4 ms·

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.

• 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.