Every molecule of CO2 produced goes into a good that consumers purchase.
I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint.
>[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced.
Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay more for it.
For example, carbon free airlines are technically feasible today but Dead on Arrival because no one will pay for the ticket.
Regulations can have an impact, but the only reason they work is because they take the option to buy cheap and dirty products away from Consumers.
Like I said above, cap-and-trade is a simple solution but consumers don't want it because they know prices will get past along. 1 million little Industrial regulations will also pass the costs along, but consumers are more okay with them because they erroneously think the cost won't be passed to them. They have a downside that bad are rarely logical and have unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences.
> I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint.
Nope, because they have no control over the products that are available, how they are produced and most likely cannot afford to pay more.
> Consumers have 100% of the power.
No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford, unlike infinite growth corporations who are trying to avoid profit loss.
Alas, I can see you've already made up your mind about this.
>No, 0%. They have _NO_ vote on how industry does what it does. Industry is not a democracy. They cannot just not buy food and electricity. That's stupid. They have to buy the things they can afford. The working class doesn't just have extra cash laying around, they buy what they can afford..
There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way.
I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.
> I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.
That's a misconception spread by the anti-tax crowd. The seller can take the increased cost out of their own profits or they can try to pass it along as an increased the price, but they can't just demand that people buy their product at the higher price.
First, in this respect, there is no difference between regulatory costs and other costs (e.g., raw materials); it's just costs. Second, goods are generally already priced to maximize profit (profit each x items sold), and not based on cost (e.g., not 'cost + 50%'); increasing prices (the first factor) causes the quantity of sales (the second factor) to drop. The ability to increase prices without sacrificing profits depends on the price elasticity of the item: if you have the only well in a desert, you can charge what you want for water; if it is 100 yards from a clear, running river, your ability to increase prices is limited.
For example, it might cost Coca-Cola to 2 cents to make a liter of Coke and they might charge $2. If regulations increase the cost to 10 cents, will they now charge $2.10? No, they chose $2 as the price that generates maximum revenue; that doesn't change with the increased cost. They likely eat the cost themselves.
I agree that that phenomenon happens, but think it's the exception and not the rule. This is especially the case in energy markets which often have legally fixed profit margins. If you take something like electricity in California, profits are legally fixed and cost well assuredly be passed to the customer. It's also true in highly competitive markets like Airlines, the example I used earlier, where profit margins are low.
> There are options to buy low carbon, and nobody does. People can vote with their wallets or they can vote at the ballot box. They will pay the increased cost either way.
I already addressed this twice, but let's do it a third time. People don't "vote" with their wallets. That's nonsense and not democracy because the "votes" aren't distributed remotely equally. Most people don't have margins to make these choices easily, as I already said... and are also being fed manipulative advertisements and propaganda, as I already said.
> I think you are in error if you think that somehow making the change with regulations means the cost wont be passed to consumers.
I would argue that corporations have zero carbon footprint and consumers have 100% of the carbon footprint.
>[consumers] have no power over how such things are produced.
Consumers have 100% of the power. If they dont purchase a good, it wont be produced. The whole reason Industries dont move away from carbon is because consumers refuse to pay more for it.
For example, carbon free airlines are technically feasible today but Dead on Arrival because no one will pay for the ticket.
Regulations can have an impact, but the only reason they work is because they take the option to buy cheap and dirty products away from Consumers.
Like I said above, cap-and-trade is a simple solution but consumers don't want it because they know prices will get past along. 1 million little Industrial regulations will also pass the costs along, but consumers are more okay with them because they erroneously think the cost won't be passed to them. They have a downside that bad are rarely logical and have unintended and sometimes counterproductive consequences.