4 ms·

It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral

It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. Pay for taking CO2 out of the air at the same rate as the tax and let American ingenuity do the rest. Even the oil companies are not against a CO2 tax if you bring it on slowly. Seems like if Congress could just ignore the crazies on either side for a bit, most people would agree this the best way forward to reduce CO2 emissions working with the strengths of American culture instead of going against it.

martythemaniak 8y ago
Well, this is what a number of jurisdictions are doing, or have already done. Canada is doing pretty much exactly this - implement $12/ton in 2019, ramp it up gradually through the 2020s. 90% of tax revenues are refunded directly back to taxpayers. The problem of course is... it's a tax. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, if it is revenue neutral etc etc. Someone will just start yelling about elites robbing the people. I guess you can see how it plays out in Canada. Not only is the tax slated to be imposed this year, but there is a federal election in the fall.
3pt14159 8y ago
We did that in Ontario. The problem is that the people that care about environmentalism cluster in cities and our votes get wasted because it's a fight between centre-left and left. Out in the suburbs it's people with giant houses, giant trucks, and wasteful thermal choices (gotta cheap out and save that $$$ to buy a bigger house!) so they get nailed by the costs. The difference is fucking comical. My utility bill was $40 (including heat!) the same month it was $420 for someone I know out in the sticks. So now we have an idiot in charge. Deceased crack mayor Rob Ford's brother. It's a nightmare. People want the very lifestyle that needs to end.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. As long as it's revenue neutral it doesn't even need to be ramped up, it can start at 100%. If you're suddenly paying an extra $500/month in carbon tax but at the same time you're getting the same $500/month back in lower taxes or higher EITC etc., nothing immediately changes unless you make different choices -- and then you pay less. Then the "ramp up" is automatic, not because the amount of the tax increases over time, but because the amount of carbon being burned (and therefore taxed) goes down which makes "revenue neutral" result in a smaller "refund" payment. You buy an electric car and receive $500/month, but as more people buy electric cars, the amount you receive drops to $400/month, then $300 etc. The amount relative to a traditional vehicle never changes -- by the time you're receiving $300 with an electric car while paying nothing, the person with a gasoline car is also receiving $300 but is still paying $500, so "stop burning oil" is always $500/month ahead of continuing the status quo, whether it's $0 vs. $500 or -$200 vs. $300.
hackeraccount 8y ago
I'm in favor of this idea though the tricky part is how you figure out which taxes to lower to make it revenue neutral. I tend to think of politics as "Help my friends/Hurt my enemies" and the important thing to realize is that no one really thinks that a carbon tax helps them. Not even the lefty leftiest greenies believe that. They think a carbon tax might hurt their enemies so they're accepting of it to some limited degree but they don't really believe it will help them. If they did they wouldn't care what taxes would get cut or how the revenue would be spent. Instead they're super interested in how the money would be spent or who's taxes would be cut. They're also interested in the least broad version of carbon tax for the same reasons. I think theirs a political agenda on the Left and they view climate change as magic that will let them have their way. The same way the Right sees religious imperatives. Or national defense. It's a view that assumes the other side are all idiots. It won't work.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Yea. My thinking on it is that you would just mark it for paying to sequester CO2 at the tax rate and any leftover goes as a straight per adult tax credit (i.e. you can lower the tax you pay with it).

martythemaniak 8y ago

Well, this is what a number of jurisdictions are doing, or have already done. Canada is doing pretty much exactly this - implement $12/ton in 2019, ramp it up gradually through the 2020s. 90% of tax revenues are refunded directly back to taxpayers. The problem of course is... it's a tax. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, if it is revenue neutral etc etc. Someone will just start yelling about elites robbing the people. I guess you can see how it plays out in Canada. Not only is the tax slated to be imposed this year, but there is a federal election in the fall.

3pt14159 8y ago

We did that in Ontario. The problem is that the people that care about environmentalism cluster in cities and our votes get wasted because it's a fight between centre-left and left. Out in the suburbs it's people with giant houses, giant trucks, and wasteful thermal choices (gotta cheap out and save that $$$ to buy a bigger house!) so they get nailed by the costs. The difference is fucking comical. My utility bill was $40 (including heat!) the same month it was $420 for someone I know out in the sticks. So now we have an idiot in charge. Deceased crack mayor Rob Ford's brother. It's a nightmare. People want the very lifestyle that needs to end.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> It is really too bad we can't implement a revenue neutral carbon dioxide tax. Start at a low level and gradually ramp it up until we are carbon dioxide neutral or a bit negative. As long as it's revenue neutral it doesn't even need to be ramped up, it can start at 100%. If you're suddenly paying an extra $500/month in carbon tax but at the same time you're getting the same $500/month back in lower taxes or higher EITC etc., nothing immediately changes unless you make different choices -- and then you pay less. Then the "ramp up" is automatic, not because the amount of the tax increases over time, but because the amount of carbon being burned (and therefore taxed) goes down which makes "revenue neutral" result in a smaller "refund" payment. You buy an electric car and receive $500/month, but as more people buy electric cars, the amount you receive drops to $400/month, then $300 etc. The amount relative to a traditional vehicle never changes -- by the time you're receiving $300 with an electric car while paying nothing, the person with a gasoline car is also receiving $300 but is still paying $500, so "stop burning oil" is always $500/month ahead of continuing the status quo, whether it's $0 vs. $500 or -$200 vs. $300.

hackeraccount 8y ago

I'm in favor of this idea though the tricky part is how you figure out which taxes to lower to make it revenue neutral. I tend to think of politics as "Help my friends/Hurt my enemies" and the important thing to realize is that no one really thinks that a carbon tax helps them. Not even the lefty leftiest greenies believe that. They think a carbon tax might hurt their enemies so they're accepting of it to some limited degree but they don't really believe it will help them. If they did they wouldn't care what taxes would get cut or how the revenue would be spent. Instead they're super interested in how the money would be spent or who's taxes would be cut. They're also interested in the least broad version of carbon tax for the same reasons. I think theirs a political agenda on the Left and they view climate change as magic that will let them have their way. The same way the Right sees religious imperatives. Or national defense. It's a view that assumes the other side are all idiots. It won't work.

njarboe 8y ago
Yea. My thinking on it is that you would just mark it for paying to sequester CO2 at the tax rate and any leftover goes as a straight per adult tax credit (i.e. you can lower the tax you pay with it).