4 ms·

Carbon fee _and dividend_ is the obvious response to all that.

twblalock 8y ago
I don’t see how it’s obvious, especially since it has never been implemented outside of a small scheme in Canada where the dividend goes to businesses rather than households.
- mlinksva 8y ago
  All the more reason to implement a large scheme that returns everything to individuals, like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-flake-introduce-landmark-bipartisan-legislation-to-put-money-in-the-pockets-of-working-families-by-pricing-carbon-pollution https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-co... On how it's obvious response to: > inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment On the first and third (and I guess second, depending what you mean by it), it's clearly progressive, see https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bipartisan-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-compares-other-carbon-tax-proposals https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bi... and on the fourth, when has there been populist backlash against sending all citizens checks, even when it is a gimmick (as in the case of various last minute rebates, IIRC)?
roenxi 8y ago
Money is a really handy system for dividing up resources amongst people who don't have time to track what all their peers are up to. But it doesn't magically call resources into being, we need some sort of link to the physical world to do that. People use fossil fuels for everything - travel, access to goods that need to be transported, access to products that require electricity to fabricate (eg, aluminium). If less fossil fuels are used, then it seems highly likely there will be less stuff to distribute. I'd be surprised if the very wealthy consume enough that they can be made to absorb the real burden, because most wealth is stored in things like paper investments or non-consumer goods. If there are less goods and there isn't a target that can have their goods reallocated, then someone is going to have to do without and they will be furious. Giving them a "dividend" when there is nothing for them to buy is unlikely to help matters.
- skybrian 8y ago
  If shipping costs more, companies will make different choices about how to manufacture and ship stuff. A simple example might be opening more local bottling plants rather than shipping water for long distances. So it's not that there will be nothing to buy. The product mix will be different, some prices will be a bit higher based on how much shipping they use, and customers will make different choices, but the effects are likely to be subtle and counterintuitive because supply chains are complicated.

I don’t see how it’s obvious, especially since it has never been implemented outside of a small scheme in Canada where the dividend goes to businesses rather than households.

mlinksva 8y ago
All the more reason to implement a large scheme that returns everything to individuals, like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-flake-introduce-landmark-bipartisan-legislation-to-put-money-in-the-pockets-of-working-families-by-pricing-carbon-pollution https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-co... On how it's obvious response to: > inequality, economic justice, the cost of living, and populist anti-establishment sentiment On the first and third (and I guess second, depending what you mean by it), it's clearly progressive, see https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bipartisan-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-compares-other-carbon-tax-proposals https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-bi... and on the fourth, when has there been populist backlash against sending all citizens checks, even when it is a gimmick (as in the case of various last minute rebates, IIRC)?

roenxi 8y ago

Money is a really handy system for dividing up resources amongst people who don't have time to track what all their peers are up to. But it doesn't magically call resources into being, we need some sort of link to the physical world to do that. People use fossil fuels for everything - travel, access to goods that need to be transported, access to products that require electricity to fabricate (eg, aluminium). If less fossil fuels are used, then it seems highly likely there will be less stuff to distribute. I'd be surprised if the very wealthy consume enough that they can be made to absorb the real burden, because most wealth is stored in things like paper investments or non-consumer goods. If there are less goods and there isn't a target that can have their goods reallocated, then someone is going to have to do without and they will be furious. Giving them a "dividend" when there is nothing for them to buy is unlikely to help matters.

skybrian 8y ago
If shipping costs more, companies will make different choices about how to manufacture and ship stuff. A simple example might be opening more local bottling plants rather than shipping water for long distances. So it's not that there will be nothing to buy. The product mix will be different, some prices will be a bit higher based on how much shipping they use, and customers will make different choices, but the effects are likely to be subtle and counterintuitive because supply chains are complicated.