Bill Nye Explains the Carbon Tax to Neil deGrasse Tyson and Chuck Nice 

+PiggiesGoMoo Everything is socialist that I happen to disagree with, okay? I call what is and what isn't. Now excuse me while I go change the definitions of truth and reason up on Wikipedia.

Its not exclusive. It can be socialist and from Friedman at the same time.

+PiggiesGoMoo I'd say it's socialism that serves capitalism's ends, which is what I'm for.

Common property and being against free trade is.

***** Oh & fuck the asylum seekers... Also fuck the Syrian refugees in Europe.

Criminal politicians will NOT return the fee to the people. They will build up a police state with it. People need to switch to Solar and electric. If it is not grass roots then it will not happen.

ItsThatMilkshake Dude. We just got rid of that crap idea. It’s not coming back

How shall one hear what is told, when one does not listen to what one does not see?

Canadian forests ALREADY gets enough CO2. The problem is we are giving them TOO MUCH CO2. And anything too much is bad. Even drinking too much water, for example, kills you (fun fact).

+WASDxMerceless on average it was around 10%, (the rest inflated before election) however the raised cost pushed openings in the energy market for more efficient companies, it pushed big business to be cleaner, and invest in greener solutions. Businesses that pushed greener product could compete against the big companies. Over a longer term it could have been a great system, but over the short term it was easier for the bigger companies to just raise prices and invest in politicians .

why would it never work and what are the unforeseen consequences? lol what a baseless claim

+Rick Knight Anyone interested in this should join Citizens' Climate Lobby

I don't understand the connection between the equal distribution and the motivation in point (1), if you have any spare time would you care to explain?

If everyone gets the same amount of monthly 'carbon dividend' and also notice increasing energy costs (gasoline, heating bills, etc.), they will tend to compare those amounts. Because economics tells us that when a commodity costs more, people tend to use less of it, people will start looking for ways to come out ahead. They will also start thinking things like, "if I am getting x dollars a month in carbon dividends, maybe by the end of the year I can afford to get those new windows, or insulate the attic, or put in that high-efficiency furnace, and that will put me ahead the next year and the year after." It will also spur people to just tell their kids to shut off the lights or close the front door. And this is ESPECIALLY true if they know the carbon fee (and the carbon dividends coming back to them) are going up every year. Also, the people who waste the most energy -- and thus have the most potential to reduce their energy use -- will be the most motivated (by money) to find easy ways to cut back. It also works against cultural reluctance to 'act like a tree-hugger' because saving money it involved. Another point is that the Americans who use the most energy are the wealthiest, so they are the ones with the most spare cash to buy into larger energy-saving investments like electric cars. Rich people still like to save money, and this gives them an added motivation to make those investments. These are all examples of the basic truism of supply and demand, which tells us that humans will always find ways to use less of a product or service if they see the cost going up. The carbon dividend -- which they can spend on anything they want -- just gives them an added incentive, partly because they see that they can 'beat the system' by using part of it to reduce energy usage, knowing that they will still be getting the same share of the pie.

Rick Knight economists also know that some goods are inelastic, meaning consumers will pay any price for them. putting a price on carbon makes everything more expensive, groceries/heating, things people tend to need. with this in mind, what happens is that rich people can eat the cost while poor people pay a higher proportion of the tax compared to income. Last time I checked regressive taxes were a bad idea

Exactly right, and that's why the "carbon dividend" is essential to flip that on its head. When the carbon tax revenue is distributed back to the people equally per capita, that regressivity is corrected. The poor, for whom energy costs are -- as you point out -- inelastic, will in nearly all cases receive more in "dividends" than they pay in increased costs. In mathematical terms, this is because while the poorest 20% of Americans pay, on average, 3.5 times as much of their income on energy as the richest 20%, the rich spend about 9 times as many dollars. So the "carbon dividend" is a must-have.

+shay campbell It's not about refining the oil, as much as it is about it's products being burned.

+shay campbell true, but there are polymers that can be produced from organic matter like wood. Not only are they biodegradable, they are obviously don't need oil. The reason why we don't see them, is because they are still more expensive than plastics from oil. Currently it's a more a matter of economics than technology.

Or we could, I don't know, find a biodegradable alternative to plastics.

bryce Maybe we should call up the Bio-Engineers now.

+shay campbell We don't even need plastics...

+LittleCD How about sugar while we are at it? its also a carbon compound...your comment is as much stupid as it is ignorant.

Does the process of creating sugar create carbon? I don't know, do you? But we are aware that most of our industrial practices in the animal agriculture industries create a huge carbon footprint.

Its not carbon the element that is being taxed, its carbon dioxide that comes from burning the oil and the fossil fuels.The methane that cows and humans produce when digesting plants does not get burned,with the exception of few cow and pig farms that actually produce the stuff, but most cow produced methane is simply dispersed in the atmosphere where it does much much less damage than carbon dioxide.On a last note, both the processes of creating sugar and methane are actually consuming carbon and not creating it.

+LittleCD you know that the methane is less then 2% of the states emissions right? It is so low, its not even registered as a threat to the american emissions output. That's so low, that you worrying about it makes you level, with these crazy PPH cooks saying our tax dollars are being wasted on free clinics. In truth; its only like a $1.67 a year. Yeah its a real need to look in to. You wrote a stupid comment on an issue that is effecting everyone less then 2%! Mate you are caring about a cow fart more then a factory, you're bonkers! LOL

I hope you'll be the first to step up and refuse to eat what farmers grow.

+Jesse Priest Methane*

methane gas' half-life is about 200 years less than Carbon Oxide

and there is evidence that methane gas is beneficial for our atmosphere. but yes, soon we will have to eat less meat and drink less dairy

I was under the impression that methane is much more effective at being a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Which is something we don't want.

+eclipseslayer98 yes. methane is a better reflector of sun rays but methane is needed because we need some of the sun's energy trapped here. and methane doesn't last long so it needs to be replenished. carbon gas on the other hand, it gets up there and stays there for hundreds of years.

The company will just raise the cost of their services to counter the tax.

bryce Then people wouldn't buy their services and go to competitors. -.- Prices are not things that are easily raised. They take large amounts of market research to correctly calibrate to their customer base. Simply "raising the cost" even a small amount could potentially ruin a company depending on the product in question.

+AngryRantingNerd Statists gonna state... then appropriate the term "libertarianism" in order to render it meaningless, like it was once done with "liberalism".

+AngryRantingNerd Have you *seen* libertarian slogans? They want to eliminate taxes in favor of installing turnstiles and toll booths in front of every sidewalk and street, and replace the state with corporate fiefdoms, with them as the serfs. It's super libertarian.

I haven't seen those slogans, but going ad absurdum really doesn't help your argument. Anything going in the direction of less government intervention in people's lives, businesses, property is pointed towards the "libertarian ideal", and though there are those who advocate for the complete absence of government (David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" etc), the vast majority of people just want less intervention, and there's plenty of data, theory and historical confirmation, to show its benefits for society as a whole, in particular for the poorer population. But then you'd have to read actual books instead of slogans. Try "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

FretboardFrenzy So you admit you're speaking from a position of ignorance and immediately assign a response which is the only rational solution to funding roads without taxation as being an argument from ridicule. If no taxes, then roads are either un-maintained, or taken over by corporations who will charge you to use the roads. Not an argument from ridicule. "the vast majority of people just want less intervention" Which means no government, because what do words mean. A government that is less involved is a government that isn't there. There's no magical line where government exists but has no power at all and cannot intervene. There's government which exists, or no government. Libertarians are anarchists. Again, you're speaking out of ignorance and patting yourself on the back so hard I worry about your rotator cup. "But then you'd have to read actual books instead of slogans" See what I mean? Of course you don't. Libertarians don't read actual books, they have no understanding of economics or of how society functions. *THEY* read slogans. You moron.

You guys just keep debating. This is fun to watch. My understanding of Libertarianism is that it's very laissez-faire, in that it calls for minimal government intervention in the lives of citizens, meaning few taxes, regulations, etc. Introducing a carbon tax is pretty much the opposite of that. I'm not arguing that Libertarianism is the ideology for you, I'm just saying that Bill Nye clearly has no idea what Libertarianism is when he calls introducing a tax libertarian.

+Bilbo Swaggins you're talking about bills and bill, lol

Dude what's up!!! I'm in YIG too. Sorry I don't know this but is this a nation wide program because the only area I know which supports this is where I live (Missouri)

+Rui PTG no one works for free

Jack Hanson​ that has nothing to do with a resource based economy. Obviously nothing just comes to me, my food came from somewhere, so did my clothing, and someone helped build my house. Noone should expect these things to just come to us as we live however we want, we need to be willing to help society in whatever way we can, within certain limits - no one should have to do degrading/slave jobs just to get by.

Rui PTG​​ No that's always been a step. My father was a mechanic so I could be an engineer etc. Slave labor etc jobs are fit for those who's ability acutely fits such positions. Smart individuals are always ahead. Dumb individuals are always behind. We need laborers. Wealth in form of money (gold,silver) is nothing more then a storage unit of enonomic ability and resource. It's either that or a barter economy. Anything less than that does not put human selfishness in the equation and will fail just like communism.

Jack Hanson prostitution, sweat shops, and foxxcon workers are dumb? Or, those jobs fit them acutely? And all this justifies them leading such lives? Good to know.

Rui PTG I'd say both. And yeah pretty much my ancestors worked their ass off so I could do well, that's how the world works. Having kids when your poor only leads most of the time more poor people

+Kaleiohu Lee What you wrote there is just a bunch of blabla. This is how modern politicians talk. You're saying a lot of words but they don't really have any meaning. A carbon tax, although it has many problems by itself, is a real proposal for a solution, something concrete.

+Kaleiohu Lee Don't confuse activity with production. If it pollutes our future, if it doesn't have long-term dividends, and ends up costing more than it benefits us, than it winds up being destruction. Taxing harmful destruction is great economics and a good way to promote long-term industry. We need to address the destruction first, make sure that that's under wraps, and then from there we can advance our energy production technology and creating viable alternatives. First off, we already have done that. Second, the rate at which that occurs will be even faster once it's properly incentivized, and the true cost of CO2 emissions are properly reflected in carbon-intensive goods and services.

ganondorf22 I don't think the extent of the impact on the future environment is well understood. Depending on the extent of the damage you may be right about the cost benefits, however its the extreme projections that get popularized and hurt the credibility of climate research in general. It seems we're always about 10 years away from going over the cliff. Also my point is that there is an economic impact for the nations that choose to pursue these policies vs nations that choose not to, which is why a useful consensus is difficult. The last international one a few months ago has no enforcement or consequences so of course everyone signed on. Better energy technology could bypass the politics and naturally reduce carbon emissions by phasing out less efficient technologies. This is of course a long term strategy which makes sense for a long term problem.

Kaleiohu Lee It's a long term problem since 1900 which we haven't done anything about. So the "long" in the term is kinda overdue.

+Tio Dave There's solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. The implication of NOT doing this is to condemn our grandchildren to experiencing the worst that global warming has to offer. Other benefits are we avert incidents like Exxon Valdez, BP Oil Spill, the current ongoing natural gas disaster in S Cal and we clean up the air.

This isn't about people saving money it's about not fucking the earth

+Fred Hagen-Gates Right. I'm with you, I just want to hear them discuss how to make it an incentive instead of 'equaling out'.

+Steven Pitts That's my issue with it too. How do you keep those greedy billionaires from hiking up prices. We all know they could afford to take that hit no problem, but they don't want to do that. I don't think we could ever convince CEO's to do that. You would have to force them to do it, and I don't see that ending very well.

+Adam Campbell We people take our "negative income tax" money, but we don't have to spend it on more fossil fuels. I, for one, will save on my energy bill by buying renewables, which are not taxed and will become relatively, if not absolutely, less and less expensive. Meanwhile, the tax on fossil fuels climbs higher and higher each year, and thus fossil fuels become less and less competitive. The fossil fuel companies either adapt by finding a way to provide us with energy from a source other than fossil fuels (the sun, for instance), or they die in 20 or 30 years from lack of customer demand.

Robert Ostman because trees doesn't actually do shit in converting CO2 to oxygen. You need algae. Not to mention planting trees anywhere can lead to problem such as making the ground too dry and can ruin instrastructure, ruining the ground nutrients for other trees if you plant the wrong type, ruining the animal ecosystem, can make the trees around it more vulnerable to diseases and/or parasite. Then there's the question of who's going to maintain it? They need water, lots of water. You can't just plant a tree anywhere and expect it to just grow. It needs planning. So now one of the easiest option is for the government to have a designated location. If it's too far from the city people would rather pay, would be unwilling and it would cost people more CO2 to travel there. If it's in the city, then you need to align this with infrastructure progress interest; creating more headache. So the only solution is to really regulate what, where and how you plant. The government need to supply the seeds, the place to plant and the manpower to regulate this 'event'. Not to mention the added fee of maintain the tree for the rest of its lifetime. It's expensive, prone to error and lastly not to mention: trees isn't even that effective at converting CO2 to O2. So that is why.

well a single tree wont convert much co2... yet how much is much?, because a regular car produces a lot of co2, compared to most motorcycles, its clear that if we were to put a lot of trees then the hole ordeal is shifted, because then it would be a big layer of trees absorbing a lot of co2, like pouring a bunch of water and see how it gets absorbed, effect that could probably bee seen in a forest... the laws regulation that you mention is very important, and I tend to say, that it needs to be done, to me it is clear that what the collective of trees provide, can not be obtained in other way...

Robert Ostman this 'planting trees' tax is not a good idea as not only it's really, really hard and expensive to implement; it is also very ineffective. You claim that the benefit of this 'each person planting trees' policy would outweight the massive cost and headache that it would cost. Well sure, I'm willing to be open-minded: do you have any research to back your claim up? Has this method been tested before in other areas and how does that go? Any implementation of similar policies that we can assess of? The carbon tax is a much more elegant and efficient way of reducing this. Let the big companies research on how it can most effectively reduce their CO2: by using clean energy, by planting trees, by developing a cleaner system, whatever is working and is the most efficient. It's much easier to implement and maintain as well. You literally just have to count the CO2 emission and put charges on it, and as Bill Nye said: the infratructure/institution is already there! (at least in US and Canada). Carbon tax has been tested in some areas of Canada and proven to be very successful at lowering the CO2 emission and have no economic damage whatsoever. And I think that is why we should not implement this 'each person plant a tree policy': it's not effective, it's hard and expensive to implement, it's not been tested yet, and a much more efficient and elegant solution is there (Carbon Tax).

well its hard to answer these questions.... I did have them my self... yet at a point it all made sense, what you are asking is data that I have gained in a lot of different ways... so it not like I am weeky leaks, and I hold the secret documents of this and that... yet to make things more interesting I would dare to say that in 15 to 30 days of a lousy research we could gather this info, because is not being kept hidden from the public, in fact a lot of this info could be found in the TED talks, also here on RU-vid, yet if were to go to a library, I bet that there are tons of books that explain how much co2 is captured by a tree depending on type and other details like region and height and latitude... its all already out there, its not a secret... please note that I am not proposing it to be a single option, but ratter a part of a solution that to me seems like it is clear that has been postponed for way to long, now here in the city where I live there are about 20 million ppl imagine how fast would be stopped the deforestation if each of these were to provide 20 trees per month... consider that, there would be ppl wiling to make money out of this... they could offer different services so ppl would be able to skip such a labor... it a ratter long topic... regarding the carbon tax I tend to agree with it, yet it seems like there are certain aspect of it that would affect the poor, that by the way... to me, seems odd as heck... thats a long topic as well... the problem has to be solved in multiple fronts... so its not like there is only one thing and only one...

+cseeger1 -- Also note that Nye sort of implies that the tax rebates Alaskans get is free money. It isn't. It's a cost to the oil companies for the "right" to extract Alaskan oil reserves. That cost gets added as a cost of production. And who pays for that? We all do in the form of higher gasoline prices or plastics or wherever / whatever the barrels ultimately get consumed.

+cseeger1 clean energy becomes 'incentivized', because dirty energy costs a bit more. BC Canada lowered their emissions with a carbon fee and lowered income taxes at the same time. Fess replaced some taxes.

+Jan Freed -- That doesn't address the inelasticity of demand.

+Cosmic Perspective he always looks like that lol

Jeez, First of all Students alone do not find the energy solutions, what you are doing is just giving out free money to those inexperienced kids to figure out how to save the earth. What in the world , do you find these Genius almighty people??. I call it Stupidity, and I hope your parents (if your parents are financially prudent people) teach you that more money won't solve any problems in your life, it is always the efficiency that you create with limited amount of resources. What is wrong with people these days...

Sounds like your story , How superb :)

And Sir, Please allow me to remind you that College Tuition fees have gone up because of people like you. :) By the way I must say that I am very profounded by your selection of language, I can see how well educated you are.

Yes because a persons selection of language on a fucking video website, is the extent of their education. Dude you can't even form a sentence without infesting this thread with comma splices and capitalization errors. How superb. You're like the textbook dumbass who tries to use words like "profound" in a sad attempt to mask your stupidity. That's that pseudo-intellectual cuntery I mentioned earlier. You do realize that the colleges are the ones who send you the bill right? Colleges are overstaffing, inflation is killing our dollar, and entitled rich kids are turning colleges into resorts. That's why prices have skyrocketed. Meanwhile, people are born into low income families who hardly have the resources to make ends meet are forced to suppress their dream while the rich fuckboy in college diminishes the value of education and enjoys his fratboy vacation. You can pull the silver spoon out of your mouth and start sucking my dick now.

hahaha I hope you didn't shit in your pants when you were writing that, you sound pretty mad. Well, I guess you are one of those left wing people who can't take criticism. I guess i have to be the better man here. First of all, Where do you think the most students take their loans from? its not private institutions, they are not stupid like government bureaucrats who would never think about the consequences of their investments they make with tax payers money. It is not the rich people who diminishes the value of education and if you really think rich people are polluting our education, I must say it is people like you who are actually destroying both our education and economy. Stop blaming on other people for any problems we have, I know what you are thinking, you're thinking "Oh I'm so smart, I know the truth and this guy is a rat and must be a rich fucking ass fuckboy". Do I know you?, do you know me?, how much wealth do you think I have, and what makes you think I m a rich fuckboy?. I must say that your very assumption is not just primitive, but also pathetic. if you are really interested to solve the problems we have in our society, you should study more, not blaming on others, because I can tell you that you know nothing about economics and poorly talking about inflation. Since you are talking about dollar, I think you live in the US. The inflation does not kill the dollar, especially when its the reserve currency of the world, you are still in deflationary territory, but this is just to inform you about the correlation of the dollar and inflation as in general. This is why when people talk about inflation, we have to be specific what inflation we are talking about. Yes we have inflation in education sector and as I have said above, because we have cheap loans from federal government, schools have no reason to lower the price, and like you said, everyone has their own dreams and that is why any products of scarcity and desired things go up. You know, I can't analyze myself but I think I'm too nice to people, I have seen many people like you and I was just like you once before. Any problems I see and carry with my own, must belongs to another. The one thing I've learned is that I can't change people for what they believe, no matter what I say to them they will always be themselves, unless the one is determined to accept whatever is out there and think for himself. So, I'm gonna leave you with this, please do not bother to reply because I know what you are going to say :). Probably many insults flavoured with F words.