We have a carbon tax program here in Canada and while it’s quite generous (80% of Canadians get back more than they pay) and progressive (pay for your polluting), you’d think it literally kills children with how polarizing it is. Apparently no amount of education can help people understand what it is actually.
Yep, next election will essentially be a carbon tax election. And so far it’s looking like a clear conservative win, where “axe the tax” is the only policy given.
I’ve [tried] having discussions about the carbon tax on a fact-basis with my parents and they will not even acknowledge the carbon rebate as a thing that exists. Won’t even look it up either, since their idea of the carbon tax being a general revenue tax that is funneled together with most other taxes and not refunded is such a simple, easier belief to have than to need to consider the merit of the program on factual grounds. Pretty quickly came to the conclusion that conversing with people who do this is pointless; they have their beliefs and do not want to acknowledge reality. It’s too complicated and a simple view of ignorance is preferable.
It’s not like there are no genuine points to be had against the carbon tax either.
- It is charged before sales tax, making it not truly revenue neutral.
- The existence of the carbon tax will cause a realized financial disadvantage for most Canadian families when considering the greater economic impact beyond simple tax paid vs rebate received (true despite 4 in 5 Canadians receiving more from the rebate than they pay in carbon tax).
- Taxing the carbon emitted by home heating fuels is more problematic than other fuels like gasoline, etc, since families cannot reduce their carbon emissions from heating as easily; in most of Canada heating your home is a necessity for survival and switching to a less carbon-intensive energy source is a large undertaking.
All to say, there are some genuine discussions to be had on the merit of our carbon tax and the specifics as to how it is implemented. Those above points are not de facto hits against carbon tax, they are just points that can be debated in good faith.
Using the economic impact example; what is the economic impact of inaction. What alternative carbon emission reduction plan do you have that could work better? (Spoiler: >!They do not have one, it is repeal and not replace.!<) Carbon pricing has been evaluated time and time again to be the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions with the lowest economic impact.
Regarding home heating, (assuming a province going by the federal system) 10% of the carbon tax is going to programs to subsidize carbon reduction. This includes heat pump subsidies for low income families.
But, there are very few people who will even allow a discussion to progress to this point, as they do not even understand the program and would rather resort to a simplistic emotional response than acknowledge the program as it exists in reality.
But my gas prices might increase a little bit… just let the world melt
Cool. But until you actually do something about the producers, it’s just a giant bandaid for a gushing mortal wound. It stems the tide, but you’re still bleeding to death.
Their money is a big part of their power. We need some wedge in there to be able to take more and more of their power away eventually. What’s still happening right now is that they extract money from society and use a small amount of that to pay dividends to people with political/judicial power.
In that sense: Taxing exploration and extraction can be a gateway for more, including criminal justice. But we do need to get over that initial hump.
It can… but it won’t. As the other commenter said, they’ll just squeeze the money out of other parts of the supply chain. Either by going even cheaper on safety and emissions (causing more problems) or squeezing their workers out of money.
These companies have decades, if not centuries, of practice in ensuring they can maximize their profit in any way possible. Taking a nibble here and there isn’t going to do shit for the overall problem.
To say nothing of the fact that if we tax these companies more, they’ll just raise their prices to cover it, which effectively means you and me will be paying the taxes, not them.
NOT penalizing drivers of fuel efficient vehicles would also go a long way.
Right? I have to pay an extra $150/year on a hybrid ($250 if I went EV) in registration fees. I’m “not using enough gas to pay my fair share” of highway taxes.
It’s completely ridiculous. Congress will eventually have to address the problem. Or we’ll have to acknowledge that we’re ok with killing the planet.
I can understand the need to fund road repairs and that a big chunk, if not majority, of those funds currently come from fuel taxes, but at least my state won’t even entertain the idea of changing that. Nope, tax the woke hippies - problem solved. (My state is dark red and owned by the coal and oil/gas industries in case it wasn’t apparent).
So you’re also in Kentucky? ;)
One state to the east :)
LOL! Knew it had to be around here somewhere.
Care to explain? As far as I’m aware there are only benefits for hybrid/electric vehicles (in the US at least)
My state has now joined others in implementing a
fine“owner’s fee” for drivers of hybrid and EVs. It’s a naked money grab meant to deter sales of efficient vehicles.Road construction and maintenance is typically paid for by taxes on gasoline. A large part of the price of a gallon of gas are those taxes.
Owners of hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles do not buy as much or any gasoline, and thus don’t pay for road upkeep.
Although, passenger vehicles contribute very little to road wear, it’s mostly heavy trucks wearing out the roads.
Then the better solution would be to increase gasoline taxes on all users or to target those who actually cause wear to roads.
Better solution: Seize 2 or 3 billionaire’s assets and pay for all of society for decades.
I like it!
don’t pay for road upkeep.
As much for upkeep. I guarantee that the money isn’t anywhere near enough to make a difference.
I also notice that it isn’t measured in fuel efficiency, but in vehicle type. Why aren’t registration fees based on how fuel efficient the vehicle is instead of what kind of vehicle it is if it’s just about gas taxes?
