48 ms·
As far as I'm aware there's a good reason why the carbon tax in washington failed: They didn't implement a mechanism to give back the money to citizens. However
by hannob 7y ago
As far as I'm aware there's a good reason why the carbon tax in washington failed: They didn't implement a mechanism to give back the money to citizens. However this is a key part of what many believe a carbon tax should contain, so it doesn't look like a "government wants more money" scheme.
Most carbon tax schemes proposed by economists explicitly have this built in, see e.g.: https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money https://futurism.com/the-byte/carbon-tax-give-citizens-money
- acidburnNSA 7y agoI-732 was the first attempt, designed by some real pros and supported by James Hansen [1], who tends to agree with your assertion that revenue neutral approaches are the only way to navigate the politics. It got weird and lost support from prominent organizations related to not being inclusive enough in its design... or something. The more inclusive follow-initiative (I-1631) was worse from a neutrality perspective and lost. [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-climate-change-by-passing-i-732/ https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/washington-can-lead-on-...