4 ms·
It's literally economics 101: externalities, but for some crazy reason in the US it's seen as a leftist anti-capitalist issue.
by gbrown 7y ago
It's literally economics 101: externalities, but for some crazy reason in the US it's seen as a leftist anti-capitalist issue.
- nightski 7y agoBecause you are acting like this would punish the company. It might to an extent but in reality consumers would hurt the most. That in my opinion is why it doesn't happen.
- omosubi 7y agoThe tyranny of the majority :/
- jeromegv 7y agoNot as much when the carbon tax is tax-neutral. In Canada we started getting back a carbon tax credit. Consumer impact is still there but a lot more mitigated.
- ako 7y agoIt’s meant to ‘punish’ consumers: it needs to be painful enough that consumers reduce their consumption, otherwise pollution will not be reduced.
- nightski 7y agoRight but it's not going to punish consumers equally. It will hurt the poor a lot more than the rich imho. Essentially a regressive tax moving the burden for the climate change problem to the poor.
- eanzenberg 7y agoBecause reducing US emissions to 0 will have no effect on global warming.
- icebraining 7y agoReducing emissions by 14% will have no impact? I doubt that very much. And that's just direct emissions; the emissions of other countries can often be attributed to supplying to the US.