3 ms·

You can mitigate the regressive nature of the tax by making the carbon tax "revenue neutral" and funnelling the revenues of the tax completely into credits and

You can mitigate the regressive nature of the tax by making the carbon tax "revenue neutral" and funnelling the revenues of the tax completely into credits and tax cuts for those most impacted, which includes low income persons. British Columbia's carbon tax is claimed to be revenue neutral though I've noticed some criticism about the balance of resulting tax cuts. Other carbon tax jurisdictions such as Alberta are taking a different approach and are using revenues on green projects.

twblalock 10y ago
Or, even better, you could use the money from the tax to build decent public transit so fewer people need to drive to work. This would enable to poor to avoid the tax by driving less. If you don't build transit, people will have no choice but to drive just as much as they did before the tax was implemented, so the tax will have a minimal effect on vehicle emissions. Sure, people will cut back on non-required trips, but the vast majority of driving people do is commuting, and they can't stop doing that unless they have an alternative means of getting to work.
- sporkenfang 10y ago
  Exactly. I don't drive, because I don't have to, but the vast majority of people I know live so far from their sources of income (and in some cases, grocery stores etc.) that even taking public transit, if there are routes to get them from A to B, would be laughable (i.e., 3 hours on five buses versus an hour and 10 minutes in a car on one highway to go one direction).
  - twblalock 10y ago
    I've seen some divergent figures, but as far as I can tell, cars emissions are 20-30% of total US carbon emissions. The only way to reduce driving significantly is to create useful public transit, so any carbon tax scheme that does not increase funding for public transit is just going to take money from peoples' pockets without giving them a realistic way to avoid it -- and as other posters have noted, it will disproportionately harm the poor. This could make carbon taxes so politically unpopular that they will be repealed, and new ones will not be created. That could be pretty bad for the environment.

twblalock 10y ago

Or, even better, you could use the money from the tax to build decent public transit so fewer people need to drive to work. This would enable to poor to avoid the tax by driving less. If you don't build transit, people will have no choice but to drive just as much as they did before the tax was implemented, so the tax will have a minimal effect on vehicle emissions. Sure, people will cut back on non-required trips, but the vast majority of driving people do is commuting, and they can't stop doing that unless they have an alternative means of getting to work.

sporkenfang 10y ago
Exactly. I don't drive, because I don't have to, but the vast majority of people I know live so far from their sources of income (and in some cases, grocery stores etc.) that even taking public transit, if there are routes to get them from A to B, would be laughable (i.e., 3 hours on five buses versus an hour and 10 minutes in a car on one highway to go one direction).
- twblalock 10y ago
  I've seen some divergent figures, but as far as I can tell, cars emissions are 20-30% of total US carbon emissions. The only way to reduce driving significantly is to create useful public transit, so any carbon tax scheme that does not increase funding for public transit is just going to take money from peoples' pockets without giving them a realistic way to avoid it -- and as other posters have noted, it will disproportionately harm the poor. This could make carbon taxes so politically unpopular that they will be repealed, and new ones will not be created. That could be pretty bad for the environment.