|
|
|
|
|
|
by Foreignborn
1124 days ago
|
|
|
I think you're being bit disingenuous, but I understand why you might be skeptical about carbon taxes. Unlike those scams, this is one of the more simple and straightforward policy recommendations. A carbon tax essentially charges a fee on greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to account for their environmental impact—an externality not usually priced into the cost of fossil fuels. The concept of a carbon tax has been considered for well over a decade.[0] While it might be a suitcase term on its own – different people interpret the phrase differently – the overall concept has been studied, has a lot support and popularity from economists.[1][0] Several strategies exist to implement a carbon tax, but a widely favored method is a market-based, "revenue-neutral" approach. Here, the funds raised from the tax are redistributed (through various means, not necessarily something like UBI) to offset any financial burden on consumers or businesses.[2] As far as my understanding goes, a carbon tax is simpler to put into practice—and explain—compared to other alternatives like specific environmental regulations or cap-and-trade carbon pricing schemes.[3] [0] https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii/
[1] https://www.econstatement.org/
[2] https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/comparing-effec...
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8680/pdf |
|
|
Your own link disagrees with that, it describes it as a tax that, depending on the country:
- "applied to fuel, coal, and natural gas"
- "mainly covers the use of fuels"
- "covered natural gas, petroleum, and other mineral fuels, except biofuel"
- "a tax on fossil fuels, petroleum products, natural gas, and coal"
The user who proposed this as a solution above has the same misunderstanding. What they described when I asked about the details sounds like simply another tax on fuel, on top of the already existing tax. It's not a "carbon" tax at all, it's a fuel tax.