4 ms·

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 aver

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

allemagne 5y ago
Most Canadian households do get back more than what they paid. The way that there are net losses to households is by calculating the "economic costs" of lost investment and jobs. This is exactly what carbon taxes are meant to do: internalize the externalized costs of burning fossil fuels.
- imtringued 5y ago
  When I think of lost jobs I think of lost busy work. Surely, if you are complaining about the lack of busywork, climate change mitigation will give you a lot of busy work, just not much profit.