that changes have to be made. But, why not come up with a better plan that doesn’t cause more economic hardship for the people.
Having a better tomorrow is no good if our kids can’t afford to live in it. There has to be a better way than passing restrictions that just pass the buck on to the citizens.
Most of what we buy is artificially underpriced. This is in part because of government subsidies coming from our taxes. The other part, is significant exploitation of people out of your sight and mind.
When our lifestyle is priced at what it is due due human exploitation and suffering you have too options: exploit even harder to reduce prices or start paying a humane price for things. We’ve got it good in the West.
We have it good in the west unless you don’t. I was a homeless heroin addict for over a decade. As someone that has spent time in Nepal. I can honestly say that myself and many just like me had it worse than most of the people living in one of the poorest countries in the world. Hell, one of my friends and his wife in the US got scurvy due to food insecurity.
It’s not as good here as people think.
As a parent, I’d think you would be particularly concerned about the long term impact of carbon emissions. If food is expensive now, what is going to happen to your kids’ quality of life when changing weather makes it impossible to raise food in traditional farming areas? Pretty much every model shows rapidly increasing food prices at best, widespread starvation at worst.
I’m sorry you’re struggling to feed your kids and I’m kinda baffled why you are assuming I have no sympathy for those in a bad spot. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for better government assistance for those who can’t afford food. Loosening carbon regulations to reduce food prices is just kicking the can down the road so the issue will be far worse when your children are adults.
deleted by creator