3 ms·

> 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 ye

> 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.