5 ms·

I don't think you'd see as much resistance to such a tax if it was dollar for dollar paired with a reduction in other taxes. This has two benefits: 1) In the a

I don't think you'd see as much resistance to such a tax if it was dollar for dollar paired with a reduction in other taxes. This has two benefits: 1) In the absence of this pairing it just looks like a government-growing cash grab to a segment of the population. 2) People who aren't even convinced of the dangers of AGW can still support it.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
That's pretty much what got introduced in Canada this spring. Well, it's a rebate rather than a tax reduction. But there's massive opposition. There seem to be two main arguments: 1. The tax is too small to make any real difference, so we might as well scrap it. (I don't understand this one either, and it's only true for current levels, the tax is supposed to increase every year.) 2. China and the States aren't anything, so anything we do is meaningless and just disadvantages us. (The answer to this argument is Nobel prize winning Bill Nordhaus's carbon club proposal) It looks like the carbon tax opposing conservatives are going to win the election in October. It'll be a shameful time to be a Canadian. We have the highest CO2 emissions per capita and most of the country won't be doing anything about it.
- Pxtl 7y ago
  I cant help but notice the casecade of downvotes these simple, factual comments are getting.
  - awinder 7y ago
    The article actually explores this very fact — that small nudge legislation becomes much more popular without proportionally dealing with the problem. This inevitably leads to higher long term costs
- lozenge 7y ago
  Well, this shows why democracies can't fix climate change. In Canada's case, there won't be a free lunch, as many people need to heat their homes much of the year. If the tax becomes large enough to make a real difference to how people live, then there would be enough public support to scrap it, or at the very least freeze any increases. That means it'll only work if technology advances fast enough that we can lower our emissions enough to meet climate goals without compromising quality of life. But that would be a reduction of over 10% a year, every year. Yeah, that's what "limiting to 2C" would actually mean. http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/radical-emissions-reductions-1-kevin.html http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/radical-emissions-redu... Trudeau has also supported the oil industry at every turn. The extraction and burning of the remaining oil in Canada is itself more than Canada's fair share of global emissions to limit heating to 2C. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/08/news/tar-sands-vs-canadas-safe-carbon-budget https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/08/news/tar-sands-v... As for the carbon club, existing agreements like NAFTA stand in the way of creating a carbon-pricing trade bloc. The most plausible place for it to start would be the EU after the UK leaves, but even then, I doubt there will be any politicians fighting for it - for similar reasons as for Canada.
Pxtl 7y ago
Nope. Come to Canada, the arranged a full rebate of the tax money as a flat rebate, and they conservatives are screaming about it and gaining power.
- ttul 7y ago
  In BC, it was a somewhat slightly to the right of centre party that introduced North America’s first carbon tax. It was designed to return all tax revenues in the form of income tax reductions. The tax was really popular and has achieved substantially good results. BC’s tax was gradually introduced, starting at a low rate. Also, the government of the time gave rural and low income people a large credit right away. I was poor at the time on account of being a startup founder (LoL) and I recall getting hundreds of dollars in the mail very soon after the tax launched.
shaki-dora 7y ago
I wish I had your optimism. I'm almost certain that even a revenue-neutral bill would be presented as a tax increase in the right-wing media. And, of course, even something that is revenue-neutral overall will have some winners and losers: SUV owners will pay more than those commuting with public transport. Poorly isolated single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc.
- Pxtl 7y ago
  You don't have to guess, that's happening right now in Canada. A conservative leadership candidate (Michael Chong) was practically laughed off the stage in a leadership race for pushing a carbon-taxes-fund-income-tax-cut platform. Centrist provincial governments are falling like dominoes to conservatives who promise to fight against the federal carbon tax and have functionally no plans to fight climate change. And this is liberal, polite, progressive Canada, doing a case-study in how Conservatives fight against even the most conservative of carbon pricing policies.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > SUV owners will pay more than those commuting with public transport. Poorly [insulated] single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc. Those all sound like excellent outcomes in terms of linking behavior to carbon emissions via a price-signaling mechanism. Logically, it's impossible to simultaneously incentivize people to emit less and not have the current high emitters feel some incentive to change. (Edit: removed one extraneous negation in the last sentence.)
- learc83 7y ago
  >Poorly isolated single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc. In general it takes more energy to live in colder climates than warmer ones. So a better comparison would probably be a large house up north vs a small apartment down south.
- knowaveragejoe 7y ago

bryanlarsen 7y ago

That's pretty much what got introduced in Canada this spring. Well, it's a rebate rather than a tax reduction. But there's massive opposition. There seem to be two main arguments: 1. The tax is too small to make any real difference, so we might as well scrap it. (I don't understand this one either, and it's only true for current levels, the tax is supposed to increase every year.) 2. China and the States aren't anything, so anything we do is meaningless and just disadvantages us. (The answer to this argument is Nobel prize winning Bill Nordhaus's carbon club proposal) It looks like the carbon tax opposing conservatives are going to win the election in October. It'll be a shameful time to be a Canadian. We have the highest CO2 emissions per capita and most of the country won't be doing anything about it.

Pxtl 7y ago
I cant help but notice the casecade of downvotes these simple, factual comments are getting.
- awinder 7y ago
  The article actually explores this very fact — that small nudge legislation becomes much more popular without proportionally dealing with the problem. This inevitably leads to higher long term costs
lozenge 7y ago
Well, this shows why democracies can't fix climate change. In Canada's case, there won't be a free lunch, as many people need to heat their homes much of the year. If the tax becomes large enough to make a real difference to how people live, then there would be enough public support to scrap it, or at the very least freeze any increases. That means it'll only work if technology advances fast enough that we can lower our emissions enough to meet climate goals without compromising quality of life. But that would be a reduction of over 10% a year, every year. Yeah, that's what "limiting to 2C" would actually mean. http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/radical-emissions-reductions-1-kevin.html http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/radical-emissions-redu... Trudeau has also supported the oil industry at every turn. The extraction and burning of the remaining oil in Canada is itself more than Canada's fair share of global emissions to limit heating to 2C. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/08/news/tar-sands-vs-canadas-safe-carbon-budget https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/08/news/tar-sands-v... As for the carbon club, existing agreements like NAFTA stand in the way of creating a carbon-pricing trade bloc. The most plausible place for it to start would be the EU after the UK leaves, but even then, I doubt there will be any politicians fighting for it - for similar reasons as for Canada.

Pxtl 7y ago

Nope. Come to Canada, the arranged a full rebate of the tax money as a flat rebate, and they conservatives are screaming about it and gaining power.

ttul 7y ago
In BC, it was a somewhat slightly to the right of centre party that introduced North America’s first carbon tax. It was designed to return all tax revenues in the form of income tax reductions. The tax was really popular and has achieved substantially good results. BC’s tax was gradually introduced, starting at a low rate. Also, the government of the time gave rural and low income people a large credit right away. I was poor at the time on account of being a startup founder (LoL) and I recall getting hundreds of dollars in the mail very soon after the tax launched.

shaki-dora 7y ago

I wish I had your optimism. I'm almost certain that even a revenue-neutral bill would be presented as a tax increase in the right-wing media. And, of course, even something that is revenue-neutral overall will have some winners and losers: SUV owners will pay more than those commuting with public transport. Poorly isolated single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc.

Pxtl 7y ago
You don't have to guess, that's happening right now in Canada. A conservative leadership candidate (Michael Chong) was practically laughed off the stage in a leadership race for pushing a carbon-taxes-fund-income-tax-cut platform. Centrist provincial governments are falling like dominoes to conservatives who promise to fight against the federal carbon tax and have functionally no plans to fight climate change. And this is liberal, polite, progressive Canada, doing a case-study in how Conservatives fight against even the most conservative of carbon pricing policies.
sokoloff 7y ago
> SUV owners will pay more than those commuting with public transport. Poorly [insulated] single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc. Those all sound like excellent outcomes in terms of linking behavior to carbon emissions via a price-signaling mechanism. Logically, it's impossible to simultaneously incentivize people to emit less and not have the current high emitters feel some incentive to change. (Edit: removed one extraneous negation in the last sentence.)
learc83 7y ago
>Poorly isolated single-family homes in the south relying on air conditioning through the summer will be more expensive compared to flats in northern brick houses, etc. In general it takes more energy to live in colder climates than warmer ones. So a better comparison would probably be a large house up north vs a small apartment down south.
knowaveragejoe 7y ago