Hacker News Reader

Comment by bearmode | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe that means taxing fossil fuels more and increasing that over time

This is infeasible, there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills, and without enough cash to upgrade to more eco-friendly systems. These people are stuck on fossil fuels, increasing taxes for it across the board is just going to cause more pain, suffering, and homelessness.

A better idea would be progressive taxation built into income tax. The higher-earners also tend to be bigger polluters, so it makes sense in that regard as well.

View on HN

There’s no (non-political) reason that we couldn’t issue a refundable tax credit of $1000/yr (or another amount) to every full-year resident and increase taxes on fossil fuels by an amount such that a median consumer of fossil fuels would break even.

The purpose of the tax is to better align choices with consequences, not to raise revenue. It can be revenue-neutral or even cost money for administrative overhead.

You need a carbon tax, and one that also imposes itself on imports so that other countries can’t cheat.

Canadians have a system similar to this. Everyone pays a carbon tax. 10% of the total pool is skimmed and used by the government for climate related things, and only climate related things. Then the rest of the money is split evenly among everyone.

The poorer people come out ahead since they use less (e.g. can’t afford a car and take public transit) and thus paid less than the average but receive the average amount back.

IMO it's better to call it "fee and dividend", "carbon tax" has a lot of baggage associated with it. I'm a strong supporter of it, but if you say "tax" you'll immediately get people (people who would benefit from such a system regardless of climate effects) insisting it will all go to the government.

> there are already millions who are struggling to get by with existing energy bills

Most carbon-tax proposals I've seen are revenue-neutral, meaning the carbon taxes collected are returned to people, everyone getting the same amount. The intention is to incentivize reducing carbon emissions but not destroy the poor.

It’s hard to compete exonomically with a business that is allowed to dispose of their waste (Greenhouse gasses) for free.

The waste isn't just greenhouse gasses.

Its literally anything you can dig up from the Earth so it also includes radioactive elements. I really think that would've been the better angle to attack coal power plants with.

I agree, but that’s a rhetorically more dangerous path. If you start emphasizing the dangers of radiation, the fossil fuel industry will double down on scare mongering about nuclear energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com