3 ms·

100% of the carbon tax comes back as dividends to individuals. We can keep spending that money on carbon intensive products and can consume the same mix of prod

by joshe 7y ago

100% of the carbon tax comes back as dividends to individuals. We can keep spending that money on carbon intensive products and can consume the same mix of products. But because we can now spend the money on other things instead, we might find that it's worth buying the electric car instead of the gas car. People won't be forced into rapidly giving up their current patterns of life and work. It also avoids objections from conservatives about creating more governmental regulations, subsidies, complicated carbon credits, and interest groups. And like the very popular Social Security it's simple to explain. For concreteness, you would get $300 per month. That would equal the increase in prices you'd see at the gas pump, your electric bill, and in products. Change nothing and nothing in your life changes. Replace these higher priced carbon intensive products with better alternatives and you have extra money you can spend on other stuff.

kortilla 7y ago
>you would get $300 per month. That would equal the increase in prices you'd see at the gas pump, your electric bill, and in products. That doesn’t make sense though. What’s the incentive to switch to a lower carbon tax if you get all of the tax rebated to you at the end of the month? If you don’t get it all back, then it’s not equal to the price increases.
- lozenge 7y ago
  It would be $300 per month for everybody, so some people would end up less well off and others more.
- Pxtl 7y ago
  It's both carrot and stick. The average person breaks even. The green person comes out ahead. The wasteful person is in the red, and has a strong incentive to be greener. Now, a fun wrinkle is that on average, most of us are below average. Sorry, joke. What I mean is that the median output is below the average output. That's because it's not a linear curve, but a slope where the byper-wealthy have disproportionate weight. So because the median is below the average, it's also a progressive scheme in that the majority of participants will be at break-even or better.
- tomp 7y ago
  Eventually companies will start making greener products, which will also be cheaper... so you’ll be able to spend the same amount of money on more (cheeper greener) stuff... (If everyone does this, the carbon dividend would of course decrease, but by then the goal will have been reached.)

by joshe 7y ago

kortilla 7y ago

>you would get $300 per month. That would equal the increase in prices you'd see at the gas pump, your electric bill, and in products. That doesn’t make sense though. What’s the incentive to switch to a lower carbon tax if you get all of the tax rebated to you at the end of the month? If you don’t get it all back, then it’s not equal to the price increases.

lozenge 7y ago
It would be $300 per month for everybody, so some people would end up less well off and others more.
Pxtl 7y ago
It's both carrot and stick. The average person breaks even. The green person comes out ahead. The wasteful person is in the red, and has a strong incentive to be greener. Now, a fun wrinkle is that on average, most of us are below average. Sorry, joke. What I mean is that the median output is below the average output. That's because it's not a linear curve, but a slope where the byper-wealthy have disproportionate weight. So because the median is below the average, it's also a progressive scheme in that the majority of participants will be at break-even or better.
tomp 7y ago
Eventually companies will start making greener products, which will also be cheaper... so you’ll be able to spend the same amount of money on more (cheeper greener) stuff... (If everyone does this, the carbon dividend would of course decrease, but by then the goal will have been reached.)