3 ms·

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, e

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
The idea is that people on the lower end of the economic spectrum are compensated with the taxes on the higher end/businesses which are emitting the most.

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

The idea is that people on the lower end of the economic spectrum are compensated with the taxes on the higher end/businesses which are emitting the most.