4 ms·
> We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works. Maybe we could work on tha
by rvense 6y ago
> We live in a capitalist society. You reduce demand by increasing costs. The rich are the least affected. That's just how it works.
Maybe we could work on that somehow, seeing as how the rich you are, the bigger your environmental footprint tends to. Someone who's spending all the money on food vs. someone who has to try really, really hard to spend all their money.
Anecdote: a few years ago, I was talking about summer holidays with my boss - I was going by coach to Berlin; he was taking his family to Japan to ski and would be going by helicopter daily from his hotel to the better, remote slopes. Maybe a 50% carbon tax would've meant I stayed at home entirely, but he wasn't the type to worry about money at all, so... yeah.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoOf course, if the proceeds of the carbon tax were distributed back to the populace, and if you stayed home and your boss flew his helicopter, the extra money he spent would end up in your pocket. Actually, I'm of the opinion that when the government has more money to spend on programs for citizens, society as a whole anyway, so I don't think it even matters so much what we do with the revenue (as much as some programs are certainly better than others). But, I don't like to use this argument, because I know a lot of people disagree about the benefits of government programs / wealth redistribution, and I would really really really like for addressing climate change to not be a political issue. Unless you flat-out think Climate Change is a hoax, there is no reason for us not to tax carbon.
- imtringued 6y agoI never understand this stupid focus on the rich. The rich are in the minority and they pay a lot of taxes. With a revenue neutral CO2 tax all that money would go into the hands of people with a lower CO2 foot print.