There's actually some evidence that this revenue-neutral approach is less palatable to those on the US political left, though (WA's failed carbon tax ballot initiative). It may be more attractive to those on the left to use revenues from carbon taxation to provide climate-equity solutions, like higher paying green-tech jobs in low-income areas, cheaper electricity for those in low income communities, climate resiliency, buyback programs for older/inefficient cars, subsidized EVs and public transport, etc.
Personally, I'm for either approach, as long as it gets done quickly.
Energy (heating, car fuel, etc) is required to live in our society. If you add more taxes on it, people aren't really going to change their behavior and do less of it.
In every case of these taxes, the energy companies will pass 100% of the taxes onto the consumer. If you can afford the taxes, you won't change your behavior. If you can't afford the taxes, the govt pays you back.
Just not effective in reducing CO2 or encouraging alternative energies.
Yes right out of the gate, it will make things more expensive across the board. However, the point isn't to decrease everyone's use of energy in and of itself. It's to get the companies to respond to their decreased revenue with greener alternatives. The decreased use by the population would help and you could make the argument that the wealthier demographic uses more energy than the poor so the taxation would be fairly distributed.
They don't have decreased revenue though. They pass the taxes through to the consumer, and the consumer behavior doesn't change because you're taxing a necessity of life.
Like another reply said, their power company gives them the option of choosing "green" energy. Most consumers cannot do that. If there is actually a choice, then raising prices on one of the choices would affect consumer behavior. But for the vast majority of people, they can't choose between green energy or fossil fuel based energy. No choice = doesn't matter what prices do.
If we're talking about taxing coal in rural India, you're right, but the bulk of the industrialized world will certainly be motivated to make changes. People will eat less beef, and more legumes, for example.
Citation needed.
Some people take it as a point of pride they eat no greens. I think you're sorely underestimating how much they value eating meat all the time.
Consumers have options. Carbon taxes encourage them to choose the green options.
* It does not further harm poor people - as everyone receives an equal dividend, it makes a bigger impact the less you have. * It provides a long-term, predictable carbon cost. Business can plan many years in advance and not be caught by surprise. * It's effective at reducing emissions (not the exact scheme, but see Australia under the most recent Labor government, before the repeal of a carbon price).
I'd encourage everyone interested to get in touch with the Citizens' Climate Lobby and pitch in.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/