He’s right in the sense that people, in today’s set up, don’t want to pay. But can we imagine a different choice architecture where people don’t mind giving up the black stuff?
The architecture that economists and climate scientists both agree will move the needle on this is a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax taxes carbon, and then returns 100% of that tax money back to people equally. Anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon - which is a majority of the population - since the top users use so much, get paid in this scheme.
People might not want to pay, but they don't have to. Excessive users, the non-majority, pay. People, on average, don't pay - they get paid.
The architecture already exists, it's already law in certain countries, and anyone ignoring this fundamental reality is not being serious.
The architecture that economists and climate scientists both agree will move the needle on this is a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax taxes carbon, and then returns 100% of that tax money back to people equally. Anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon - which is a majority of the population - since the top users use so much, get paid in this scheme.
People might not want to pay, but they don't have to. Excessive users, the non-majority, pay. People, on average, don't pay - they get paid.
The architecture already exists, it's already law in certain countries, and anyone ignoring this fundamental reality is not being serious.