[soperj]

>Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend.

Delivery emissions should be attached to the person getting the delivery. Otherwise you could just skip most of your emissions by having everything delivered.

[newt_slowly]

It would be far to complicated to try and count every bit of emissions like this. Instead, the emissions are taxed at the source - when buying fuel. Therefore, the delivery company would be paying the carbon taxes, and they could choose to either pass those costs on to you, or to, for example, switch to electric vehicles to be more competitive against their rivals.

Either way, it changes your behavior, because if delivery is more expensive (to factor in the externalities it causes) you will either consume less, or pay more. This ultimately "attaches the emissions to the person getting the delivery" but in a far less complex and less game-able way.

[stonemetal12]

I go into the store and buy a pair of shoes. Am I given a bit of the emissions of the supply chain that delivered it to the store from the manufacturer?

If I order something off Amazon, do I get a say in where the package is shipped from to control "my" emissions.

[aembleton]

> Am I given a bit of the emissions of the supply chain that delivered it to the store from the manufacturer?

Yes, you would have to use some of your carbon credits to pay for the delivery and manufacture of the shoe. The product would have both a monetary and a carbon price. If you don't have enough credits, then you can buy some on the spot market from someone who isn't using theirs up.

This would incentivise repair of the shoe, as it may require fewer carbon credits.