5 ms·
A better version of this is a source fuels tax, that applies to all carbon-emitting fuels in proportion to the carbon they emit. This would impact flights, driv
by Empact 7y ago
A better version of this is a source fuels tax, that applies to all carbon-emitting fuels in proportion to the carbon they emit. This would impact flights, driving, and industrial processes in a manner consistent with their environmental impact.
The problem with that is that while it does fall primarily on the rich, as they consume and therefore pollute more, it falls also on the poor and middle class, and as we’ve seen in France, this can be the basis for substantial political opposition, which if nothing else will act against our ability to price the pollution effectively.
The solution for this is to return the source fuels tax funds to the people, such that the tax is revenue neutral. The carbon dividend leaves lower income and less pollutive people better off financially, in addition to everyone being better off environmentally and health-wise, providing a natural basis for the survival of the carbon tax.
This is the approach the Citizen’s Climate Lobby is fighting for:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
https://energyinnovationact.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/
It has the support of Presidential candidates including Booker and Buttigieg:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-change-carbon-tax/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/2020-candidates-climate-cha...
- dexterdog 7y agoIf you tax the fuel there is no incentive to burn them cleanly, only efficiently.
- eanzenberg 7y agoWhy’s that a problem? Use the tax money to offset the CO2, plant trees in subsahara africa and other areas that would benefit.
- DangitBobby 7y agoBut before (and after) the trees re-uptake the carbon, the poisonous parts from dirty emissions are still harming people, animals, and other life.
- llampx 7y agoCarrot and stick. Just like today, have CARB and EPA to make sure the fuels are being burned cleanly.
- WalterBright 7y agoBurning fuel cleanly still emits the exact same amount of carbon.
- alexgmcm 7y agoBut I guess you could have outlet filters to try to scrub the exhaust?
- WalterBright 7y agoI don't know of any technology that can do that and be fitted to a car/airplane.
- sergiosgc 7y agoYou could scrub CO2 on the ground to counter the emissions on the plane/car. Fixed plants are certainly more efficient than mobile units.
- tomp 7y agoNo, the point is that different chemicals have different impact on the atmosphere (e.g. CO2, CH4 (emitted by cows), NOx (emitted by diesel cars and coal burning), ...)
- adrianN 7y agoA tax for the sources is a great idea, but you also have to take into account where they are burnt. Flying is especially bad because the emissions are generated high in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is worse by a factor two or three compared to ground level emissions.
- im3w1l 7y agoFor how long? Eventually the air should mix?
- adrianN 7y agoBy googling you probably find better answers than mine, but afaik the problem is that many GHG compounds that decay rapidly at ground level (e.g. NOx) live longer at airplane heights and the clouds that precipitate around exhaust particles also have a warming effect.
- WA 7y agoWhat do lower income people do with the carbon dividends? Save? Or spend on more carbon-emissions (like flying)?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWhatever they like. For the most part I would imagine the majority of a carbon dividend would go on making their lives less marginal. Maybe a nicer home near a decent school, better appliances, or clothes. Maybe some savings. Once they have, perhaps they will look to accumulate more emissions like their more wealthy peers. So long as the nett overall emissions are down and decreasing it matters little. You ensure that by setting the rate of the carbon tax high enough. Perhaps an accumulating rate.
- WalterBright 7y agoEven easier, just reduce the sales tax by the amount of revenue the carbon tax generates.
- jdnenej 7y agoThis seems correct, the average person ends up neutral in terms of tax but they are able to get ahead by choosing less damaging options.