2 ms·
The problem is that carbon intensive technologies do not pay for the damage they're doing to the environment. The tax I suggested was revenue neutral, which me
by wing-_-nuts 5y ago
The problem is that carbon intensive technologies do not pay for the damage they're doing to the environment. The tax I suggested was revenue neutral, which means the average poor person would get back as much in income taxes on their paycheck as they paid in carbon taxes. Technically, this doesn't 'hit' anyone and it benefits those willing to change. I think you're right though that this is politically infeasible simply due to short-sightedness and cowardice.
- jeromegv 5y agoOntario has the carbon tax setup. 90% is revenue neutral. You get a standard amount on your tax return every year, if you happened to pollute little (not spending much on gaz) then you're net positive. If you're average, you get back what you spent. If you're a big polluter, then you spent more on tax than what you got back. Issue is that most people don't understand those taxes. I tried to explain to a few friend that the increased in gas cost was offset by the carbon tax return, but they just don't understand it. They see the gas being more expensive as "bad" and they think they lost money. They don't understand likely because they don't do their own tax return.