0
$\begingroup$

Will Carbon tax be applied to other emissions or only carbon emissions like Carbon dioxide & Carbon monoxide ? Can non-warming pollutant emissions like Chaff(Chemtrail) also be taxed under the Carbon tax ?

For reference, see Why is carbon pollution given more importance than Sulfur pollution or Nitrogen pollution ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That will be up to the people drafting the laws for carbon taxes or other forms of pollution. $\endgroup$ – Fred Oct 3 '19 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, this question is unfit for this site. It is too broad and answers will be opinion based. $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Oct 3 '19 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about political and economic measures to reduce carbon emissions, not earth science. Also, chemtrails aren't real ;-) $\endgroup$ – Semidiurnal Simon Oct 3 '19 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ Currently, in The Netherlands, people are talking about introducing nitrogen emission rights ('tax'). Whether that'll make it.... $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Oct 4 '19 at 9:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Chaff is not chemtrails, not to mention that these so called 'chemtrails' are 99.99% water $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Oct 4 '19 at 9:34
2
$\begingroup$

The recent Canadian carbon tax law is just CO2.

CO, which you asked about, is bad for people and considered a pollutant. Efforts to reduce CO have been underway for decades including carbon monoxide detectors in homes and garages and catalytic converters in cars. The target behind CO is elimination as much as possible. Being a pollutant, there's a different approach. The tax is only meant to discourage CO2 production, which isn't a pollutant, but it is a problem due to gradual build up.

Likewise, sulfur pollution, coal being a primary source, is dealt with by strict limits (in the US), and scrubbers which catch sulfur emissions have been installed in coal plants since the 1980s.

Additional greenhouse gas taxes like CH4 might eventually come to pass, but, like CO, the effort with the greehouse gas CH4 should be elimination, not taxation. It's also harder to put a number on CH4 released, which can be released by fracking seepage or cow burps primarily or by escape from thawing tundra (are we going to tax teh ground?). CO2 is easier, for example because we know how much CO2 is produced per gallon of gasoline, for example, so a tax is straight forward, but cow burps or fracking seepage could be estimated so a tax there might be possible.

But the general idea, is that, if it's preventable and a pollutant of some form, then regulation should aspire to reduce output, even strive towards elimination. CO2 is an inevitable byproduct of burning fossil fuels, so it can't be eliminated and it would be problematic to try, but it can be financially discouraged by taxation.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Fracking could be taxed or even banned, to reduce or prevent Natural gas seepage, polluting the ground water level. "Tap water on fire" may be amusing for a while, but is a total waste of limited National resources !!! $\endgroup$ – Neel Oct 4 '19 at 11:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Neel true. The ideal approach would be to reduce seepage as close to zero as possible rather than tax it, but you're right. It could be taxed. CO2 kind of has to be taxed though because it's too hard to prevent it's creation when burning fuel, though coal plants can capture carbon, but it's expensive. $\endgroup$ – userLTK Oct 4 '19 at 11:58

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.