6 ms·

> Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time This is infeasible, there are already millions who are struggling to get by with exis

> Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time This is infeasible, there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills, and without enough cash to upgrade to more eco-friendly systems. These people are stuck on fossil fuels, increasing taxes for it across the board is just going to cause more pain, suffering, and homelessness. A better idea would be progressive taxation built into income tax. The higher-earners also tend to be bigger polluters, so it makes sense in that regard as well.

dmm 3y ago
> there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.
sokoloff 3y ago
There’s no (non-political) reason that we couldn’t issue a refundable tax credit of $1000/yr (or another amount) to every full-year resident and increase taxes on fossil fuels by an amount such that a median consumer of fossil fuels would break even. The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  You need a carbon tax, and one that also imposes itself on imports so that other countries can’t cheat. Canadians have a system similar to this. Everyone pays a carbon tax. 10% of the total pool is skimmed and used by the government for climate related things, and only climate related things. Then the rest of the money is split evenly among everyone. The poorer people come out ahead since they use less (e.g. can’t afford a car and take public transit) and thus paid less than the average but receive the average amount back.
  - gs17 3y ago
    IMO it's better to call it "fee and dividend", "carbon tax" has a lot of baggage associated with it. I'm a strong supporter of it, but if you say "tax" you'll immediately get people (people who would benefit from such a system regardless of climate effects) insisting it will all go to the government.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
It’s hard to compete exonomically with a business that is allowed to dispose of their waste (Greenhouse gasses) for free.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  The waste isn't just greenhouse gasses. Its literally anything you can dig up from the Earth so it also includes radioactive elements. I really think that would've been the better angle to attack coal power plants with.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    I agree, but that’s a rhetorically more dangerous path. If you start emphasizing the dangers of radiation, the fossil fuel industry will double down on scare mongering about nuclear energy.

dmm 3y ago

> there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.

sokoloff 3y ago

There’s no (non-political) reason that we couldn’t issue a refundable tax credit of $1000/yr (or another amount) to every full-year resident and increase taxes on fossil fuels by an amount such that a median consumer of fossil fuels would break even. The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
You need a carbon tax, and one that also imposes itself on imports so that other countries can’t cheat. Canadians have a system similar to this. Everyone pays a carbon tax. 10% of the total pool is skimmed and used by the government for climate related things, and only climate related things. Then the rest of the money is split evenly among everyone. The poorer people come out ahead since they use less (e.g. can’t afford a car and take public transit) and thus paid less than the average but receive the average amount back.
- gs17 3y ago
  IMO it's better to call it "fee and dividend", "carbon tax" has a lot of baggage associated with it. I'm a strong supporter of it, but if you say "tax" you'll immediately get people (people who would benefit from such a system regardless of climate effects) insisting it will all go to the government.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

It’s hard to compete exonomically with a business that is allowed to dispose of their waste (Greenhouse gasses) for free.

lesuorac 3y ago
The waste isn't just greenhouse gasses. Its literally anything you can dig up from the Earth so it also includes radioactive elements. I really think that would've been the better angle to attack coal power plants with.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  I agree, but that’s a rhetorically more dangerous path. If you start emphasizing the dangers of radiation, the fossil fuel industry will double down on scare mongering about nuclear energy.