5 ms·

It would change behaviour more, not less. If you set the carbon tax at about $1/gallon of gasoline, the corresponding carbon rebate would be about $1000 per fa

It would change behaviour more, not less. If you set the carbon tax at about $1/gallon of gasoline, the corresponding carbon rebate would be about $1000 per family per year. That wouldn't affect rich people much; neither the $1/gallon nor the $1000 extra income is significant. But many rich people get rich by being penny-wise, so many would change behaviour, by buying an EV or similar. But for poor people both $1/gallon and $1000 per year is significant. If gas was $1/gallon more expensive, poor people definitely would drive less.

listenallyall 2y ago
Are you sure? Gas consumption is notoriously inelastic. West coast gasoline is already a dollar or more than it costs on the east coast. Do poor people drive less in California than in Florida?
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Gas consumption is inelastic in the short term, but everything is elastic in the long term. If you want proof of this, just look at what happens to sales of large vs small cars when the price of gas changes.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    I don't know man, gas prices have been consistently pretty high for the last couple of years, meanwhile almost every small car has been discontinued- VW Beetle and Golf, Fiat 500, Honda Fit, Ford Fiesta and Focus, etc... this class of cars basically just doesn't exist anymore.
- greeneggs 2y ago
  I think everyone drives less in California than in Florida. (Google says ~14,500 miles annually per licensed driver in Florida, versus ~12,500 miles in California.) Gas prices are a factor in this.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  California law requires a special blend of gasoline, which is a lower volume market, which increases the cost. The remainder of the cost difference is transportation costs or taxes. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcment-program/california-reformulated-gasoline https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcment-pr...
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Yes, a number of reasons contribute to the additional cost. But that's irrelevant, we're discussing the impact of higher costs, not the cause of them.
Loudergood 2y ago
The real hardship for the poor here is they cannot float that $1/gallon for a year before getting the $1000
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The rebate can be paid out more frequently than annually.
  - kjreact 2y ago
    Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011 and was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this year prior to their election. People like to say that they want to help the environment, but when it comes time to vote they vote against such policies.
    - Teever 2y ago
      Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it was used as a political cudgel against the Liberal party that enacted it by the Conservative opposition in a sustained fashion for several years. Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the first political entities to suggest the implementation of them in Canada were Conservative. At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of the population, and many in positions of power who just outright deny environmental concerns and climate change as an existential threat. They aren't going to approach this problem in good faith and it isn't obvious what the solution to their nefarious influence on policy should be.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Canada's implementation had two problems: 1. The textbook implementation involves 3 parts: tax, rebate and tariff. Canada only did the first 2. They were in talks with Germany/EU to create a carbon tariff zone, but that never happens. Without the tariff the carbon tax is massively unfair to local producers. 2. The rebates were almost invisible. If they would have been cheques in the mail it would have had much more impact psychologically. But I agree, the main problem was denialism and its use as a political cudgel. It should be hard to argue that carbon tax is stealing money when all of it is given back, but they successfully did that.

listenallyall 2y ago

Are you sure? Gas consumption is notoriously inelastic. West coast gasoline is already a dollar or more than it costs on the east coast. Do poor people drive less in California than in Florida?

SR2Z 2y ago
Gas consumption is inelastic in the short term, but everything is elastic in the long term. If you want proof of this, just look at what happens to sales of large vs small cars when the price of gas changes.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  I don't know man, gas prices have been consistently pretty high for the last couple of years, meanwhile almost every small car has been discontinued- VW Beetle and Golf, Fiat 500, Honda Fit, Ford Fiesta and Focus, etc... this class of cars basically just doesn't exist anymore.
greeneggs 2y ago
I think everyone drives less in California than in Florida. (Google says ~14,500 miles annually per licensed driver in Florida, versus ~12,500 miles in California.) Gas prices are a factor in this.
quickthrowman 2y ago
California law requires a special blend of gasoline, which is a lower volume market, which increases the cost. The remainder of the cost difference is transportation costs or taxes. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcment-program/california-reformulated-gasoline https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcment-pr...
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Yes, a number of reasons contribute to the additional cost. But that's irrelevant, we're discussing the impact of higher costs, not the cause of them.

Loudergood 2y ago

The real hardship for the poor here is they cannot float that $1/gallon for a year before getting the $1000

bryanlarsen 2y ago
The rebate can be paid out more frequently than annually.
- kjreact 2y ago
  Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011 and was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this year prior to their election. People like to say that they want to help the environment, but when it comes time to vote they vote against such policies.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it was used as a political cudgel against the Liberal party that enacted it by the Conservative opposition in a sustained fashion for several years. Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the first political entities to suggest the implementation of them in Canada were Conservative. At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of the population, and many in positions of power who just outright deny environmental concerns and climate change as an existential threat. They aren't going to approach this problem in good faith and it isn't obvious what the solution to their nefarious influence on policy should be.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Canada's implementation had two problems: 1. The textbook implementation involves 3 parts: tax, rebate and tariff. Canada only did the first 2. They were in talks with Germany/EU to create a carbon tariff zone, but that never happens. Without the tariff the carbon tax is massively unfair to local producers. 2. The rebates were almost invisible. If they would have been cheques in the mail it would have had much more impact psychologically. But I agree, the main problem was denialism and its use as a political cudgel. It should be hard to argue that carbon tax is stealing money when all of it is given back, but they successfully did that.