Well, making necessities more expensive is difficult to sell no matter how it’s packaged. Like it or not, oil is used in everything from transporting food, to growing food, to medicine and supplements, to commuting for work, to home insulation and building, to iPhones and computers. Making those things more expensive, no matter the righteousness of the intention, hurts especially the working classes and the poor. Targeted subsidies to compensate them for their loss is impossible to fairly calibrate, and usually results in even greater political turmoil.
Carbon taxes can work if the country is wealthy and can afford the productivity loss (and the citizens are willing to give up that economic progress and wealth). Given the relatively small size of Australia, and the tiny reduction in global CO2 output relative to the exponentially higher output of China alone, I think most Australians believe the very small ecological benefits are vastly outweighed by the social and economic costs. Such a tax is political suicide right now. Making the cost of housing and transport and food more expensive given current geopolitical events would be highly irresponsible.
Well, making necessities more expensive is difficult to sell no matter how it’s packaged
well that’s kinda the point: in the wash, it didn’t… you paid a bit more and got that money back at tax time… any carbon tax you pay gets evenly distributed across the population, so if your carbon footprint is less than 50% of the counties, you make money
considering the carbon emitted by the top 10%, this is basically wealth redistribution and it helps tackle carbon
Well, making necessities more expensive is difficult to sell no matter how it’s packaged. Like it or not, oil is used in everything from transporting food, to growing food, to medicine and supplements, to commuting for work, to home insulation and building, to iPhones and computers. Making those things more expensive, no matter the righteousness of the intention, hurts especially the working classes and the poor. Targeted subsidies to compensate them for their loss is impossible to fairly calibrate, and usually results in even greater political turmoil.
Carbon taxes can work if the country is wealthy and can afford the productivity loss (and the citizens are willing to give up that economic progress and wealth). Given the relatively small size of Australia, and the tiny reduction in global CO2 output relative to the exponentially higher output of China alone, I think most Australians believe the very small ecological benefits are vastly outweighed by the social and economic costs. Such a tax is political suicide right now. Making the cost of housing and transport and food more expensive given current geopolitical events would be highly irresponsible.
well that’s kinda the point: in the wash, it didn’t… you paid a bit more and got that money back at tax time… any carbon tax you pay gets evenly distributed across the population, so if your carbon footprint is less than 50% of the counties, you make money
considering the carbon emitted by the top 10%, this is basically wealth redistribution and it helps tackle carbon
This is why various necessaries were given offsets with the previous carbon tax. Problems like that can be worked around.