It should, in principle. Canada recently introduced a carbon tax with dividend program in which about 80% of consumers receive more in dividends than they pay out in carbon tax. Despite that, opposition is very significant. It's a crazy world.

I’m all for carbon taxes too, but I always question the accounting for this.

Consumers pay some carbon taxes directly (e.g. while buying gasoline), but does this account for indirect carbon taxes (e.g. the natural gas used in making fertilizer to grow the food that the cow ate to make this burger?).

At the end of the day, a lot of our purchases are really paying for the energy used in its production at some level.

In theory, if both the burger and the natural gas is domestic, it's fully accounted. The tax is on the natural gas so the cost shows up in the burger.

In practice, it's @#%#ed up, as usual. They didn't implement a carbon tariff, so foreign fertilizer would have been a lot cheaper than domestic fertilizer. But instead of putting a carbon tariff on foreign fertilizer, they gave domestic fertilizer a 90% exemption.

Tariffs are often regulated by treaties or meet with reactionary tariffs so local exemptions are usually the most practical way of dealing with imports.

How do I get my own exemption? I’m more special than everyone else.

Do you compete in an industry subject to some sort of excise tax or tariff? If so, then hire a lawyer to explain the existing exemptions to you.

If not, go troll somewhere else.

The premise is that the exemptions were selected for political reasons, and a small fish in a small industry has zero chance of getting their own exemption.

That's politically expedient, but if laundering carbon is as easy as exchanging goods across a border then what's the point?