4 ms·
>My idea is to have a huge fuel tax, but to return it to each citizen in equal amounts, not use it for general purposes, so that people who really need to burn
by forcry 5y ago
>My idea is to have a huge fuel tax, but to return it to each citizen in equal amounts, not use it for general purposes, so that people who really need to burn a lot of fuel can, but those who don't are incentivized not to.
Interesting. Have you described it in detail somewhere?
- 2arrs2ells 5y agoThis general idea is called a revenue neutral carbon tax: ex https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-climate-policy/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-c...
- perl4ever 5y agoBut people seem negative on it recently, and I'm not sure why. I don't see any feasible alternative and I'm getting cognitive dissonance from people who are getting more vocal about climate change being an emergency and aren't pushing this.
- rfrey 5y agoThe notion of a carbon tax being revenue neutral is pretty widespread, in fact I think most carbon taxes are designed that way.
- perl4ever 5y agoI'm unclear on the gap between the "notion" and the protests in France. The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend) is kind of inconsistent - it says that a revenue neutral tax is a "conservative" idea, then it has more about a "universal climate income" under "social justice". Widespread is not the same thing as generally accepted. I think I've been reading vaguely hostile stuff recently about carbon taxes from vaguely progressive sources, but I'm not sure why. I'm wondering if progressives are against it because it's considered conservative.
- rfrey 5y agoI think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications.
- perl4ever 5y ago>I think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications. I don't see how that hypothesis is compatible with regarding climate change as an existential threat. I mean, maybe it is potentially the end of the world for practical purposes, and maybe it isn't. But if it is, then concentrating on behavior modifications that are appealing to impose independently of CO2 levels seems like an expression of either a desire for human extinction or of a disbelief in the problem.
- perl4ever 5y agoIt seems to be a right wing proposal that's been around for some time. That must be why I either didn't run across it or forgot; I mostly ignore conservative media.