19 ms·

Unless govts become addicted to carbon tax revenue, in which case they may allow the same level of carbon emissions anyway.

by peder 4y ago

eutropia 4y ago
avoid the addiction by turning it directly into a citizen’s dividend
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  This is what Canada is doing. Equal rebates for everyone - use less and you get a subsidy, use more and you're the one doing the subsidizing. Now of course Canada's carbon tax is tiny, but there's probably some behavioural economics rationale behind the idea that even a tiny cost can have outsized impact on behaviour.
  - transcriptase 4y ago
    Rebates for people in certain provinces. Others have implemented a cap-and-trade shell game where the residents receive nothing but they still experience rising prices because of costs to nation-wide businesses being passed on either way.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      Shamefully, I've committed the cardinal sin of people from my province: forgetting the other 60% of my countrymen and forgetting that things do vary between provinces.
kspacewalk2 4y ago
The more you tax something, the less of it you get. Imposing a non-zero cost on carbon will always be strictly better at reducing carbon emissions than imposing a zero cost on it. How effective it is depends on how big a tax it is, of course, but usually governments addicted to a tax tend to increase said tax, which in this case makes it better, since it will disincentivize emissions even more.
- dont__panic 4y ago
  Curious, can you link to any reading on this subject? The canonical high-tax situation I think of is income tax in NYS and CA, and it seems that has only pushed prices and incomes UP, rather than down. But maybe it works differently for income tax because physical work locations are not truly competitive across location and most folks have visas, schools, family, friends, etc. pinning them to a location and reducing flexibility.
  - thecage411 4y ago
    What is the basis for the claim that income tax in NYS and CA pushed prices and income up? This seems extremely unlikely, unless you are looking at pretax income or something.
smnrchrds 4y ago
Canada's "carbon pricing" (the government tries to avoid the word "tax" due to its negative connotations) is designed to be almost revenue-neutral to avoid this exact problem. 90% of the money is rebated directly to the people. The other 10% is used to fund green projects. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/taxes/article-is-federal-carbon-pricing-really-revenue-neutral/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/t...
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  >Those payments mean that around 80 per cent of households receive a payment that more than covers annual carbon costs; the other 20 per cent are higher-income households that have bigger carbon bills, and so end up being out of pocket. This claim in the article is directly contradicted by the Canadian government. >Indeed, most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31 (Table 3-2). That is, their overall costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid (fiscal impact) and lower employment and investment income (economic impact)—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2122-032-S--distributional-analysis-federal-carbon-pricing-under-healthy-environment-healthy-economy--une-analyse-distributive-tarification-federale-carbone-dans-cadre-plan-un-environnement-sain-une-eco https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2122-032-S--distri...
  - kitkat_new 4y ago
    I think the former is more likely to be true. If 100% of the money went back, you'd get back equal (or more) what you paid, if you are responsible for the average (or less of the same) of CO2 production per citizen. Since there are many more poor people than there are rich people which are responsible for disproportional much more emission, the people below the average are the majority Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-f... Only paying back 90% generates a small shift into the other direction though
rpastuszak 4y ago
At this stage I'm starting to think that we'll need either: - a drastic societal change or, - stumble upon an ancient alien artefact progressing our technology to the point where coal becomes useless (digging a giant hole in my backyard with the hope of finding a Stargate whilst writing this comment) Edit: morbid humour and sarcasm aside, the sibling comments provide some context on why taxing carbon might actually work

Unless govts become addicted to carbon tax revenue, in which case they may allow the same level of carbon emissions anyway.

by peder 4y ago

Unless govts become addicted to carbon tax revenue, in which case they may allow the same level of carbon emissions anyway.

eutropia 4y ago

avoid the addiction by turning it directly into a citizen’s dividend

kspacewalk2 4y ago
This is what Canada is doing. Equal rebates for everyone - use less and you get a subsidy, use more and you're the one doing the subsidizing. Now of course Canada's carbon tax is tiny, but there's probably some behavioural economics rationale behind the idea that even a tiny cost can have outsized impact on behaviour.
- transcriptase 4y ago
  Rebates for people in certain provinces. Others have implemented a cap-and-trade shell game where the residents receive nothing but they still experience rising prices because of costs to nation-wide businesses being passed on either way.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Shamefully, I've committed the cardinal sin of people from my province: forgetting the other 60% of my countrymen and forgetting that things do vary between provinces.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

The more you tax something, the less of it you get. Imposing a non-zero cost on carbon will always be strictly better at reducing carbon emissions than imposing a zero cost on it. How effective it is depends on how big a tax it is, of course, but usually governments addicted to a tax tend to increase said tax, which in this case makes it better, since it will disincentivize emissions even more.

dont__panic 4y ago
Curious, can you link to any reading on this subject? The canonical high-tax situation I think of is income tax in NYS and CA, and it seems that has only pushed prices and incomes UP, rather than down. But maybe it works differently for income tax because physical work locations are not truly competitive across location and most folks have visas, schools, family, friends, etc. pinning them to a location and reducing flexibility.
- thecage411 4y ago
  What is the basis for the claim that income tax in NYS and CA pushed prices and income up? This seems extremely unlikely, unless you are looking at pretax income or something.

smnrchrds 4y ago

Canada's "carbon pricing" (the government tries to avoid the word "tax" due to its negative connotations) is designed to be almost revenue-neutral to avoid this exact problem. 90% of the money is rebated directly to the people. The other 10% is used to fund green projects. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/taxes/article-is-federal-carbon-pricing-really-revenue-neutral/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/t...

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
>Those payments mean that around 80 per cent of households receive a payment that more than covers annual carbon costs; the other 20 per cent are higher-income households that have bigger carbon bills, and so end up being out of pocket. This claim in the article is directly contradicted by the Canadian government. >Indeed, most households will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan in 2030-31 (Table 3-2). That is, their overall costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid (fiscal impact) and lower employment and investment income (economic impact)—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2122-032-S--distributional-analysis-federal-carbon-pricing-under-healthy-environment-healthy-economy--une-analyse-distributive-tarification-federale-carbone-dans-cadre-plan-un-environnement-sain-une-eco https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2122-032-S--distri...
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  I think the former is more likely to be true. If 100% of the money went back, you'd get back equal (or more) what you paid, if you are responsible for the average (or less of the same) of CO2 production per citizen. Since there are many more poor people than there are rich people which are responsible for disproportional much more emission, the people below the average are the majority Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-footprint-gap-between-rich-poor-expanding-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/04/carbon-f... Only paying back 90% generates a small shift into the other direction though

rpastuszak 4y ago

At this stage I'm starting to think that we'll need either: - a drastic societal change or, - stumble upon an ancient alien artefact progressing our technology to the point where coal becomes useless (digging a giant hole in my backyard with the hope of finding a Stargate whilst writing this comment) Edit: morbid humour and sarcasm aside, the sibling comments provide some context on why taxing carbon might actually work