A carbon tax would be more popular at if it was redistributed to the citizenry.

Carbon tax is different from other taxes as the primary purpose is not to raise money for govt, it's to reduce carbon producing activity.

So take all the proceeds and distribute directly to every citizen to use as they want - e.g to buy petrol if that's their choice.

When people see those checks arriving they'll be more positive.

> A carbon tax would be more popular at if it was redistributed to the citizenry.

The Washington state plan included this redistribution. People didn't go for it.

What is the point? My gas bill goes up, only partially paid for by this check that I'm getting. A few who don't buy gas see some extra cash, but most people don't see any option to not drive so they lose.

The biggest changes will be made by businesses since they are much more price sensitive than individuals. A lot of things will happen that you don't even notice

Say you are choosing between 2 otherwise identical apartments that include utilities in rent. One building is more energy efficient than the other thus can charge less in rent and still make as much profit. Even though you are getting a dividend check you will still choose the lower priced apartment (if you are a rational economic actor).

Multiply this scenario across the billions of economic decisions across the economy and it adds up quickly.

In your specific scenario, since the initial tax is low a few pennies in added cost won't really matter, gas prices go up and down already. But you know that the price will continue to rise, so if you are a rational economic actor, the next time you buy a car you will take that into account. And by the time you need a new car the price of EVs may have declined enough to be cheaper than a new gas car, as they are predicted to be by the middle of the decade (fuel and maintenance are already significantly cheaper).

You get the same refund whether you buy more gas or not. The point is it incentivizes people to use less carbon.

My point is most people don't see their gas consumption as something they can change. There are a few who will, and eventually more fuel efficient cars become popular, but for the most part people see gasoline as something you need to buy to live life. So if the price goes up other things get cut first. In other words gasoline is not very elastic, which we already know. When people start to see that carbon tax is why they can't live, they will vote to kill it.

In the US we are not in a situation where drivers are a small enough minority that they can be ignored.

We have friends who are into their car rallying.

They drive in a group of 4 or 5 families half way across the country towing their rally cars and entourage, let alone the actual racing part. It's a huge gas guzzling event.

Yes, they probably consider that they need to keep up this hobby "to live".

One of them said to me that she did feel bad about the environmental impact, but she had no way to offset it.

In her eyes, higher petrol prices would be good - unpleasant but good - because she could then be guilt-free about her carbon-spewing lifestyle.

This to me is the true beauty of a carbon tax.

> The most recent was basically the cadillac of carbon taxes, they threw in everything you can throw in to address concerns. It still failed.

Sounds like I need to read about that.

Also, shit. There goes one of my last hopes. Really hope Project Vesta pans out, because I don't see much else.