4 ms·

This is, for better or for worse, a directly regressive tax in a way that is politically toxic.

cortesoft 5y ago
There is a really easy solution to that - tax carbon, and put 100% of the revenue into a single bucket, divide that by the number of citizens, and give each citizen that amount. This means that it is a net positive for anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon, and incentivizes everyone to use less. Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon, so it will be a net positive for them.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon..." Do you have a citation for that?
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    There are quite a few: https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce45f8e6fc https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce4... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r... https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-cent-more-than-double-the-emissions-of-the-poorest-half-of-humanity/ https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-...
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  > Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon This is not true in a world where most white-collar workers have been working from home for two years (or, increasingly, can afford Teslas), and service employees have to drive to work every day. Look, I want a carbon tax. It's good on net. But it's regressive and the people will never vote to support it. I live in deep-blue WA and even here the public rejected it.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    The gap is large enough that I doubt the shift in work habits was enough to change it. Cars are not the only major source of carbon emissions, and wealthier people have bigger houses: https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce45f8e6fc https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce4... I think you are misunderstanding the reasons why carbon taxes don't get passed. One, the ones you mention failing were NOT of the type that I am talking about (revenue neutral ones, where all of the money taken in is given right back to the citizens). If you told citizens they would be getting a check every year, I bet you a lot more would support it. In fact, I don't have to be hypothetical: They implemented a revenue neutral carbon tax in British Columbia, and after nearly a decade of being in effect, 70% of residents supported it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-carbon-tax-popular-give-the-profits-to-the-people https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-... I think you will find that like most policy decisions, it is not the average citizen who is keeping a revenue neutral carbon tax from being implemented, but large carbon polluters who lobby against it and convince citizens not to support it.
- pzo 5y ago
  This is hard to enforce. How about family that doesn't have kids vs one with 4? Each child contributes a lot to carbon emission until adulthood and after that. To be really honest families without children then should have more carbon credits.
  - adolph 5y ago
    > To be really honest families without children then should have more carbon credits. What about dead people? They are carbon negative since they are sequestering it in the grave. To be really honest murderers should have more carbon credits. Edit, in case it wasn't totally obvious, this is reductio ad absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    It wouldn't be given per family, it would be per person, so those kids would each get a share. I am not sure why that would be hard to enforce. I am not sure why you think it should be divided by family... that "family without children" was created by a family that had children... why would an adult be more worthy of their share than a kid? A kid probably uses less carbon than an adult. The whole point is that we don't have to figure out who uses more carbon or who deserves what... we tax the carbon at its source, and let the market figure out how to pass that cost along, and then pay the money directly to people. If you use less carbon than average you get more money than you pay... doesn't matter who you are or how old you are. You seem to be talking about incentivizing population control... I am very against that, but even if you are for it, I don't think carbon taxes are the way to go for that.

There is a really easy solution to that - tax carbon, and put 100% of the revenue into a single bucket, divide that by the number of citizens, and give each citizen that amount. This means that it is a net positive for anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon, and incentivizes everyone to use less. Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon, so it will be a net positive for them.

mcguire 5y ago
"Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon..." Do you have a citation for that?
- cortesoft 5y ago
  There are quite a few: https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce45f8e6fc https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce4... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r... https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-cent-more-than-double-the-emissions-of-the-poorest-half-of-humanity/ https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-...
bpodgursky 5y ago
> Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon This is not true in a world where most white-collar workers have been working from home for two years (or, increasingly, can afford Teslas), and service employees have to drive to work every day. Look, I want a carbon tax. It's good on net. But it's regressive and the people will never vote to support it. I live in deep-blue WA and even here the public rejected it.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  The gap is large enough that I doubt the shift in work habits was enough to change it. Cars are not the only major source of carbon emissions, and wealthier people have bigger houses: https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce45f8e6fc https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce4... I think you are misunderstanding the reasons why carbon taxes don't get passed. One, the ones you mention failing were NOT of the type that I am talking about (revenue neutral ones, where all of the money taken in is given right back to the citizens). If you told citizens they would be getting a check every year, I bet you a lot more would support it. In fact, I don't have to be hypothetical: They implemented a revenue neutral carbon tax in British Columbia, and after nearly a decade of being in effect, 70% of residents supported it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-carbon-tax-popular-give-the-profits-to-the-people https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/how-to-make-a-... I think you will find that like most policy decisions, it is not the average citizen who is keeping a revenue neutral carbon tax from being implemented, but large carbon polluters who lobby against it and convince citizens not to support it.
pzo 5y ago
This is hard to enforce. How about family that doesn't have kids vs one with 4? Each child contributes a lot to carbon emission until adulthood and after that. To be really honest families without children then should have more carbon credits.
- adolph 5y ago
  > To be really honest families without children then should have more carbon credits. What about dead people? They are carbon negative since they are sequestering it in the grave. To be really honest murderers should have more carbon credits. Edit, in case it wasn't totally obvious, this is reductio ad absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- cortesoft 5y ago
  It wouldn't be given per family, it would be per person, so those kids would each get a share. I am not sure why that would be hard to enforce. I am not sure why you think it should be divided by family... that "family without children" was created by a family that had children... why would an adult be more worthy of their share than a kid? A kid probably uses less carbon than an adult. The whole point is that we don't have to figure out who uses more carbon or who deserves what... we tax the carbon at its source, and let the market figure out how to pass that cost along, and then pay the money directly to people. If you use less carbon than average you get more money than you pay... doesn't matter who you are or how old you are. You seem to be talking about incentivizing population control... I am very against that, but even if you are for it, I don't think carbon taxes are the way to go for that.