3 ms·

> paying for its impact The rationale of a carbon tax is to make prices account for the externality, so that people use carbon-emitting energy where it's still

> paying for its impact The rationale of a carbon tax is to make prices account for the externality, so that people use carbon-emitting energy where it's still worth it, and stop where it's not. (And over time encourage everyone to find better ways to do things.) You might see this as a quibble, but there's so much misunderstanding. E.g. the #1 objection is about the expense to poor people, but if all this tax revenue went straight back to a UBI it would not affect the above logic. The objection does have force if it's "funneled back into paying for its impact" instead.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>the #1 objection is about the expense to poor people It amazes me when people who have no interest in the plight of the poor suddenly start spouting this. Even more so when you consider that the poor aren't creating this problem, their carbon emissions are minimal. In many ways they stand to gain from changes to reduce emissions (improved provision for walking and cycling, better public transport, etc). The poor really don't give a shit if your flight across the Atlantic gets more expensive.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  Yup, you're completely ignoring the argument about how to effectively focus everyone's efforts and ingenuity on fixing the problem of carbon emissions, instead substituting class-war logic, and assigning me to the other side of your war. Confirming the misunderstanding I brought up. A Pigovian tax is not a redistribution scheme, it's a fix-misallocation scheme. > The poor really don't give a shit if your flight across the Atlantic gets more expensive. What does giving a shit have to do with what I wrote? Yes, a proper carbon tax raises the price of such a flight; wealthier people disproportionately take such flights, and therefore are paying; as UBI, wealthier people get almost none of that back, as there are few of them. There are probably fewer flights. Plane manufacturers (and competing transport systems) invest in finding more carbon-efficient designs. And the same pressure applied throughout the economy, without commissars decreeing who flies how much, etc., also throughout the economy. Do you want the problems solved?

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>the #1 objection is about the expense to poor people It amazes me when people who have no interest in the plight of the poor suddenly start spouting this. Even more so when you consider that the poor aren't creating this problem, their carbon emissions are minimal. In many ways they stand to gain from changes to reduce emissions (improved provision for walking and cycling, better public transport, etc). The poor really don't give a shit if your flight across the Atlantic gets more expensive.

abecedarius 5y ago
Yup, you're completely ignoring the argument about how to effectively focus everyone's efforts and ingenuity on fixing the problem of carbon emissions, instead substituting class-war logic, and assigning me to the other side of your war. Confirming the misunderstanding I brought up. A Pigovian tax is not a redistribution scheme, it's a fix-misallocation scheme. > The poor really don't give a shit if your flight across the Atlantic gets more expensive. What does giving a shit have to do with what I wrote? Yes, a proper carbon tax raises the price of such a flight; wealthier people disproportionately take such flights, and therefore are paying; as UBI, wealthier people get almost none of that back, as there are few of them. There are probably fewer flights. Plane manufacturers (and competing transport systems) invest in finding more carbon-efficient designs. And the same pressure applied throughout the economy, without commissars decreeing who flies how much, etc., also throughout the economy. Do you want the problems solved?