4 ms·
Not if the tax revenues get distributed back as a carbon dividend - then the only people against it are heavy polluters who lose out. (And since emissions are
by MagnumOpus 8y ago
Not if the tax revenues get distributed back as a carbon dividend - then the only people against it are heavy polluters who lose out.
(And since emissions are not distributed linearly, the losers from a cost-neutral carbon-tax with per-capita-dividend will always be a minority.)
- moduspol 8y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding, but: From what I'm being told, fundamental changes need to occur in our consumption to have a measurable impact on climate change. That won't happen with normal people continuing to consume at the same rates they have. Could a carbon tax be designed such that normal people are effectively reimbursed and heavy emitters pay more? Yes. But you're not going to measurably impact climate change without somehow incentivizing people to use less. At some point, people need to use less, and when you force them to (through taxes or restrictions), it won't be popular politically.
- razorunreal 8y agoRedistributing money from people who use more to people who use less is an incentive to use less. It can be an arbirarily large incentive depending on how much you decide to redistribute. It's not like the money is destroyed or something.