Free sustainable transport would stop the least privileged from having to fork over a third of their paycheck to auto and fossil fuel companies while freeing up billions spent on roads.
Making landlords accountable for energy wasting housing design would reduce energy bills.
Not invading countries for their gas and mineral reserves is pretty good for the people that live there.
A direct carbon tarriff distributed evenly by population would lift living standards for the underprivileged and give them the resources to make a choice for lower emissions options.
Right to repair, accountability for forced obsolescence or design faults and consumer rights decrease waste and benefit the poor immensely.
Well I guess one out of three isn’t bad.
Bill gates is right, trying to impoverish people in the developed world would both result in blowback and be a disaster if implemented. I think there is an 80/20 rule with consumption in developed countries. 20% consume 80% of the resources. Getting the 20% to reduce consumption is a won't fix politically. Yet degrowth people think somehow the 80% can reduce their consumption and not go under. Look at the amount of reduction in consumption that triggers a recession, it's 10X less than the shock degrowth people are demanding.
The complicating factor is the upper classes are completely resistant to any sort collective action that benefits lower class people. And they are hellbent to make sure no one ever gets to see a successful example.
Clearly, that would lead to mass hysteria and societal collapse.
/s
A ton is 2000 pounds. A gallon of gasoline emits 20lbs of co2 when burnt (most of the weight is in the o2, so the emissions are heavier than the gasoline).
Divide the per ton prices by 100 to convert to per gallon of gas, and you get $0.50-$2.00.
The existence of the tax would ensure they all had enough revenue to scale; fund them all initially, then let economics pick the winner.
I truly believe our only hope is to innovate our way out of this.
can't do it in a democracy