Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Brendan Jones (brendanjones@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jan-2024 20:26:59 JST Brendan Jones

   • ScienceCommunicator

   @ScienceCommunicator
   Since this is about communicating, it's very important to note that a carbon tax needs a redistributive mechanism otherwise it'll be regressive and cost poorer people relatively more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend.

   Also, a carbon tax isn't the only way of putting a price on carbon, there's also cap and trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading.

   • Embed this notice
     Brendan Jones (brendanjones@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 26-Jan-2024 02:56:05 JST Brendan Jones

     in reply to

     • ScienceCommunicator

     @ScienceCommunicator I'd hardly call the EU ETS a smoke screen. In any case, an ETS's effectiveness is entirely dependent on what the price is set as and/or how low the cap is. If industry manage to lobby to get the price low then yes sure, they're a smoke screen. But the same could be said for a carbon tax?

   • Embed this notice
     ScienceCommunicator (sciencecommunicator@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 26-Jan-2024 02:56:06 JST ScienceCommunicator

     in reply to

     @Brendanjones

     Well, "poorer" people is another social problem when there are rich, but not fit for leaders, decision makers. E.g., if the carbon tax was used to insulate homes, fit heat pumps, provide adequate EV public transport, then a tax on fuels would benefit those on low incomes. Obviously, there are policies that can be developed to make the rich pay for the costs of phasing out fossil fuels & biofuels.

     Trading schemes are generally promoted by polluting companies as a 'smoke screen'.