[127]

Only problem with this is I can't figure out how to spend all the money generated by the tax. Obviously it should be used at a technology or process to reduce carbon from the atmosphere, but I don't think that's what governments are going to decide to do. Add a new tax, waste most of it. Or worse, use it to fund societally harmful things. That's what the history shows.

[mvanaltvorst]

Take the money, pile it all up and directly give it back to the citizens, where every citizen gets the same amount of money. Effect: households will have the same amount of money on average, but people will be nudged to substitute their carbon-intensive lifestyle by greener alternatives. (or, in economic terms, there is no income effect, only a substitution effect).

You're also indirectly taking money from big corporations and putting it into the pockets of citizens, which has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of stimulating the economy.

[astrange]

Doesn’t this motivate people to not reduce total carbon use? It would lower the dividend unless the green energy is cheap enough to balance it out.

And if the green energy is that cheap (which actually it seems like it is) then we don’t need the dividend.

Btw, carbon emissions in the US at least typically aren’t done by “corporations” but rather poor land use decisions causing long commutes and things like that. Buying gas from a corporation may cause them to dig it out of the ground, but you’re the one who told them to do it.

The “climate change is caused by 100 corporations” thing is especially wrong since it comes from a misreading of a list of emitters that has things like Saudi Aramco and “the Chinese government” as corporations.

[csnover]

Does it really matter if the money is wasted, so long as it’s not wasted on something that generates more air pollution? The main purpose of a carbon tax is to stop polluters from externalising the cost of their pollution, so that they pollute less because it’s more cost effective not to. The extra revenue is just a bonus.

[pmalynin]

The money will be used to wage war to protect the petro-dollar.

[newacct583]

> Only problem with this is I can't figure out how to spend all the money generated by the tax.

It doesn't matter. Pay debt. Dig holes. Build bridges. Just rebate it to whoever on a per-capita or per-tax-paid basis. Literally do anything with it.

The point is to incentivize conservation, not to raise revenue. You could get the same thing with a regulatory carbon penalty too, but it's simplest to administer as a tax.

[arcticbull]

Canada returns the carbon tax as a refund. The idea isn’t to take money into the coffers but to make wasteful services more expensive at the point of sale than efficient ones.

[G3rn0ti]

Yes, that’s why a carbon tax is stupid and „emissions trading“ was invented. Under such a system the government sells a limited amount of certificates during an IPO. Later, the biggest energy consumers buy emission rights from the best energy savers.

[varajelle]

Still incentive the energy savers to make investment to save more, so they can sell more rights, and incentive the biggest energy consumer to consume a bit less so they pay less.

I wouldn't call that stupid

[G3rn0ti]

Part of the emission trading concept is to reduce the number of certificates in circulation overtime to increase the energy saving incentive („cap and trade“). The government can do this by buying certificates or reducing the amount free certificates assigned every year. The details are a bit more complicated but were implemented already over ten years ago in the European Union. There is simply no need for an additional carbon tax if this scheme is maintained well.