4 ms·
The problem is that this is a regressive tax. It falls disproportionately on the poor, working class, and farmers. This will only lead to a populist revolt that
by api 2y ago
The problem is that this is a regressive tax. It falls disproportionately on the poor, working class, and farmers. This will only lead to a populist revolt that will set the whole project of reducing GHG emissions back by a generation or two, not to mention being grossly unfair.
It's also going after a bit player in global GHG emissions. Replacing coal for electricity generation and oil wherever possible (land transport) are the big ones and where the vast majority of the attention should go.
You don't solve a problem by going after the hardest aspects of it down at the end of the long tail. You solve it by going after the head, which is carbon-rich fossil fuels.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe proceeds from the tax are going to farmers, so it's regressiveness has been mitigated. Agriculture is not a "bit player" in GHG emissions. It's one of the big 5, the others being electricity generation, transportation, heating and industry, each of which contributes >10%. It's also the sector without a clear path to decarbonization. Generation has renewables, transportation has EV's, heating has heat pumps, some industry has transition plans (and some doesn't)
- bluefirebrand 2y ago> It's also the sector without a clear path to decarbonization It's probably because humans are carbon based life forms and we need to eat carbon based foods to live I hope we never successfully decarbonize agriculture