4 ms·

That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.23

That’s a great point, and a carbon dividend is probably the most politically palatable climate policy in the west right now. If you look at one proposal, HR.2307 in the US, it says that it will introduce a $20/ton of CO2 price, which will step up by $10 per ton every year. This means that 1 gallon of gas would have an additional tax of $0.18, stepping up by $0.09 every year. Not too terrible, but any rise in the price of gas is met with hostility in the US just because many people are reliant on cars as their only source of transportation. If the bill does attract enough support and goes to the floor, it will attract media attention. And since most media attention focuses on the most tangible immediate implications for most adults, most reporting will center on the rise of gasoline prices. This will trigger strong political opposition, in unison from huge diverse ranges of the population, regardless of how much money they would get from a redistribution of the money.

alpha_squared 5y ago
With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  Right, and we also don’t have options and infrastructure because we haven’t had incentives to create it in the first place. It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Carbon pricing would fall disproportionately on the poor, as most changes to society do. But then again, the effects of climate change would also fall disproportionately on the poor. What’s going to be worse?
  - Cycl0ps 5y ago
    If I'm understanding the numbers in this thread, wouldn't the idea that the carbon tax funds some UBI program mean that poor families would see a net benefit. Taking the numbers from parent posts and assuming a Google search saying the US puts out 5bn tons of CO2 a year is right, each person would be looking at around $250/year. With an additional 19¢/gal that UBI would cover the tax of 1'300 gallons of gas. Unless you travel 40'000+ miles a year it should be a net positive there. Entirely back of the napkin of course, other costs will skew the numbers. But so long as we have both the tax and the redistribution in place it should balance year over year.
    - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
      Those are good calculations. The bill says people will get monthly payments, so cash flow will be a small issue for most people. I think the biggest issue will be manufactured opposition. The green new deal had majority conservative support until Fox News lambasted it down to 35% support [1], and if conservative outlets pound on gas prices going up, carbon dividends will face stiff opposition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Environmental_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mo...

alpha_squared 5y ago

With an increase of working from home for white-collar jobs, this means that those who drive the most will have their fuel costs increased. They'll typically be commuters and delivery vehicles (e.g. trucks, retail). While some of those may make a comfortable income for their locale, a sizeable portion likely don't. A tax like this is then borne largely by the economically disadvantaged. I'd support a tax like this if there were greener options with similar or cheaper cost to use for the riders (e.g. rail, busses). Unfortunately, the infrastructure just isn't there yet for a vast majority of the US.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Right, and we also don’t have options and infrastructure because we haven’t had incentives to create it in the first place. It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Carbon pricing would fall disproportionately on the poor, as most changes to society do. But then again, the effects of climate change would also fall disproportionately on the poor. What’s going to be worse?
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  If I'm understanding the numbers in this thread, wouldn't the idea that the carbon tax funds some UBI program mean that poor families would see a net benefit. Taking the numbers from parent posts and assuming a Google search saying the US puts out 5bn tons of CO2 a year is right, each person would be looking at around $250/year. With an additional 19¢/gal that UBI would cover the tax of 1'300 gallons of gas. Unless you travel 40'000+ miles a year it should be a net positive there. Entirely back of the napkin of course, other costs will skew the numbers. But so long as we have both the tax and the redistribution in place it should balance year over year.
  - vegetablepotpie 5y ago
    Those are good calculations. The bill says people will get monthly payments, so cash flow will be a small issue for most people. I think the biggest issue will be manufactured opposition. The green new deal had majority conservative support until Fox News lambasted it down to 35% support [1], and if conservative outlets pound on gas prices going up, carbon dividends will face stiff opposition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Environmental_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_New_Deal&mo...