3 ms·
The answer is, obviously, combining climate policy with populism. Tax CO2 / fuel / packaging / consumption / transport as much as you want, but spend that tax m
by tomp 7y ago
The answer is, obviously, combining climate policy with populism. Tax CO2 / fuel / packaging / consumption / transport as much as you want, but spend that tax money on a UBI-like benefit. That by definition helps lowest earners the most, plus makes sure the government doesn’t waste the money.
- ken 7y agoThat only works within one jurisdiction. What about when the rich/poor divide are not constituents of one government, but the average citizens in two different countries? The U.S. couldn't even ratify Kyoto, and that only required (AFAICT) monetary payments for climate technology, not UBI. I can't imagine any scenario in my lifetime in which the U.S. Congress would approve a treaty which required UBI payments to people in developing countries. As a human, I think that's an interesting idea that deserves serious consideration. As a citizen of a developed country whose government can't even agree to provide healthcare for its own people, I think it has no chance.