Yes, give them permission to continue polluting if they just pay the fee. That’s such a good plan. And let’s ignore that this policy, like any tax tied directly to consumption, tends to be highly regressive – hurting the poorest people onto whom the costs are inevitably pushed the most. Not to mention it’s just goddamn radioactive, politically. But sure, throw all the eggs in that basket. Ignore that it’s the longest shot. The neoliberals have this one figured out and their policies always work out well.
Just look at how the public at large feels about the carbon tax in Canada. They sure do love it.
The reality is, carbon taxes would just increase profits for polluters, who will pass the costs (including margins) straight onto the consumers.
The bad behaviors need to be banned, not paid for.
Fortunately, the actual best thing is policies that are actually being pursued (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act) don’t try and do things in this backwards, Reaganomics-thinking way. Instead, these policies build wide base and financing for renewable projects. They leverage market competition to hurt fossils directly and support/extend renewable sectors. They make use of industrial policy (maybe we can get some energy production out of Keynes spinning in his coffin). And have wide-reaching effects by dangling carrots – effects like the growing sector of electric industrial heat batteries, excess capacity being gobbled up for once-nonsense projects like green hydrogen or DAC where once it would’ve simply been curtailed, and the like.
And the best thing about these policies is they build constituencies, make allies of even slow capital, and directly benefit the poorest people by creating visible improvements in their lives (like helping them install rooftop solar and thus lower their energy bill). If they just stick around a little while, they become impossible to repeal, rather than a festering wound everyone can wag fingers at.
The next phase will be (more) blocking of permits for things like LNG projects and major utility reform. Renewables already outcompete fossils on the open market economically, but we need better transmission capacity to make use of all that cheap energy to continue shutting down fossil plants.
The carbon dividend makes the policy overall progressive, like a mini-UBI. It seems we agree that helping the poorest people is a good thing, and they will benefit the most.
The carbon tax should not be an exclusive policy. Canada estimates its tax will account for 1/3rd of its emissions reductions by 2030. That’s a nice big chunk for one policy, but plainly insufficient on its own. Absolutely fund renewable infrastructure (including subsidies), public transport, walkable/bikeable housing, etc. Set hard limits / bans where appropriate (banning all emissions is not remotely feasible). A carbon tax is highly complementary to these.
Politics is messy. In Canada the Conservative Party (remind me – are they for or against fighting climate change?) opposes the carbon tax, and associates it with Labor, so they have a ton of propaganda against it. Half of Canadians don’t even realize they are getting a huge rebate back, let alone that it’s more than they are paying in taxes (Abacus Data). That’s why it’s important to get people to understand how a carbon tax actually works.
If you think businesses can just absorb a tax without changes, then great: set the price of carbon emissions at the cost to remove it from the atmosphere and problem solved.
More realistically, theory and practice both predict that businesses will look for cheaper (i.e. less polluting) approaches and consumers will choose cheaper (i.e. less polluting) products. And both will do so in ways that have the highest impact for the lowest effort.
Maybe you can clarify what you mean by taking money out of the equation, because it’s not clear to me what steps that involves or what the expected outcome looks like.
And the best thing to push the government to do is pass a Carbon Tax – tax polluters and give that back to the people.
Yes, give them permission to continue polluting if they just pay the fee. That’s such a good plan. And let’s ignore that this policy, like any tax tied directly to consumption, tends to be highly regressive – hurting the poorest people onto whom the costs are inevitably pushed the most. Not to mention it’s just goddamn radioactive, politically. But sure, throw all the eggs in that basket. Ignore that it’s the longest shot. The neoliberals have this one figured out and their policies always work out well.
Just look at how the public at large feels about the carbon tax in Canada. They sure do love it.
The reality is, carbon taxes would just increase profits for polluters, who will pass the costs (including margins) straight onto the consumers.
The bad behaviors need to be banned, not paid for.
Fortunately, the actual best thing is policies that are actually being pursued (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act) don’t try and do things in this backwards, Reaganomics-thinking way. Instead, these policies build wide base and financing for renewable projects. They leverage market competition to hurt fossils directly and support/extend renewable sectors. They make use of industrial policy (maybe we can get some energy production out of Keynes spinning in his coffin). And have wide-reaching effects by dangling carrots – effects like the growing sector of electric industrial heat batteries, excess capacity being gobbled up for once-nonsense projects like green hydrogen or DAC where once it would’ve simply been curtailed, and the like.
And the best thing about these policies is they build constituencies, make allies of even slow capital, and directly benefit the poorest people by creating visible improvements in their lives (like helping them install rooftop solar and thus lower their energy bill). If they just stick around a little while, they become impossible to repeal, rather than a festering wound everyone can wag fingers at.
The next phase will be (more) blocking of permits for things like LNG projects and major utility reform. Renewables already outcompete fossils on the open market economically, but we need better transmission capacity to make use of all that cheap energy to continue shutting down fossil plants.
The carbon dividend makes the policy overall progressive, like a mini-UBI. It seems we agree that helping the poorest people is a good thing, and they will benefit the most.
The carbon tax should not be an exclusive policy. Canada estimates its tax will account for 1/3rd of its emissions reductions by 2030. That’s a nice big chunk for one policy, but plainly insufficient on its own. Absolutely fund renewable infrastructure (including subsidies), public transport, walkable/bikeable housing, etc. Set hard limits / bans where appropriate (banning all emissions is not remotely feasible). A carbon tax is highly complementary to these.
Politics is messy. In Canada the Conservative Party (remind me – are they for or against fighting climate change?) opposes the carbon tax, and associates it with Labor, so they have a ton of propaganda against it. Half of Canadians don’t even realize they are getting a huge rebate back, let alone that it’s more than they are paying in taxes (Abacus Data). That’s why it’s important to get people to understand how a carbon tax actually works.
You mean a “cost of doing business” tax?
The best thing to do is to take money out of the equation, not make it about money.
If you think businesses can just absorb a tax without changes, then great: set the price of carbon emissions at the cost to remove it from the atmosphere and problem solved.
More realistically, theory and practice both predict that businesses will look for cheaper (i.e. less polluting) approaches and consumers will choose cheaper (i.e. less polluting) products. And both will do so in ways that have the highest impact for the lowest effort.
Maybe you can clarify what you mean by taking money out of the equation, because it’s not clear to me what steps that involves or what the expected outcome looks like.