So the guy working in a kitchen that makes $20k a year and bikes to work should be taxed the same as the ceo with a private jet when it comes to carbon production?

A carbon tax just puts a price on carbon emissions. So if the guy bikes to work and doesn't buy gas, he's not paying taxes on carbon emissions, while the CEO in a private jet pays more. If the carbon tax proceeds are redistributed, the guy in the kitchen comes ahead, actually.

Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price.

Implementing a carbon tax that increases that cost along every step of a supply chain increases the price of everything, not just gasoline.

See: Price of groceries (and all other CPG) in Canada. People will blame the retailers and lazy headlines about record profits, but if you look at their actual margins, the value of CAD, and the fact that the government is increasing the population faster than anything else can catch up… it’s not surprising that they’re posting record numbers. People need to eat. The oligopoly issue definitely plays a part but that’s another can of worms.

> Everything in the modern world has the oil/energy needed to create it baked into the price.

Ye, and CEO consumes more of everything, so anyone lower income will receive more from re-distrubtion than they wil pay in tax.

Yes, and thus it’s highly motivating for every link of the supply chain to figure out how to exploit low- or no-carbon energy sources.

Which might work in other countries with a different climate, geography, and population density but until electric tractor trailers or teleportation become a reality it’s just increasing the cost of living for everyone who already can’t afford to “invest in green solutions”.

Unfortunately our current government doesn’t realize that they’re not comparable to California.

Carbon emissions produce externalized costs or they don’t. If they do, it’s the proper role of government to internalize them while ameliorating any inequitable transition costs.

Everything else is green theater.

That's the point, to get the market to react. At first the carbon tax is low, but increases steadily so market will have time to react. Just announcing it will get things going

> Implementing a carbon tax that increases that cost along every step of a supply chain increases the price of everything, not just gasoline.

Yes, and that's the fucking point of it. If producing a pound of steak emits 20 kg of CO2, then either whoever's buying the steak is paying for it, or the rest of humanity is paying for it when climate change comes back knocking at the door.

* From quick Google search, a pound of steak might be somewhere between 20-60 kg CO2.

Yes. The alternative is having politicians and beaurocrats fighting about all the little details of who gets what.

It’s not about being fair, it’s about keeping the politicians out of it as much as possible. It costs very little money to let the 1% get theirs, because by definition there just aren’t very many of them. Thats a tiny price to pay for the major advantage of less political football.

Most serious carbon tax proposals seem to be for revenue neutral taxes. Tax carbon at the source, distribute the tax equally among the population.

Under such a tax the distribution to that $20k a year bike commuting kitchen worker would probably be significantly more than the amount the carbon tax has raised their costs.

That CEO on the other hand would see the costs to operate their jet go up way more than their share of the carbon tax distribution.

One of the big problems seems to be simply getting supporters to agree on what to do with the money. There are plenty of supporters who staunchly insist the money must be used exclusively for miscellaneous social justice causes.

Give it directly back to the people. Do not allow them to spend it on anything, not even to fund the (hopefully small) beaurocracy necessary to implement the tax.

I agree with you. Trouble is, they don’t, and thus the issue can’t present a united front, and it doesn’t get anywhere.

What this kind of proposal needs is a name the progressive and moderate left can rally around. Something akin to “living wage”.

Mandating a “living wage” makes some things noticeably more expensive: Burgers, rideshares, lawn care, …

A serious, effective carbon tax will make gas more expensive. Maybe 50 cents/gallon.

If the voting public felt the same way about gas prices as they do about the minimum wage—if you can’t afford it your financial model is immoral—an effective carbon tax would be a political slam dunk.

How about “Carbon UBI?”

Carbon Tax and Dividend is the one I’ve heard most about