[tylerhou]

Evenly distributing the revenue assumes the effect of the negative externality (climate change) is evenly distributed. But climate change tends to harm poorer people more than richer people, so it makes sense to distribute more revenue to them.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Distributing the revenue is not about compensating for harms. It's about ensuring that you don't have a net impact on people who are using the typical amount of energy. The idea is that the tax captures the externalized costs of economic actions, like emitting carbon. Once the cost of the actions is fully priced in, it is reasoned, consumption will decrease to the optimal level given the harm done by consumption.

The biggest problem with this idea is that we don't really know what the costs are going to be.

In practice, poor people would be beneficiaries of a externality-capturing tax, because by and large, rich people use a lot more carbon. More flights, bigger cars, bigger houses, etc.

[tylerhou]

You're right that you don't need to compensate for harms with such a tax (so my first sentence was imprecise). But I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to distribute (some of) the revenue in such a way to compensate for harms.

[_rpd]

> But I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to distribute (some of) the revenue in such a way to compensate for harms.

It becomes a big political fight over how much of the revenue should be directed to social programs, so the tax policy changes every 4 years. A straight rebate gets wide support and taking it away becomes more and more unpopular as people get used to receiving it.

[tmathmeyer]

Because the attempt causes the laws to fail in referendum perhaps.

[trboyden]

No, redistribution is organized extortion. I make $100, the government takes $50 of it, pockets $30 of that, and then redistributes $20 to those that will keep them in office (A.K.A. a bribe).

[deregulateMed]

Not knowing swedish politics, but in the United States this is nothing more than a political move.

You have a popular bill and you shove something politically unpopular in it, in hopes it will pass anyway.

[bko]

So its not about preventing climate change, just mitigating its effects.

[tylerhou]

It depends on the implementation. Such a policy would certainly decrease carbon output. However, it's practically not possible to eliminate all carbon output immediately. For example, if you ban ICE cars (or impose a heavy tax), richer people who can work remotely or own electric cars would be less affected than poorer people who cannot work remote or afford such a car.

The purpose of such a tax would be to prevent climate change by discouraging "needless" activities. Want to take your 10th vacation this year by flying 500 miles? Maybe if the ticket was $20 more expensive that prevents some people, at the margin. If such a tax is gradually increased each year and alternatives get cheaper each year (direct carbon capture, electric cars, renewable energy), then eventually a society will be carbon-sustainable with much less harm to the people at the bottom of the ladder.