6 ms·

And it reduces inequalities given that the 20% richest pollute way more than the 80% poorest.

kelnos 4y ago
Does it, though? For example, I would expect lower-income folks to be more likely to have older, less-fuel-efficient cars.
- bumby 4y ago
  It does according to some studies. "The trend is clear: Emissions generally rise with wealth...The richest 1%—... earning $109,000 a year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions."[1] And at least according to that article, it's not due to international disparities in wealth. "people’s emissions within countries now overwhelms the country-to-country disparities." [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissions-inequality-powers-world-climate/?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissi...
- lkbm 4y ago
  They also fly less, have smaller cars/apartments, buy cars less frequently, and buy less stuff in general. I think air flight is typically my largest source of CO2 emissions, and certainly will be this year.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So then they can car pool or catch the train for two months and pay for a better car with the extra freedom afforded by the emissions dividend which then costs them less in maintenance too.
- ericd 4y ago
  They don't fly cross country or internationally multiple times a year, a large fraction of people making 6+ figures do, and that generally swamps a clunker's usage. Also, all the carbon that goes into making new cars they buy, all the Amazon crap, and climate controlling huge houses. Let alone moving around a building-sized yacht, building and maintaining mega mansions, or flying a private jet in the super-rich circles.
Aunche 4y ago
Unfortunately, consumption taxes are always regressive, and a carbon tax would be no different. Even if you happened to receive more from a carbon dividend than you would pay in carbon taxes, you would "pay" for it by having to sacrifice goods and services that you otherwise would have consumed. I do support a carbon tax, but I think it's important to be realistic about its effects if we want it to be politically sustainable.
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  You could scale the refund according to income.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid. Poor people are generally emitting well below the average currently. They take fewer flights, have smaller houses and buy less stuff in general. With current levels of emissions, they would be getting paid without reducing emissions at all. Eventually after the rest of society reduces emissions, they might have to reduce emissions, but that would only be after the rest of society sacrifices much more consumption.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    >Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid. You need to consider the downstream effects of the tax. The oil can only get taxed once, but the effects are compounded throughout the entire economy. For example, truck drivers would see dramatically increased expenses. For examples, truck drivers would have to pass on the cost of the fuel to transport freight. Meanwhile, other drivers will be forced to quit, which reduces our total freight throughput, which makes shipping even more expensive.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      This is a description of the system working. Both outcomes are cheaper for the customer. Either the customer pays the retailer who pays the truck driver with the exact money the truck driver paid, or the customer does something cheaper and there is more money to go around because the customer is not paying for all the harms trucking does (including their kid's asthma bills and several dollars per gallon in road upkeep).

Does it, though? For example, I would expect lower-income folks to be more likely to have older, less-fuel-efficient cars.

bumby 4y ago
It does according to some studies. "The trend is clear: Emissions generally rise with wealth...The richest 1%—... earning $109,000 a year—are by far the fastest-growing source of emissions."[1] And at least according to that article, it's not due to international disparities in wealth. "people’s emissions within countries now overwhelms the country-to-country disparities." [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissions-inequality-powers-world-climate/?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissi...
lkbm 4y ago
They also fly less, have smaller cars/apartments, buy cars less frequently, and buy less stuff in general. I think air flight is typically my largest source of CO2 emissions, and certainly will be this year.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
So then they can car pool or catch the train for two months and pay for a better car with the extra freedom afforded by the emissions dividend which then costs them less in maintenance too.
ericd 4y ago
They don't fly cross country or internationally multiple times a year, a large fraction of people making 6+ figures do, and that generally swamps a clunker's usage. Also, all the carbon that goes into making new cars they buy, all the Amazon crap, and climate controlling huge houses. Let alone moving around a building-sized yacht, building and maintaining mega mansions, or flying a private jet in the super-rich circles.

Aunche 4y ago

Unfortunately, consumption taxes are always regressive, and a carbon tax would be no different. Even if you happened to receive more from a carbon dividend than you would pay in carbon taxes, you would "pay" for it by having to sacrifice goods and services that you otherwise would have consumed. I do support a carbon tax, but I think it's important to be realistic about its effects if we want it to be politically sustainable.

thinkcontext 4y ago
You could scale the refund according to income.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid. Poor people are generally emitting well below the average currently. They take fewer flights, have smaller houses and buy less stuff in general. With current levels of emissions, they would be getting paid without reducing emissions at all. Eventually after the rest of society reduces emissions, they might have to reduce emissions, but that would only be after the rest of society sacrifices much more consumption.
- Aunche 4y ago
  >Only if you are currently emitting more than the post-tax average emission. If you are already below average, you can emit the same amount and get paid. You need to consider the downstream effects of the tax. The oil can only get taxed once, but the effects are compounded throughout the entire economy. For example, truck drivers would see dramatically increased expenses. For examples, truck drivers would have to pass on the cost of the fuel to transport freight. Meanwhile, other drivers will be forced to quit, which reduces our total freight throughput, which makes shipping even more expensive.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    This is a description of the system working. Both outcomes are cheaper for the customer. Either the customer pays the retailer who pays the truck driver with the exact money the truck driver paid, or the customer does something cheaper and there is more money to go around because the customer is not paying for all the harms trucking does (including their kid's asthma bills and several dollars per gallon in road upkeep).