2 ms·

I agree. I don't think you should do anything. The point is to create an economic incentive, not a short term tax for the hell of a tax and then undo the incent

I agree. I don't think you should do anything. The point is to create an economic incentive, not a short term tax for the hell of a tax and then undo the incentive with various patches. Yes right out of the gate, it will make things more expensive across the board. However, the point isn't to decrease everyone's use of energy in and of itself. It's to get the companies to respond to their decreased revenue with greener alternatives. The decreased use by the population would help and you could make the argument that the wealthier demographic uses more energy than the poor so the taxation would be fairly distributed.

socialist_coder 7y ago
> It's to get the companies to respond to their decreased revenue with greener alternatives. They don't have decreased revenue though. They pass the taxes through to the consumer, and the consumer behavior doesn't change because you're taxing a necessity of life. Like another reply said, their power company gives them the option of choosing "green" energy. Most consumers cannot do that. If there is actually a choice, then raising prices on one of the choices would affect consumer behavior. But for the vast majority of people, they can't choose between green energy or fossil fuel based energy. No choice = doesn't matter what prices do.
- Aunche 7y ago
  > They pass the taxes through to the consumer, and the consumer behavior doesn't change because you're taxing a necessity of life. If we're talking about taxing coal in rural India, you're right, but the bulk of the industrialized world will certainly be motivated to make changes. People will eat less beef, and more legumes, for example.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    > People will eat less beef, and more legumes, for example. Citation needed. Some people take it as a point of pride they eat no greens. I think you're sorely underestimating how much they value eating meat all the time.

socialist_coder 7y ago

> It's to get the companies to respond to their decreased revenue with greener alternatives. They don't have decreased revenue though. They pass the taxes through to the consumer, and the consumer behavior doesn't change because you're taxing a necessity of life. Like another reply said, their power company gives them the option of choosing "green" energy. Most consumers cannot do that. If there is actually a choice, then raising prices on one of the choices would affect consumer behavior. But for the vast majority of people, they can't choose between green energy or fossil fuel based energy. No choice = doesn't matter what prices do.

Aunche 7y ago
> They pass the taxes through to the consumer, and the consumer behavior doesn't change because you're taxing a necessity of life. If we're talking about taxing coal in rural India, you're right, but the bulk of the industrialized world will certainly be motivated to make changes. People will eat less beef, and more legumes, for example.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > People will eat less beef, and more legumes, for example. Citation needed. Some people take it as a point of pride they eat no greens. I think you're sorely underestimating how much they value eating meat all the time.