Carbon Tax

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The nuclear argument annoys me because it is so irrelevant. The electricity sector in general, is by far the easiest part of the economy to decarbonise: not only that, but there's actually a whole host of ways to do it even with modern technology(The other irritating thing is when people talk about baseload power being necessary). We've reached a stage where most mature economies (with a few exceptions) will essentially shed their fossil plants with very little government intervention required; and increasingly the third world too is starting to go off the idea.

No the tricky parts (in order of increasing difficulty) will be: transport (especially aviation), buildings and space heating, industry, waste treatment, agriculture and land usage. Even the biggest nuclear program in the world will do jack against those ills. Many countries are starting to see their emissions reductions plateau after they've taken out the low hanging fruit - the coal plants - and are now stuck with stubbornly high emissions from their vehicle fleet or underinvestment in their housing stock.

(That said nuclear has a place, but there is only one real way to save the nuclear industry via a sensible solution: the carbon tax itself)

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

The main issue with going all nuclear is that we have a finite amount of uranium ore. We do need to shift more towards nuclear energy (rather than close nuclear power plants to reopen coal-fired ones as was done in Germany).

[Person Man]

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.

And a Carbon tax's revenues can be passed back to consumers to be zer emissions vehicles. Hopefully, this tax would soon not generate much revenue.

[ABTars2000]

Yes

[Torie]

I would start with a revenue neutral one, and see how that goes first. Among other things, a revenue raising carbon tax might be regressive.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

I would start with a revenue neutral one, and see how that goes first. Among other things, a revenue raising carbon tax might be regressive.

WA I-1631 won a larger percentage of the vote than I-732 even though it proposed a more regressive tax policy. Community and POC/tribal outreach matters, especially in a left-leaning state like Washington.

[Lincoln_Chaffee]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

[brucejoel99]

Yes, b/c it reduces emissions by encouraging the lowest-cost emissions reductions (& does so w/out anybody needing to know beforehand when & where these emissions reductions will occur), encourages investors & entrepreneurs to develop new low-carbon technologies, & generates government revenue that can be used in productive ways. Plus, a carbon tax offers stable carbon prices, so energy producers & entrepreneurs can make investment decisions w/out fear of fluctuating regulatory costs, unlike w/ cap & trade. Additionally, if emissions reductions are cheaper than expected (which might occur if, for example, an economic downturn causes emissions to fall), then a tax provides a continuing price signal whereas cap & trade doesn't encourage reductions beyond the emissions target.

Above all else, though, a carbon tax actually addresses the risks of climate change (which should really be most of what, if not all that, matters at this point) by ensuring we can achieve the greater climate policy ambition we need.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

[mvd10]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Well, it would incentivize some people to change. Now people who live 100 miles away and don't have other options will obviously still keep driving, their demand for ''driving'' is very inelastic. But there are people who have other options (perhaps they're rich and they could afford a tesla, perhaps there is public transit but they just prefer not to use it, etc). If driving becomes more expensive for these people they might just go for the option they considered inferior earlier on. If you ignore externalities this would reduce welfare as people change their behaviour and pick the option they considered inferior when taking all costs and benefits into account. But not all costs of polluting are paid by the individual, the costs of polluting often are borne by society. Now if driving my car to my city pollutes the air and costs society as a whole a couple of dollars I won't give a crap since I'm just one of the millions of people who'll end up paying the price of my decision (the direct impact of the decision on my personal situation is negligible, divide a couple of dollars by 1 million lmao). But if millions of people make this decision we're screwed and society gets a suboptimal result despite everyone rationally picking their optimal choice.

This doesn't say I'm a big fan of the carbon tax. I used to be a big supporter, but the whole yellow vests drama made me a little less enthusiastic. The last thing I want is movements like that becoming stronger. God that'd be so annoying. I guess we'll have to find a solution that would somewhat compensate the people who lose out directly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Well, it would incentivize some people to change. Now people who live 100 miles away and don't have other options will obviously still keep driving, their demand for ''driving'' is very inelastic. But there are people who have other options (perhaps they're rich and they could afford a tesla, perhaps there is public transit but they just prefer not to use it, etc). If driving becomes more expensive for these people they might just go for the option they considered inferior earlier on. If you ignore externalities this would reduce welfare as people change their behaviour and pick the option they considered inferior when taking all costs and benefits into account. But not all costs of polluting are paid by the individual, the costs of polluting often are borne by society. Now if driving my car to my city pollutes the air and costs society as a whole a couple of dollars I won't give a crap since I'm just one of the millions of people who'll end up paying the price of my decision (the direct impact of the decision on my personal situation is negligible, divide a couple of dollars by 1 million lmao). But if millions of people make this decision we're screwed and society gets a suboptimal result despite everyone rationally picking their optimal choice.

This doesn't say I'm a big fan of the carbon tax. I used to be a big supporter, but the whole yellow vests drama made me a little less enthusiastic. The last thing I want is movements like that becoming stronger. God that'd be so annoying. I guess we'll have to find a solution that would somewhat compensate the people who lose out directly.

Maybe in Europe it may incentivize people to move back to the city but in the US it really wouldn’t as the reason people move to the Suburbs in the first place is the fact that housing is cheaper , schools are generally better , there is less crime , etc.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies. 

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies. 

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

1.Pollution is still not being charged anywhere near to what it costs.  So, in fact, you do want others to foot the bill.

2.Global warming also hurts the middle class (and the poor) far more than anybody else.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

1.Pollution is still not being charged anywhere near to what it costs.  So, in fact, you do want others to foot the bill.

2.Global warming also hurts the middle class (and the poor) far more than anybody else.

The fact is you haven’t addressed how a carbon tax will incentive people who  buy cars that cost between 15k-25k to buy a Tesla .


So no a carbon tax won’t reduce pollution it will just make the middle class put more in taxes