6 ms·

I think this sums it all up "but is controversial because it imposes costs on consumers." A carbon tax is a way for all of us (people) to deal with the problem

I think this sums it all up "but is controversial because it imposes costs on consumers." A carbon tax is a way for all of us (people) to deal with the problem, while the corporations that created and caused it get a 'get out of jail free' card.

shawnz 7y ago
> the corporations that created and caused it get a 'get out of jail free' card Not necessarily. It could make it easier for them to be outcompeted by competitors that don't rely as heavily on petroleum usage
- funnybeam 7y ago
  Which is the whole point. Either reduce your polluting ways or lose business to a company that does.
sokoloff 7y ago
When an airline creates carbon emissions, they're doing it because the passengers want to go somewhere. When a car maker creates carbon emissions, they're doing it because people are buying cars. It seems eminently reasonable that end consumers will and should end up paying. If you impose a carbon tax, utilities that today create electricity from fossil fuels will have additional incentives that end customers feel to switch to non-carbon sources. It will also provide some small amount of back-pressure against the "no nukes" and "herp, derp, no cancer-causing windmills"
Camas 7y ago
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. Consumers have also benefited short-term from environmental costs being ignored. Either way, I care much more about fixing the problem than assigning blame.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adrianN 7y ago
Corporations don't burn coal for fun, they satisfy demand created by people like you and me while trying to maximize profits. Without a carbon tax, corporations that manage to successfully externalize that cost have a huge competitive advantage.
- ken 7y ago
  Companies don't pay taxes for fun, either. What I think that comment is referring to is the fact that corporations have a history of being really good at weaseling their way out of paying taxes, and the bigger companies are the best at it. A carbon tax, in particular, looks like it would be very easy for a multinational to escape. It's reason #{xyz} to move your facility across the border and out of American jurisdiction. If we can't get them to pay taxes already, won't a carbon tax simply be yet another tax which is disproportionately paid by small businesses and individuals, and not the actual biggest polluters, while driving more manufacturing jobs overseas to countries which don't have such laws?
  - amelius 7y ago
    I guess the solution here is to have customs duties based on emissions taxes paid in the originating country. This is not only needed to prevent corporations from moving their business elsewhere, but also to compete with existing/new corporations in foreign countries.
    - Pxtl 7y ago
      That's actually part of Nordhaus' recommended carbon pricing policy. (Nordhaus wrote the book on carbon pricing and won a Nobel prize in economics for it). The idea is that carbon-priced countries get together and form an internal free trade agreement, and tariff carbon-intensive goods from outsiders. Because of the political complexity of implementing this, Canada has gone a different way to keep businesses from being uncompetitive against foreign non-carbon-taxed businesses. Canada uses "output-based allocation" where a relatively green business in an industry is used as a baseline. That is set as a target - create X unit of product with Y units of carbon emissions, and your carbon emissions are untaxed. Every carbon emission over Y is taxed. In this way, a comparatively green business within a dirty industry can still compete with foreigners, but for a dirty business, the marginal value of going green is just as high as if there was no exemptions at all. It's not ideal. It's bureaucratic, tedious, economically suboptimal, and politically complicated since it seems unfair. But it's a good intermediate solution until Nordhaus' full dream could be realized. The money is rebated directly to citizens in federally-regulated provinces. Conservatives hate it all anyways because their carbon plan is "no."
_Microft 7y ago
Polluting industries don't get a 'get out of jail free' card - they just die if people don't want to buy their then-expensive products anymore. So if you like they will pay the ultimate price instead.

shawnz 7y ago

> the corporations that created and caused it get a 'get out of jail free' card Not necessarily. It could make it easier for them to be outcompeted by competitors that don't rely as heavily on petroleum usage

funnybeam 7y ago
Which is the whole point. Either reduce your polluting ways or lose business to a company that does.

sokoloff 7y ago

When an airline creates carbon emissions, they're doing it because the passengers want to go somewhere. When a car maker creates carbon emissions, they're doing it because people are buying cars. It seems eminently reasonable that end consumers will and should end up paying. If you impose a carbon tax, utilities that today create electricity from fossil fuels will have additional incentives that end customers feel to switch to non-carbon sources. It will also provide some small amount of back-pressure against the "no nukes" and "herp, derp, no cancer-causing windmills"

Camas 7y ago

Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. Consumers have also benefited short-term from environmental costs being ignored. Either way, I care much more about fixing the problem than assigning blame.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adrianN 7y ago

Corporations don't burn coal for fun, they satisfy demand created by people like you and me while trying to maximize profits. Without a carbon tax, corporations that manage to successfully externalize that cost have a huge competitive advantage.

ken 7y ago
Companies don't pay taxes for fun, either. What I think that comment is referring to is the fact that corporations have a history of being really good at weaseling their way out of paying taxes, and the bigger companies are the best at it. A carbon tax, in particular, looks like it would be very easy for a multinational to escape. It's reason #{xyz} to move your facility across the border and out of American jurisdiction. If we can't get them to pay taxes already, won't a carbon tax simply be yet another tax which is disproportionately paid by small businesses and individuals, and not the actual biggest polluters, while driving more manufacturing jobs overseas to countries which don't have such laws?
- amelius 7y ago
  I guess the solution here is to have customs duties based on emissions taxes paid in the originating country. This is not only needed to prevent corporations from moving their business elsewhere, but also to compete with existing/new corporations in foreign countries.
  - Pxtl 7y ago
    That's actually part of Nordhaus' recommended carbon pricing policy. (Nordhaus wrote the book on carbon pricing and won a Nobel prize in economics for it). The idea is that carbon-priced countries get together and form an internal free trade agreement, and tariff carbon-intensive goods from outsiders. Because of the political complexity of implementing this, Canada has gone a different way to keep businesses from being uncompetitive against foreign non-carbon-taxed businesses. Canada uses "output-based allocation" where a relatively green business in an industry is used as a baseline. That is set as a target - create X unit of product with Y units of carbon emissions, and your carbon emissions are untaxed. Every carbon emission over Y is taxed. In this way, a comparatively green business within a dirty industry can still compete with foreigners, but for a dirty business, the marginal value of going green is just as high as if there was no exemptions at all. It's not ideal. It's bureaucratic, tedious, economically suboptimal, and politically complicated since it seems unfair. But it's a good intermediate solution until Nordhaus' full dream could be realized. The money is rebated directly to citizens in federally-regulated provinces. Conservatives hate it all anyways because their carbon plan is "no."

_Microft 7y ago

Polluting industries don't get a 'get out of jail free' card - they just die if people don't want to buy their then-expensive products anymore. So if you like they will pay the ultimate price instead.