Right but now the car company had a massive incentive to build more efficient vehicles. The tax also isn’t for the consumer necessarily is it?.
What you will pay is nothing compared to companies running factories and shipping between stores.
If you haven’t looked into it, our logistics system is all kinds of fucked up. In some cases shipping parts across the ocean to get assembled and shipped back for more assembling before being shipped back again. All because carbon based energy usage has been dirt cheap for too long.
Its cheapness places externalities on society that we all pay anyways. Carbon taxes is a way to recoup the costs. Its a cost that had we known about these externalities then it would have been built in from the start. It’s multifaceted and encouraged by many as a good solution
I’d argue that it is for the consumers, as those are the people getting the rebate. It incentivizes a shift in consumer behavior that is meant to take revenue away from the fossil fuel industry and redirect it towards green alternatives. I agree, it’s a good policy, and one of the only ways we have of gracefully moving away from fossil fuels.
As long as you can avoid having people completely miss the point of the tax and being misled by politicians for their own personal gain, that is.
And in your case you’re likely breaking even or getting a little back from the carbon pricing system.
You as the consumer isn’t been told fuck you. You’re being slightly incentivised to make better choices, and rewarded if you do, but not penalized if you don’t.
I think you’re missing that you (likely) get more money back than you pay in. It’s a restriction, not a tax. It’s only the most egregiously inefficient drivers/home owners who are paying more.
As someone commuting in a reasonable car driving a reasonable distance in a reasonably efficient home, you have more money in your pocket every month. And if any of those aren’t the case, then maybe it’s time to make some changes (which is the whole point!)
deleted by creator
Right but now the car company had a massive incentive to build more efficient vehicles. The tax also isn’t for the consumer necessarily is it?.
What you will pay is nothing compared to companies running factories and shipping between stores.
If you haven’t looked into it, our logistics system is all kinds of fucked up. In some cases shipping parts across the ocean to get assembled and shipped back for more assembling before being shipped back again. All because carbon based energy usage has been dirt cheap for too long.
Its cheapness places externalities on society that we all pay anyways. Carbon taxes is a way to recoup the costs. Its a cost that had we known about these externalities then it would have been built in from the start. It’s multifaceted and encouraged by many as a good solution
I’d argue that it is for the consumers, as those are the people getting the rebate. It incentivizes a shift in consumer behavior that is meant to take revenue away from the fossil fuel industry and redirect it towards green alternatives. I agree, it’s a good policy, and one of the only ways we have of gracefully moving away from fossil fuels.
As long as you can avoid having people completely miss the point of the tax and being misled by politicians for their own personal gain, that is.
And in your case you’re likely breaking even or getting a little back from the carbon pricing system.
You as the consumer isn’t been told fuck you. You’re being slightly incentivised to make better choices, and rewarded if you do, but not penalized if you don’t.
I think you’re missing that you (likely) get more money back than you pay in. It’s a restriction, not a tax. It’s only the most egregiously inefficient drivers/home owners who are paying more.
As someone commuting in a reasonable car driving a reasonable distance in a reasonably efficient home, you have more money in your pocket every month. And if any of those aren’t the case, then maybe it’s time to make some changes (which is the whole point!)