3 ms·

Not familiar with European politics but wasn’t a carbon tax one of the principal reasons for the yellow vest protests? In the US, the vast majority are unwilli

Not familiar with European politics but wasn’t a carbon tax one of the principal reasons for the yellow vest protests? In the US, the vast majority are unwilling to do pretty much anything to fight climate change. ~70% oppose a $0.25/gallon gasoline tax; note that a true Pigouvian tax would be something like 20x higher than that based on the current cost of carbon removal. https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-will https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/climate-optimism-of-the-wi...

GhettoComputers 5y ago
What kind of normal person wants to pay more for gas, especially when most of the population isn't in the upper income bracket in the US and mismanagement of tax funds is so common? I can't imagine why a teenage mother or person struggling with minimum wage desiring these extra costs or more taxes. The usage of the taxes is big issue, it is likely to just be pocketed by the politicians or as subsidies for large corporations that will have a disproportionate pollution effect. Taxes should be properly utilized and be proven through proof or as a fund like social security for the environment, rather than pay more for less and let them decide how to use the money if even its implimented. Nothing stops them from subsidizing gas companies with the taxes.
- tfehring 5y ago
  It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Young people in the western world today are quick to (accurately) accuse older generations of severely messing up the environment (as well as housing markets, government budgets, etc.) to enrich themselves at the expense of future generations. Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. The poll cited in the article I linked explicitly mentioned that the revenue would be used for policies to support greenhouse gas reduction. I'm skeptical that the respondents cared that much about how the money would get spent, since the vast majority did support policies that would tax the wealthy and/or companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions - the only difference is where they perceive the money to be coming from, not how it would be spent.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    >It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Is that what the common price sensitive citizen cares about? >Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. You don't think young people are capable of being hypocrites? Statistics such as low savings is proof that long term planning isn't deeply embedded. Survey data is notoriously unreliable, on a if the rich subsidizes itself it would be circular wealth, but coming from them means that they are adversely affected. Policies and their actual effect are also not the same, would they not care when government trust is low and its possible to use the money to subsidize large companies that use a green label to play metric? I know the idea of carbon neutral is simply ofsetting carbon negatives to other companies, transportation is a huge contributor and globalized companies play with numbers to call themselves carbon neutral. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s... BTW thanks for showing me that substack, I subscribed, hope is sorely needed today.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

What kind of normal person wants to pay more for gas, especially when most of the population isn't in the upper income bracket in the US and mismanagement of tax funds is so common? I can't imagine why a teenage mother or person struggling with minimum wage desiring these extra costs or more taxes. The usage of the taxes is big issue, it is likely to just be pocketed by the politicians or as subsidies for large corporations that will have a disproportionate pollution effect. Taxes should be properly utilized and be proven through proof or as a fund like social security for the environment, rather than pay more for less and let them decide how to use the money if even its implimented. Nothing stops them from subsidizing gas companies with the taxes.

tfehring 5y ago
It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Young people in the western world today are quick to (accurately) accuse older generations of severely messing up the environment (as well as housing markets, government budgets, etc.) to enrich themselves at the expense of future generations. Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. The poll cited in the article I linked explicitly mentioned that the revenue would be used for policies to support greenhouse gas reduction. I'm skeptical that the respondents cared that much about how the money would get spent, since the vast majority did support policies that would tax the wealthy and/or companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions - the only difference is where they perceive the money to be coming from, not how it would be spent.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  >It's not about wanting to pay more, it's about wanting to stop causing damage that future generations will have to pay for. Is that what the common price sensitive citizen cares about? >Given that, I don't think it's that crazy to expect those same young people to pay for the negative externalities their own activities create instead of just paying it forward. You don't think young people are capable of being hypocrites? Statistics such as low savings is proof that long term planning isn't deeply embedded. Survey data is notoriously unreliable, on a if the rich subsidizes itself it would be circular wealth, but coming from them means that they are adversely affected. Policies and their actual effect are also not the same, would they not care when government trust is low and its possible to use the money to subsidize large companies that use a green label to play metric? I know the idea of carbon neutral is simply ofsetting carbon negatives to other companies, transportation is a huge contributor and globalized companies play with numbers to call themselves carbon neutral. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s... BTW thanks for showing me that substack, I subscribed, hope is sorely needed today.