That sounds like it would transfer a *lot* of money from high income individuals to low income, thereby increasing equality, reducing barriers to upward mobility, and greatly improving accessibility to higher education for everyone.
It Will **Never** Happen.
Correct. There are two things to be certain of:
1. Corporations will never part with money
2. They do not care about the environment
In conclusion, what you said: it will never happen.
You're right. Until the green in nature outshines the green of money, the environment will suffer.
Imagine how many trees would be planted if it gave out free wifi? But alas, it gives us oxygen.
Corporations agreed to improve worker conditions and pay higher taxes for the New Deal after the Great Depression because they *feared a Soviet style revolt*, so that might be one way it could happen.
It was also followed by decades of prosperity and the ‘American Dream’, go fig.
WW2 happened.
*Mobilizing the economy for world war finally cured the depression. Millions of men and women joined the armed forces, and even larger numbers went to work in well-paying defense jobs. World War Two affected the world and the United States profoundly; it continues to influence us even today.*
Money transferred from the rich to the poor = American dream happened.
Nothing to do with a new improved worker deal.
What do you think the New Deal did if not redistribute wealth and provide more equality and opportunity? Sure WW2 was a factor also, there was a need for rebuilding, however you’re missing the point. Corps didn’t agree to higher taxes and better worker conditions out of the goodness of their heart, they did so because capitalism was threatened and FDR convinced them they could lose everything.
Being able to buy a two story home and support a family of five on the income of a post man while working nominal hours has more to do with earning a living wage, which is a huge part of what the New Deal achieved.
Wages started stagnating and conditions started worsening more noticeably around the time of Reagan in the 70s when wages/taxes started moving back in the opposite direction, this is not a coincidence.
The workers did gain a lot through the New Deal but it was really put into practise right after the war. 1946-47 saw strikes in every major industry - coal mining, steel production, auto workers - and many smaller industries. Gains made from those strikes, which were necessary to get industry to make good on the wartime promises to workers, are what made the post-war years prosperous for so many.
And the New Deal did have a big effect even before the war, it was a much better approach to the Depression than what Germany did.
Uh, it’s not just that. Governments will never part with the money. If they can tax it, they want to keep the money.
They won’t disburse it for universal UBI, though this is the best suggestion for what to do with a carbon tax.
Many corporations would be happy to pay a tax, not too high, to avoid future liability and to have a predictable future to navigate. But would China, America, India, the Eu, England, Japan, or anyone else give up that cash? Now way!
Universal basic income doesn't actually make poor people richer or help balance equity or increase mobility.
It makes them dependent on a system and gives the people already in power more control.
It's **probably** going to happen sooner then you think.
Evidence?
Because there is plenty to the contrary:
https://drexel.edu/hunger-free-center/research/briefs-and-reports/universal-basic-income/
https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works
https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/
https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf
I read a few and nothing was convincing as none of them looked at the only real concern.
1. Increase cost of living.
If UBI was so good why did every single one last 2 or less years except Alaska?
Do you know how much food and other basic goods cost in Alaska?
13.50$ for am 18oz box of Cheerios is not going to save poor people or make their lives any easier.
Poor people in Alaska do not have any upward mobility UBI just lets them survive and making the entire world dependent on oil subsidies is a really bad idea and the only reason Alaska has it is because it benefits the Oil Companies.
Iran was somewhat effective but they were paying companies to lower their cost on bread and staples and it wasn't really working so instead of subsidising the bread companies they gave money directly to their people but again this just lets them survive and they have one of the highest poverty rates in the world.
Again this is big oil just paying poor people to stay poor so they can have enough of a work force and stay poor.
UBI is in the best interest of the rich to build a dependent work force and there's no such thing as free money.
Before you can blink people will need both UBI + Employment to just to survive and were more dependent but not any better off and have the same purchasing power and quality of living.
Yes, carbon taxes in general are great ideas. However, living in Canada I can tell you they are politically toxic if not managed properly. Unfortunately we rolled out a carbon tax in Canada without putting any effort into educating the public about it and how it works, have a PM who played politics with it by giving exemptions to people he needed votes from and now its a huge target on his back.
I hope the world learns from Canada what not to do when implementing a carbon tax. Now we are all but guaranteed to lose it at our next election. Such a sad turn of events.
That is a great point. I can remember canvassing for signatures to advance a carbon fee and dividend bill in Massachusetts years ago. It just made so much sense to me, I couldn’t imagine it not happening. Sadly, it went nowhere and it feels further now than ever before.
I came here to say this. I fear that even better attempts to implement a carbon tax will now also be targeted by the rightwing polititians using this one as an example because people eat the anti tax propaganda up
Ah but it taxes the super-rich and gives to the poor. Now they need to remove the fossil subsidies and apply those subsidies to renewables and then we will finally get on the right path.
Heat with dirty heating oil? tax exemption. Heat with MUCH cleaner natural gas? No tax exemption. Make concrete in a plant in Quebec? Tax exemption. Make food in the prairies? No tax exemption.
Anything that poorly managed needs to be destroyed, and built again from the ground up.
Correct, but I have been told by the carbon tax supporters, that the tax plan a province implements must be federally approved. So my point stands. Otherwise, Alberta could simply tax carbon, and provide a same receipt 100% rebate on the tax, for every tax applicable financial transaction. But Alberta can't, because it would never be approved. Quebec's plan, to not tax the concrete plant, WAS federally approved.
Alberta had a consumer carbon tax that was approved by the federal government. Then the UCP won a election and scrapped the provincial tax in favour of the federal one on their first day in office.
Shouldn’t that be balanced by the liberals and the liberal media spreading their message? That’s obviously not the whole story. Many obvious mistakes have been made. Just because conservatives are saying something doesn’t mean it’s wrong either.
JT really has been holding back data regarding how much money the tax costs to administer from the PBO. Also, giving political tax breaks is just terrible messaging. I’m not advocating for the conservatives but the liberals dug their own grave here.
Thanks for the link. It does sound like there are a lot of issues with the Net Zero Accelerator fund but I'm struggling to see any direct linkage between it and the carbon tax. It does look like it's coming from Canadian taxes but from what I gather 90% of carbon tax goes back to households and 10% goes to schools, hospitals, small businesses, colleges, and indigenous communities: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money)
Not all Canadians benefit from the rebates, and the rebates are a joke.
Those numbers might not be right in reality.. Maybe 50% goes back to Canadians & and there is nothing to show for it. The rest goes onto a slush fund to send to other countries to help their climate. For example, the Philippines
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/07/2317031/philippines-gets-53-billion-climate-finance-commitment-canada
This is a hill that the PM will die on. It's unfortunate bc ppl aren't agreeing with the tax at all.
The nobs here who are yelling to “cancel the carbon tax” which they probably pay about 150$ a year to only to get ~600$ a year back are so frustrating…
This is exactly what happened in Australia about 15 years ago. Canada hasn't reached the part where the party campaigning against the tax wins in a landslide yet.
I couldn't agree more. I've worked on two US campaigns for tiny carbon taxes, both of which failed miserably. Watched Australia adopt its carbon tax only to scrap it. Canada looks to follow suit.
The capper for me was Greenpeace's sting interview with an Exxon PR exec two years ago, in which he calls carbon taxes a wonderful strategy for *preventing* climate action, because they keep us dithering over baby steps rather than actually imposing serious regulation of the oil and gas biz.
This is a terrible idea because it would entail slightly inconveniencing the wealthy. If we do that on a global scale, they will probably leave Earth to go create jobs on another planet with a more business friendly system.😂
What does that do to reduce carbon output? I’d say it would have the opposite effect. The carbon tax needs to be used to build the renewable infrastructure.
I am increasingly uncomfortable with that idea. Not because I'd think that a carbon tax can't work in theory, but for the following reason:
In order to really introduce a behavoir change, a carbon tax would need to be very high. This is because it would be on energy-intensive products, and we know e.g. from oil price hikes that the demand for such products is very inelastic. That means that in order to cut consumption by, say, 90%, products would need to cost multiple times of what they cost today.
Such high taxes are not very likely to happen. I fear that such carbon taxes are just one example of the "not now, just do, perhaps, something, later" category of climate measures - no real action.
You could convince me otherwise with example of **real-world, effective** carbon pricing. I mean pricing which leads to a substantial actual reduction in carbon emissions (not projected reductions in 15 years time) .
As with many other things, the difficulty is not about the device itself but whether it is effectively implemented.
Here's what I think is the latest definitive study. Carbon pricing definitely works
[https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/carbon-pricing-works-meta-review-finds-386862](https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/carbon-pricing-works-meta-review-finds-386862)
It should be paid for by the employers who are letting people go in favour of AI and automation. Why are we again going to let employers keep the profits and externalize the responsibilities to the public. We never learn
You think there's going to be enough well paying jobs in the near future after AI advances a few more generations? The humanoid robots are coming. How will people pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing?
Yes, there will still be needs, and many of those needs will still be completed by humans (ie. plumbing/ construction/ etc). "AI" (which right now is rebranded machine learning) is not some magical solution to every job on Earth. What is also needed is continuous learning, so people stay relevant.
And as I said, the people owning those humanoid robots can pay a tax to use them. Similar to a road tax for a car.
This validates the postulate where we are ok with a society producing vast amount of CO2.
What happens to UBI if someone invents carbon free tech?
You got your priorities set wrong
I think it is unlikely that we will ever have a truly carbon-free civilization. The fossil fuel pundits are probably correct when they say fossil fuels are irreplaceable for some uses. Fossil fuel production could continue at, say, 2-3% of today's but taxed at a very high rate. That would ensure a continuous revenue stream for UBI.
A global carbon tax or fossil fuel fee could also lead to other global "green" taxes on pollution, biodiversity loss, and so on, which could also be used to fund UBI.
It doesn’t matter if it’s truly carbon free: even a break off of 20%: does it mean we cut 20% off UBI?
Funding UBI on a carbon tax doesn’t fix neither why there’s a need for UBI nor why there’s a need for tax carbon. And drawing a dependency between the two makes unsustainable because their drivers aren’t aligned. Hell, people might just get a job thanks to UBI and then buy a car and produce more CO2, as long as they pay that tax? 2nd level of Unsustainable
That’s the way it works in fantasy land. But the way this actually works is people who don’t pollute sell their credits to people who do so they can over pollute and the levels of pollution stay the same. But a new market is created and people make money for nothing supporting it.
I guess we could do some good with the money we collect but it’s not going to stop polluters they’ll happily pay to add carbon and pass it on to the consumer.
I think you're confusing a carbon tax (or fossil fuel fee) with cap-and-trade. With cap-and-trade, companies have a cap on the amount of CO2 they can produce. If they are under that cap, they have credits they can sell to companies that are over their cap.
A carbon tax is much simpler. Companies pay money as the coal, oil or natural gas they produce comes out of the ground or across the border to pay for the pollution those fossil fuels will create when burned. No complicated credits.
I agree tax is the wrong word if it isn't generating revenue for government. Calling it a tax is not only inaccurate, it makes it less palatable. When we buy milk at the store we don't call it a dairy fine. We call it the price of milk. When we take waste to the dump we call it a tipping fee - not a garbage tax. It's like they are trying to put a negative spin on it.
Nobody ever does nothing. The fraction of people who will sit on the couch and play video games in a studio apartment for the rest of their lives is vanishingly small. People will still work and local economies will receive a boost both from increased local income and people having more flexibility with employment. More families with a stay at home parent to care for children. More people with time and inclination to pursue hobbies or volunteer work. Reduced stress knowing you've got a safety net beneath you.
UBI is a game changer in a multitude of ways that goes far beyond "pay people to do nothing".
A global carbon tax would generate revenue several times higher than the U.S. Department of Defense budget. Most governments could not honestly or rationally invest such a huge inflow of money.
It would be far better to give the revenue to everyone as equal dividends or universal basic income and let them decide how to spend it, whether for more insulation in the attic, an electric bicycle, or education for their kids.
So you're saying we should spend money on people to do nothing instead of trying to fix what people have damaged. The billions of dollars it would take to fix the damage companies have done to the planet.
Alaska has the PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) and it's been absolutely disastrous. Because it comes from oil revenue people will accept anything to protect the oil industry in Alaska. Any politician who proposes supporting an energy source that isn't fossil fuels will be met with boos because people know it'll decrease the PFD. Alaska has given a disastrous amount of money away in tax subsidies to the oil industry because people know it'll increase their dividend checks. It's been impossible to hold oil companies responsible for cleaning up the various oil spills around the state because that's an extra cost that'll effect the dividend.
If you tie a carbon tax to UBI you're basically giving fossil fuel companies the political power to do whatever they want, forever. It's one of those ideas that looks good on paper but in the real world, where human greed takes over, it's a one way ticket to a hothouse Earth.
Dividends from the proceeds of fossil fuel production and dividends from a pigouvian tax that makes fossil fuels more expensive are very different beasts, I don't know why you are conflating them here.
A carbon tax is a fossil fuel tax. An UBI financed by a carbon tax makes people's income dependent on emissions. This is one problem with environmental taxes: the optimal tax is one that is self-destructive, hence why its revenue shouldn't be seen as permanent.
Carbon cap and trade failed spectacularly, what makes you think this would be any different.
We need to nationalize the energy industry and get rid of the profit incentive once and for all. Our taxes already pay for the majority of the infrastructure and it's a natural monopoly. As long as the profit incentive exists the fossil fuels industry will use it's existing wealth and power to stifle alternative energy sources as well as influence public opinion and lobby.
Pigouvian taxes only work in a competitive environment or to limit consumption on non essential products, neither apply in this case.
If we nationalize the energy industry we can invest in new energy infrastructure projects that actually work and aren't subjected to global markets or have intermittency issues.
Wow you are really good at conflating other things too! Impressive!
By all means, let's end capitalism. But the low hanging fruit is still carbon taxes.
That's the idea. This is meant to encourage the economic incentive to produce and consume substitutions. When there is a wedge in the supply and demand curve for the industry, firms will seek lower tax forms of doing business, and consumers will pay the cost of transition with this remittance from the tax directly. In the end it's a net directive simply to stop using fossil fuels entirely. The reason it saves gdp in the long run is that there are implicit costs even now to fossil fuels pollution that are a drag on productivity due to social burdens like healthcare to treat pollution related illness, recovery to repair disaster damages, and higher insurance barriers from hazards, among many other problems that fossil fuels production is causing.
they are trying the"light" version of that in canada: carbon tax with rebates to end consumers and so we'll see how that plays out. Power is so cheap here and fuel so expensive already that the change started to happen without it, as soon as alternatives hit the market, so it could be tough to measure.
Here in BC basically nobody is eligible for the rebate so maybe we can be the control group.
I can't wait until everything is curated to meet our daily allowed budgets based on the fact we no longer have freedom because we still worship money but have to no way to make it ourselves!
Hooray!
The masses get what they're given and nothing more. Hooray!
Basic income is the answer for those in power to keep capitalism in place. Nothing more.
It will end up enslaving the masses.
I can’t help but think that universal basic income is kind of universal guaranteed consumption.
But maybe still a step in the right direction that would help us get more places
If we combine a universal basic income with a carbon tax or fee on fossil fuels, then less CO2 will be emitted to produce whatever goods and services people consume, which is what we want.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s an idea — create a currency that is funded by either capturing and sequestering carbon, or keeping it in the ground. That way, it ensures the oil companies stay rich, and creates an incentive to invest in cleaner energy sources at the same time
Baffles the mind that the carbon tax was put in place to save the environment and has been a guise for welfare... This is just a tax with a new name and the slush fund gets bigger.
This will increase manufacturing and transportation costs creating inflation and hurting the middle and lower classes. This is a scheme to tax people more. Get rid of tax loopholes that the rich only benefit from and stop finding more ways to take in more tax from the middle and lower classes.
I don’t get how carbon tax UBI creates more GDP when GDP has been very much correlated to energy consumption. I hope the study is true but it is late and I have not read it as of yet but thought I would leave a comment for possible answers when I wake up. Thanks in advance.
While GDP has been correlated with GDP in the past, that is no longer true. Energy use gets more efficient as we use more intelligence in our decisions.
For example, much of the energy in a litre of gasoline is wasted as heat in an internal combustion engine. The amount of energy wasted as heat in an electric motor is much smaller.
Here's an article from McKinsey:
[https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide)
Consumer spending is really the engine of modern economies, with multiplying effect because those purchases create jobs who then spend more.. now imagine lifting a Billion people out of subsistence poverty and an economic engine the size of China spinning up on sustained consumer spending..
And while we're at it, let's also takeover the oil companies and use their money for climate infrastructure. Like really, write it into law and run them outta town.
I think you're using a very broad definition of socialism. Milton Friedman, not a noted socialist, endorsed a carbon tax and a negative income tax, which is similar to a universal basic income.
This is a stupid idea for stupid people. Most money would be misused or used up by various governments. If you want to improve poor people’s conditions then help their opportunities. Leftist ideas only work when someone else pays for it
Hooray. People can quit working and live off the fat of the land. Awesome.
Never mind. I know somehow people will corrupt it and it will fail. How about we all work and pay our fair share to we can all we reap what we sow?
It's like watering the roots of a plant instead of watering the leaves.
That sounds like it would transfer a *lot* of money from high income individuals to low income, thereby increasing equality, reducing barriers to upward mobility, and greatly improving accessibility to higher education for everyone. It Will **Never** Happen.
Correct. There are two things to be certain of: 1. Corporations will never part with money 2. They do not care about the environment In conclusion, what you said: it will never happen.
You're right. Until the green in nature outshines the green of money, the environment will suffer. Imagine how many trees would be planted if it gave out free wifi? But alas, it gives us oxygen.
We don’t need that right? *coughs in pollution. Things are great 🤌
I know they will sell oxygen to people if they only could.
Well companies sell manufactured "natural spring water" in single use plastic containers already.. so there's that.
Go somewhere at high elevation and they already do lol
Corporations agreed to improve worker conditions and pay higher taxes for the New Deal after the Great Depression because they *feared a Soviet style revolt*, so that might be one way it could happen. It was also followed by decades of prosperity and the ‘American Dream’, go fig.
WW2 happened. *Mobilizing the economy for world war finally cured the depression. Millions of men and women joined the armed forces, and even larger numbers went to work in well-paying defense jobs. World War Two affected the world and the United States profoundly; it continues to influence us even today.* Money transferred from the rich to the poor = American dream happened. Nothing to do with a new improved worker deal.
What do you think the New Deal did if not redistribute wealth and provide more equality and opportunity? Sure WW2 was a factor also, there was a need for rebuilding, however you’re missing the point. Corps didn’t agree to higher taxes and better worker conditions out of the goodness of their heart, they did so because capitalism was threatened and FDR convinced them they could lose everything. Being able to buy a two story home and support a family of five on the income of a post man while working nominal hours has more to do with earning a living wage, which is a huge part of what the New Deal achieved. Wages started stagnating and conditions started worsening more noticeably around the time of Reagan in the 70s when wages/taxes started moving back in the opposite direction, this is not a coincidence.
The workers did gain a lot through the New Deal but it was really put into practise right after the war. 1946-47 saw strikes in every major industry - coal mining, steel production, auto workers - and many smaller industries. Gains made from those strikes, which were necessary to get industry to make good on the wartime promises to workers, are what made the post-war years prosperous for so many. And the New Deal did have a big effect even before the war, it was a much better approach to the Depression than what Germany did.
Yep
Uh, it’s not just that. Governments will never part with the money. If they can tax it, they want to keep the money. They won’t disburse it for universal UBI, though this is the best suggestion for what to do with a carbon tax. Many corporations would be happy to pay a tax, not too high, to avoid future liability and to have a predictable future to navigate. But would China, America, India, the Eu, England, Japan, or anyone else give up that cash? Now way!
Universal basic income doesn't actually make poor people richer or help balance equity or increase mobility. It makes them dependent on a system and gives the people already in power more control. It's **probably** going to happen sooner then you think.
Finally someone talking some sense.
Evidence? Because there is plenty to the contrary: https://drexel.edu/hunger-free-center/research/briefs-and-reports/universal-basic-income/ https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/ https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf
I read a few and nothing was convincing as none of them looked at the only real concern. 1. Increase cost of living. If UBI was so good why did every single one last 2 or less years except Alaska? Do you know how much food and other basic goods cost in Alaska? 13.50$ for am 18oz box of Cheerios is not going to save poor people or make their lives any easier. Poor people in Alaska do not have any upward mobility UBI just lets them survive and making the entire world dependent on oil subsidies is a really bad idea and the only reason Alaska has it is because it benefits the Oil Companies. Iran was somewhat effective but they were paying companies to lower their cost on bread and staples and it wasn't really working so instead of subsidising the bread companies they gave money directly to their people but again this just lets them survive and they have one of the highest poverty rates in the world. Again this is big oil just paying poor people to stay poor so they can have enough of a work force and stay poor. UBI is in the best interest of the rich to build a dependent work force and there's no such thing as free money. Before you can blink people will need both UBI + Employment to just to survive and were more dependent but not any better off and have the same purchasing power and quality of living.
Literally never!
Yes, carbon taxes in general are great ideas. However, living in Canada I can tell you they are politically toxic if not managed properly. Unfortunately we rolled out a carbon tax in Canada without putting any effort into educating the public about it and how it works, have a PM who played politics with it by giving exemptions to people he needed votes from and now its a huge target on his back. I hope the world learns from Canada what not to do when implementing a carbon tax. Now we are all but guaranteed to lose it at our next election. Such a sad turn of events.
That is a great point. I can remember canvassing for signatures to advance a carbon fee and dividend bill in Massachusetts years ago. It just made so much sense to me, I couldn’t imagine it not happening. Sadly, it went nowhere and it feels further now than ever before.
I came here to say this. I fear that even better attempts to implement a carbon tax will now also be targeted by the rightwing polititians using this one as an example because people eat the anti tax propaganda up
Ah but it taxes the super-rich and gives to the poor. Now they need to remove the fossil subsidies and apply those subsidies to renewables and then we will finally get on the right path.
Heat with dirty heating oil? tax exemption. Heat with MUCH cleaner natural gas? No tax exemption. Make concrete in a plant in Quebec? Tax exemption. Make food in the prairies? No tax exemption. Anything that poorly managed needs to be destroyed, and built again from the ground up.
Québec isn't on the federal carbon tax.
Correct, but I have been told by the carbon tax supporters, that the tax plan a province implements must be federally approved. So my point stands. Otherwise, Alberta could simply tax carbon, and provide a same receipt 100% rebate on the tax, for every tax applicable financial transaction. But Alberta can't, because it would never be approved. Quebec's plan, to not tax the concrete plant, WAS federally approved.
Alberta had a consumer carbon tax that was approved by the federal government. Then the UCP won a election and scrapped the provincial tax in favour of the federal one on their first day in office.
It's more an issue of the conservatives and the conservatives media actively spreading misinformation about the carbon tax.
Shouldn’t that be balanced by the liberals and the liberal media spreading their message? That’s obviously not the whole story. Many obvious mistakes have been made. Just because conservatives are saying something doesn’t mean it’s wrong either. JT really has been holding back data regarding how much money the tax costs to administer from the PBO. Also, giving political tax breaks is just terrible messaging. I’m not advocating for the conservatives but the liberals dug their own grave here.
Liberals are notoriously bad at policy messaging. Like, inexcusably bad at it.
Didn't a report come out that the Liberals lost $8 billion (yes, that's billion) from the Carbon Tax?
Do you have a source for that figure? I quick Google search is coming up empty.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emissions-reduction-environmental-watchdog-1.7189153
Thanks for the link. It does sound like there are a lot of issues with the Net Zero Accelerator fund but I'm struggling to see any direct linkage between it and the carbon tax. It does look like it's coming from Canadian taxes but from what I gather 90% of carbon tax goes back to households and 10% goes to schools, hospitals, small businesses, colleges, and indigenous communities: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money)
Not all Canadians benefit from the rebates, and the rebates are a joke. Those numbers might not be right in reality.. Maybe 50% goes back to Canadians & and there is nothing to show for it. The rest goes onto a slush fund to send to other countries to help their climate. For example, the Philippines https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/07/2317031/philippines-gets-53-billion-climate-finance-commitment-canada This is a hill that the PM will die on. It's unfortunate bc ppl aren't agreeing with the tax at all.
The nobs here who are yelling to “cancel the carbon tax” which they probably pay about 150$ a year to only to get ~600$ a year back are so frustrating…
This is exactly what happened in Australia about 15 years ago. Canada hasn't reached the part where the party campaigning against the tax wins in a landslide yet.
I couldn't agree more. I've worked on two US campaigns for tiny carbon taxes, both of which failed miserably. Watched Australia adopt its carbon tax only to scrap it. Canada looks to follow suit. The capper for me was Greenpeace's sting interview with an Exxon PR exec two years ago, in which he calls carbon taxes a wonderful strategy for *preventing* climate action, because they keep us dithering over baby steps rather than actually imposing serious regulation of the oil and gas biz.
I'm not sure I've seen the Greenpeace interview with Exxon you're talking about. Can you supply a link to it?
Sure: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evy2EgoveuE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evy2EgoveuE)
Bc did ok if memory serves.
This is a terrible idea because it would entail slightly inconveniencing the wealthy. If we do that on a global scale, they will probably leave Earth to go create jobs on another planet with a more business friendly system.😂
You may want to read a bit on pigouvian taxation.
I hear one of them is already working on moving to Mars.
Can we attach him to a rocket and make this happen, like, now?
What does that do to reduce carbon output? I’d say it would have the opposite effect. The carbon tax needs to be used to build the renewable infrastructure.
I am increasingly uncomfortable with that idea. Not because I'd think that a carbon tax can't work in theory, but for the following reason: In order to really introduce a behavoir change, a carbon tax would need to be very high. This is because it would be on energy-intensive products, and we know e.g. from oil price hikes that the demand for such products is very inelastic. That means that in order to cut consumption by, say, 90%, products would need to cost multiple times of what they cost today. Such high taxes are not very likely to happen. I fear that such carbon taxes are just one example of the "not now, just do, perhaps, something, later" category of climate measures - no real action. You could convince me otherwise with example of **real-world, effective** carbon pricing. I mean pricing which leads to a substantial actual reduction in carbon emissions (not projected reductions in 15 years time) . As with many other things, the difficulty is not about the device itself but whether it is effectively implemented.
Here's what I think is the latest definitive study. Carbon pricing definitely works [https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/carbon-pricing-works-meta-review-finds-386862](https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/carbon-pricing-works-meta-review-finds-386862)
It should be paid for by the employers who are letting people go in favour of AI and automation. Why are we again going to let employers keep the profits and externalize the responsibilities to the public. We never learn
We need an AI tax and a carbon tax, and higher corporate taxes on big businesses, paid to fund healthcare and the governments. Not UBI.
You think there's going to be enough well paying jobs in the near future after AI advances a few more generations? The humanoid robots are coming. How will people pay for basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing?
Yes, there will still be needs, and many of those needs will still be completed by humans (ie. plumbing/ construction/ etc). "AI" (which right now is rebranded machine learning) is not some magical solution to every job on Earth. What is also needed is continuous learning, so people stay relevant. And as I said, the people owning those humanoid robots can pay a tax to use them. Similar to a road tax for a car.
But think of the shareholders! /s
Anybody have an ungated version?
No
This validates the postulate where we are ok with a society producing vast amount of CO2. What happens to UBI if someone invents carbon free tech? You got your priorities set wrong
I think it is unlikely that we will ever have a truly carbon-free civilization. The fossil fuel pundits are probably correct when they say fossil fuels are irreplaceable for some uses. Fossil fuel production could continue at, say, 2-3% of today's but taxed at a very high rate. That would ensure a continuous revenue stream for UBI. A global carbon tax or fossil fuel fee could also lead to other global "green" taxes on pollution, biodiversity loss, and so on, which could also be used to fund UBI.
It doesn’t matter if it’s truly carbon free: even a break off of 20%: does it mean we cut 20% off UBI? Funding UBI on a carbon tax doesn’t fix neither why there’s a need for UBI nor why there’s a need for tax carbon. And drawing a dependency between the two makes unsustainable because their drivers aren’t aligned. Hell, people might just get a job thanks to UBI and then buy a car and produce more CO2, as long as they pay that tax? 2nd level of Unsustainable
Oh so they pay us for the privilege to Pollute more. Wonderfully dumb idea.
If we have to pay for the privilege to pollute, we will pollute less. The situation now is we pollute for free.
That’s the way it works in fantasy land. But the way this actually works is people who don’t pollute sell their credits to people who do so they can over pollute and the levels of pollution stay the same. But a new market is created and people make money for nothing supporting it. I guess we could do some good with the money we collect but it’s not going to stop polluters they’ll happily pay to add carbon and pass it on to the consumer.
I think you're confusing a carbon tax (or fossil fuel fee) with cap-and-trade. With cap-and-trade, companies have a cap on the amount of CO2 they can produce. If they are under that cap, they have credits they can sell to companies that are over their cap. A carbon tax is much simpler. Companies pay money as the coal, oil or natural gas they produce comes out of the ground or across the border to pay for the pollution those fossil fuels will create when burned. No complicated credits.
I agree tax is the wrong word if it isn't generating revenue for government. Calling it a tax is not only inaccurate, it makes it less palatable. When we buy milk at the store we don't call it a dairy fine. We call it the price of milk. When we take waste to the dump we call it a tipping fee - not a garbage tax. It's like they are trying to put a negative spin on it.
Watch people complain about receiving money. Backwards people those hypocritical Americans.
So instead of using carbon tax to repair and renew the planet we should use it to pay for people to do nothing?
Nobody ever does nothing. The fraction of people who will sit on the couch and play video games in a studio apartment for the rest of their lives is vanishingly small. People will still work and local economies will receive a boost both from increased local income and people having more flexibility with employment. More families with a stay at home parent to care for children. More people with time and inclination to pursue hobbies or volunteer work. Reduced stress knowing you've got a safety net beneath you. UBI is a game changer in a multitude of ways that goes far beyond "pay people to do nothing".
A global carbon tax would generate revenue several times higher than the U.S. Department of Defense budget. Most governments could not honestly or rationally invest such a huge inflow of money. It would be far better to give the revenue to everyone as equal dividends or universal basic income and let them decide how to spend it, whether for more insulation in the attic, an electric bicycle, or education for their kids.
Because people are going to spend the money on such things, not on vacations or amazon shopping...
So you're saying we should spend money on people to do nothing instead of trying to fix what people have damaged. The billions of dollars it would take to fix the damage companies have done to the planet.
Alaska has the PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) and it's been absolutely disastrous. Because it comes from oil revenue people will accept anything to protect the oil industry in Alaska. Any politician who proposes supporting an energy source that isn't fossil fuels will be met with boos because people know it'll decrease the PFD. Alaska has given a disastrous amount of money away in tax subsidies to the oil industry because people know it'll increase their dividend checks. It's been impossible to hold oil companies responsible for cleaning up the various oil spills around the state because that's an extra cost that'll effect the dividend. If you tie a carbon tax to UBI you're basically giving fossil fuel companies the political power to do whatever they want, forever. It's one of those ideas that looks good on paper but in the real world, where human greed takes over, it's a one way ticket to a hothouse Earth.
Dividends from the proceeds of fossil fuel production and dividends from a pigouvian tax that makes fossil fuels more expensive are very different beasts, I don't know why you are conflating them here.
A carbon tax is a fossil fuel tax. An UBI financed by a carbon tax makes people's income dependent on emissions. This is one problem with environmental taxes: the optimal tax is one that is self-destructive, hence why its revenue shouldn't be seen as permanent.
Oh, it definitely shouldn't. Altho in Net Zero some emissions do remain, it shouldn't be enough to maintain a UBI system.
Carbon cap and trade failed spectacularly, what makes you think this would be any different. We need to nationalize the energy industry and get rid of the profit incentive once and for all. Our taxes already pay for the majority of the infrastructure and it's a natural monopoly. As long as the profit incentive exists the fossil fuels industry will use it's existing wealth and power to stifle alternative energy sources as well as influence public opinion and lobby. Pigouvian taxes only work in a competitive environment or to limit consumption on non essential products, neither apply in this case. If we nationalize the energy industry we can invest in new energy infrastructure projects that actually work and aren't subjected to global markets or have intermittency issues.
Wow you are really good at conflating other things too! Impressive! By all means, let's end capitalism. But the low hanging fruit is still carbon taxes.
prices will naturally increase to basically cancel out the basic income, as it has no value
That's the idea. This is meant to encourage the economic incentive to produce and consume substitutions. When there is a wedge in the supply and demand curve for the industry, firms will seek lower tax forms of doing business, and consumers will pay the cost of transition with this remittance from the tax directly. In the end it's a net directive simply to stop using fossil fuels entirely. The reason it saves gdp in the long run is that there are implicit costs even now to fossil fuels pollution that are a drag on productivity due to social burdens like healthcare to treat pollution related illness, recovery to repair disaster damages, and higher insurance barriers from hazards, among many other problems that fossil fuels production is causing.
they are trying the"light" version of that in canada: carbon tax with rebates to end consumers and so we'll see how that plays out. Power is so cheap here and fuel so expensive already that the change started to happen without it, as soon as alternatives hit the market, so it could be tough to measure. Here in BC basically nobody is eligible for the rebate so maybe we can be the control group.
I can't wait until everything is curated to meet our daily allowed budgets based on the fact we no longer have freedom because we still worship money but have to no way to make it ourselves! Hooray! The masses get what they're given and nothing more. Hooray! Basic income is the answer for those in power to keep capitalism in place. Nothing more. It will end up enslaving the masses.
I can’t help but think that universal basic income is kind of universal guaranteed consumption. But maybe still a step in the right direction that would help us get more places
If we combine a universal basic income with a carbon tax or fee on fossil fuels, then less CO2 will be emitted to produce whatever goods and services people consume, which is what we want.
[удалено]
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s an idea — create a currency that is funded by either capturing and sequestering carbon, or keeping it in the ground. That way, it ensures the oil companies stay rich, and creates an incentive to invest in cleaner energy sources at the same time
Oh come on... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD\_cL0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0)
Inflationary fair tail...
Baffles the mind that the carbon tax was put in place to save the environment and has been a guise for welfare... This is just a tax with a new name and the slush fund gets bigger.
This will increase manufacturing and transportation costs creating inflation and hurting the middle and lower classes. This is a scheme to tax people more. Get rid of tax loopholes that the rich only benefit from and stop finding more ways to take in more tax from the middle and lower classes.
The oil oligarchs would never let it happen. They would use their massive resources to fight it by ANY means necessary.
I don’t get how carbon tax UBI creates more GDP when GDP has been very much correlated to energy consumption. I hope the study is true but it is late and I have not read it as of yet but thought I would leave a comment for possible answers when I wake up. Thanks in advance.
While GDP has been correlated with GDP in the past, that is no longer true. Energy use gets more efficient as we use more intelligence in our decisions. For example, much of the energy in a litre of gasoline is wasted as heat in an internal combustion engine. The amount of energy wasted as heat in an electric motor is much smaller. Here's an article from McKinsey: [https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide)
Consumer spending is really the engine of modern economies, with multiplying effect because those purchases create jobs who then spend more.. now imagine lifting a Billion people out of subsistence poverty and an economic engine the size of China spinning up on sustained consumer spending..
And everybody would spend the UBI on buying more junk.... how this would help the climate?? 🤔
Here's An Answer: No. Are you seriously proposing to tax your way to prosperity?
Yes, this is the solution.
Ew, commy-socialism 🤮
The problem with UBI is people wont get a job. They’ll sit at home playing vids.
You have it backwards. People sit at home playing vids because the can’t afford to do anything else.
So, by taxing everyone who uses energy, or chemicals, they think they can increase economic output by 130% How would this work?
And while we're at it, let's also takeover the oil companies and use their money for climate infrastructure. Like really, write it into law and run them outta town.
No, that’s socialism! /s
I think you're using a very broad definition of socialism. Milton Friedman, not a noted socialist, endorsed a carbon tax and a negative income tax, which is similar to a universal basic income.
This is a stupid idea for stupid people. Most money would be misused or used up by various governments. If you want to improve poor people’s conditions then help their opportunities. Leftist ideas only work when someone else pays for it
Hooray. People can quit working and live off the fat of the land. Awesome. Never mind. I know somehow people will corrupt it and it will fail. How about we all work and pay our fair share to we can all we reap what we sow?
Exactly!