4 ms·

Its still a cold/rural zone. When a carbon tax/madate is inevitably enforced, they are going to end up with escalating bills for heating and transport.

paleotrope 5y ago
They are going to end up burning their precious woodlands.
- thrower123 5y ago
  We already do. Fortunately Maine is more forested than it has been in a century. Burning whole tree chips for power at biomass plants is actually pretty big in Maine. Although most of that power was sold on to other New England states that had green energy credits, in the years I was involved.
- algo_trader 5y ago
  No doubt they will start by cuttings up trees along the transmission corridor, just to spite everyone else /s
rsj_hn 5y ago
> When a carbon tax/madate is inevitably enforced LOL, good luck with that. Hard to think of more unpopular legislation. You might as well say "When the United Nations High command forces the U.S. to increase its gasoline taxes". I mean, come on, we are not some small nation that can be pushed around. BTW, this is how the progressive movements always marginalize themselves and get kicked out of any political power. Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The hatred is absurd. In Canada, approximately 80% of the population pays less than the average amount of carbon tax, so they receive more from the carbon dividend than they pay out for the carbon tax. I pay an extra 10 cents/litre for gasoline but get a cheque for most of $1000 every year. Pretty awesome deal for me and most Canadians. People really like to hate on getting cheques in the mail.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Free money!! Right? Or maybe not.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      It's definitely free money if you are eco-conscious and would decide to reduce your carbon emissions anyway. Since I decided not to have a car and live in an apartment anyway, it's literally free money.
  - hervature 5y ago
    Do you not understand that literally every product that travels to you gets more expensive? All taxes go to the consumer. Your simple calculus doesn't account for the true cost.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      The increased cost is still less than the cheque for a small majority of taxpayers.
      - hervature 5y ago
        If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That is, you reduced their quality of life.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        It's true because the median taxpayer pays less tax than the average taxpayer due to the long tail effect.
        hervature 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with the actual payment of taxes. Businesses don't pay for the tax on cigarettes, it is passed directly to the consumer. The elasticity of demand can be such that the consumer just incurs $1,000 higher costs. So the $1,000 in payments don't provide you a benefit, it merely allows you to live the same life.
- specialist 5y ago
  In your thesis for political economy, do the opponents of carbon taxes have agency too?
- belltaco 5y ago
  >Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life... Source? Also, fighting climate needs a 'all of the above' strategy ASAP.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism. Increasing R&D and cheaper mean of producing green is the main goal of carbon tax. That’s probably the most effective way to do it and is market neutral. I fail to see what any of it has to do with the progressive movements. With a carbon tax, researching greener way of producing goods has a direct impact on the final price of said goods. That’s make this research a competitive advantage. Without a carbon tax, the sole reason to do R&D focusing on emission is if you are going to get fined by crossing a line. That means that as soon as you are under the threshold doing research is a waste of money.

paleotrope 5y ago

They are going to end up burning their precious woodlands.

thrower123 5y ago
We already do. Fortunately Maine is more forested than it has been in a century. Burning whole tree chips for power at biomass plants is actually pretty big in Maine. Although most of that power was sold on to other New England states that had green energy credits, in the years I was involved.
algo_trader 5y ago
No doubt they will start by cuttings up trees along the transmission corridor, just to spite everyone else /s

rsj_hn 5y ago

> When a carbon tax/madate is inevitably enforced LOL, good luck with that. Hard to think of more unpopular legislation. You might as well say "When the United Nations High command forces the U.S. to increase its gasoline taxes". I mean, come on, we are not some small nation that can be pushed around. BTW, this is how the progressive movements always marginalize themselves and get kicked out of any political power. Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
The hatred is absurd. In Canada, approximately 80% of the population pays less than the average amount of carbon tax, so they receive more from the carbon dividend than they pay out for the carbon tax. I pay an extra 10 cents/litre for gasoline but get a cheque for most of $1000 every year. Pretty awesome deal for me and most Canadians. People really like to hate on getting cheques in the mail.
- refurb 5y ago
  Free money!! Right? Or maybe not.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    It's definitely free money if you are eco-conscious and would decide to reduce your carbon emissions anyway. Since I decided not to have a car and live in an apartment anyway, it's literally free money.
- hervature 5y ago
  Do you not understand that literally every product that travels to you gets more expensive? All taxes go to the consumer. Your simple calculus doesn't account for the true cost.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The increased cost is still less than the cheque for a small majority of taxpayers.
    - hervature 5y ago
      If that's true, it's only because they altered their spending behavior. That is, you reduced their quality of life.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        It's true because the median taxpayer pays less tax than the average taxpayer due to the long tail effect.
        hervature 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with the actual payment of taxes. Businesses don't pay for the tax on cigarettes, it is passed directly to the consumer. The elasticity of demand can be such that the consumer just incurs $1,000 higher costs. So the $1,000 in payments don't provide you a benefit, it merely allows you to live the same life.
specialist 5y ago
In your thesis for political economy, do the opponents of carbon taxes have agency too?
belltaco 5y ago
>Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life... Source? Also, fighting climate needs a 'all of the above' strategy ASAP.
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> Instead of advocating for R&D and cheaper alternatives that improve people's quality of life, they can't help themselves but bring out the club of eco-masochism paired with tax-sadism. Increasing R&D and cheaper mean of producing green is the main goal of carbon tax. That’s probably the most effective way to do it and is market neutral. I fail to see what any of it has to do with the progressive movements. With a carbon tax, researching greener way of producing goods has a direct impact on the final price of said goods. That’s make this research a competitive advantage. Without a carbon tax, the sole reason to do R&D focusing on emission is if you are going to get fined by crossing a line. That means that as soon as you are under the threshold doing research is a waste of money.