5 ms·

I agree in principle, but given the huge proportion of energy which comes from fossil fuels, a carbon tax would have to be huge (and hence unpopular) if it were

I agree in principle, but given the huge proportion of energy which comes from fossil fuels, a carbon tax would have to be huge (and hence unpopular) if it were to match the market competitiveness of subsidies. That is, to subsidize solar 33% (our current subsidy in the US), you would have to make a carbon tax equivalent to 50% of the current price of fossil fuels, or about $1.50/gal. This is obviously politically untenable in the United States. The happy medium is probably to do a bit of both, and work toward the middle. Smart, targeted subsidies for carbon-neutral sources, and small, gradually increasing carbon taxes.

DennisP 10y ago
You can get away with a higher carbon tax if you return the money to the population. In fact, there's a fair amount of popular support for basic income. Meanwhile a leading idea for carbon pricing is a flat fee per ton with the money returned to the population, equal amount per capita, which essentially is a small basic income funded by the carbon tax. British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon tax (in their case by reducing payroll taxes accordingly) and reportedly it's popular. The opposition party ran against it and lost.
- SamPhillips 10y ago
  Washington State rejected one, unfortunately, one significant downside of the state solution is that some demand can just easily shift to another location. I wonder if there's a scheme where on state will pass it but only have it come into affect if neighboring states do as well.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    A few states' actions wouldn't help much anyway. The real benefit of state carbon pricing was that the fossil industry was starting to come around on a national carbon price, because they'd rather deal with that than a bunch of different state systems. Between the WA defeat and Trump win, that's probably pushed back a few years.

DennisP 10y ago

You can get away with a higher carbon tax if you return the money to the population. In fact, there's a fair amount of popular support for basic income. Meanwhile a leading idea for carbon pricing is a flat fee per ton with the money returned to the population, equal amount per capita, which essentially is a small basic income funded by the carbon tax. British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon tax (in their case by reducing payroll taxes accordingly) and reportedly it's popular. The opposition party ran against it and lost.

SamPhillips 10y ago
Washington State rejected one, unfortunately, one significant downside of the state solution is that some demand can just easily shift to another location. I wonder if there's a scheme where on state will pass it but only have it come into affect if neighboring states do as well.
- DennisP 10y ago
  A few states' actions wouldn't help much anyway. The real benefit of state carbon pricing was that the fossil industry was starting to come around on a national carbon price, because they'd rather deal with that than a bunch of different state systems. Between the WA defeat and Trump win, that's probably pushed back a few years.