News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks by mac01021 on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @04:59PM (#18972987)
They need not be regressive.

For starters, high income people tend to have much greater carbon footprints. I, in the top decile, probably quintuple my carbon footprint by engaging in a little bit of unnecessary air travel (living in New England, in 2018 I went once to Shanghai, once to Puerto Rico, and once to Montana). The average private jet owner probably has a carbon footprint 10x - 100x of mine.

Then, you have a tax and it _still_ turns out to be regressive (or even if it doesn't), you can use the tax revenue in a way that disproportionally benefits low income people.

The best policy (IMO) is a carbon fee-and-dividend, where all of the proceeds of the tax are redistributed evenly amongst all residents of the nation.

There is a bill in the US congress that would enact just this policy (https://energyinnovationact.org/) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7173). If you like the policy, let your congressmen know. And everyone else too.

And it _really_ is the best policy. Even if it did nothing to reduce emissions, it's a matter of justice. I won't tell you that you can't fly across the country every single weekend or emit a gigaton of carbon mining bitcoin but, if you do, you _really_ should reimburse me and my 2-year-old daughter for the harm you're doing to our futures.

Re:1500 Private Jets Fly to Davos for Climate Talks by jakewins on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @05:09PM (#18973091)
Very well said. I think this is a convincing argument that I'm wrong.

> The best policy (IMO) is a carbon fee-and-dividend, where all of the proceeds of the tax are redistributed evenly amongst all residents of the nation.

This seems ideal; get the benefits of moving carbon externalities into the price of consumption and use that revenue to both make the tax palatable and reduce wealth inequality.