Carbon Tax

[mileslunn]

Do you support or oppose the idea of a carbon tax.  And if you support one, should the revenue be used for more spending elsewhere, or should it be revenue neutral with all the revenue raised used to cut taxes elsewhere?  I support a revenue neutral carbon tax, so discuss.

[Independents for Nihilism]

I'm disappointed the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax hasn't gained more traction. Normally I'm in favour of incentivizing rather than penalizing but this would be the most elegant way to reduce emissions without unnecessary regulation.

[Del Tachi]

Cap and trade would work better

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I support, but the idea that it can work as a cure all and all other decarbonisation programs will be rendered irrelevant is utopian fiction. For starters, the carbon price would have to be raised to pretty extreme levels.

[YE]

Yes (normal, D).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cap and trade would work better

Not really. While there are some pollutants for which cap and trade works, the nature of carbon emissions makes the consumption tax method better. There are a wide number of small emitters, so issuing trading credits would be both cumbersome and present many opportunities for fraud.

[Theodore]

Yes (normal, D).

[Sadader]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

Ordinary people pollute a sh**tton. Producers aren’t killing environment for fun, they’re doing it because consumers demand it. For a Carbon tax to be effective it needs to not have exemptions, but a Revenue carbon tax with cuts to corporate taxes, and lower low income marginal rates would addess the equity issue well.

[Blue3]

What’s the point of revenue neutral? The point is to discourage pollution AND shrink the deficit.

[mileslunn]

What’s the point of revenue neutral? The point is to discourage pollution AND shrink the deficit.

Revenue neutral is to make it act like a carrot and stick.  Pay more if you pollute, but if you don't you don't pay the carbon tax and you save with lower income taxes.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Like a Carbon tax will make Teslas more affordable or Improve the Mileage on Electric Cars which are more affordable.

[NeverAgain]

A Carbon Tax will offset the negative externalities that affect the economy, but are not seen in the cost of products. I am fully supportive, but there MUST be a rebate of some sort, and some of the money should go towards investing in clean energy infrastructure.

[courts]

i'm not really a huge fan of the idea.but some sort of increase in taxes is going to need to happen to pay for infrastructure.and probably r&d on things like carbon sequestration

[Senator-elect Spark]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

Incentives both pick specific technologies and are an incentive to fraud. As a general rule they should be avoided.

[136or142]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

A carbon tax is an incentive.

[courts]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

Incentives both pick specific technologies and are an incentive to fraud. As a general rule they should be avoided.

yeah that's basically what i've concluded

[Sadader]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

A carbon tax is an incentive.

A carbon tax is an anti-carbon pigouvian externality correction, which is addessing the problem correctly. Incentives to encourage renewable sources distort the market by picking specific energy source winners, and doesn’t directly address the negative externality.

[136or142]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

A carbon tax is an incentive.

A carbon tax is an anti-carbon pigouvian externality correction, which is addessing the problem correctly. Incentives to encourage renewable sources distort the market by picking specific energy source winners, and doesn’t directly address the negative externality.

A carbon tax is a negative incentive.  Cap and trade is both a negative incentive and the trading encourages firms to reduce their emissions further to trade their credits.  However, cap and trade is less transparent and the cap and trade market is possibly more easy to manipulate.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

I support, but the idea that it can work as a cure all and all other decarbonisation programs will be rendered irrelevant is utopian fiction. For starters, the carbon price would have to be raised to pretty extreme levels.

At this point we know we're screwed on climate change and ecological degradation, the question is what if anything should be done about it. Any progress on this front is better than none at all.

A Carbon Tax will offset the negative externalities that affect the economy, but are not seen in the cost of products. I am fully supportive, but there MUST be a rebate of some sort, and some of the money should go towards investing in clean energy infrastructure.

[erſatz-york]

I wouldn’t mind a small carbon tax which would fund R&D of carbon capture technologies.

[RI]

I wouldn’t mind a small carbon tax which would fund R&D of carbon capture technologies.

Yes, going full bore on carbon sequestration is the only real way forward.

[TJ in Oregon]

I wouldn’t mind a small carbon tax which would fund R&D of carbon capture technologies.

Yes, going full bore on carbon sequestration is the only real way forward.

I'm pretty unconvinced. Sequestering carbon is itself fairly difficult to do without breaking the bank. Even then, we still have the question of what to do with it.

Honestly, the way forward is nuclear energy. It has been for years, we just lack the political will to make it happen.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Honestly, the way forward is nuclear energy. It has been for years, we just lack the political will to make it happen.

+1, although carbon taxes are still the best option for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Honestly, the way forward is nuclear energy. It has been for years, we just lack the political will to make it happen.

+1, although carbon taxes are still the best option for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy isn't bad per se, but it is decreasingly competitive against solar/wind. The same capacity can be generated reliably by renewables as can be by wind with less cost (and less political opposition), and it is only getting better. Look at Hinkley Point C vs offshore wind in the UK for a contemporary example.