There is still a LOT of confusion about Climate Income, where you put a fee on fossil fuel and give it right back out to people in an equal monthly check. So, a thread.
First, it's not regressive for one simple reason: rich people spend vastly more on energy than poor people.
First, it's not regressive for one simple reason: rich people spend vastly more on energy than poor people.
Suppose you have 10 people. 5 people put $1 in the pot (representing the working class) and 5 people put in $10 (representing the rich, who buy a lot more energy). Everyone then gets $5.50 back. $5.50 > $1.
More expensive fossil fuel then accelerates changing everything.
More expensive fossil fuel then accelerates changing everything.
Second, it's not a tax. If the government kept the fee and spent in on stuff, it would be a tax. But they don't, they give it back to everyone in an equal monthly check. So it's not a tax. It's a universal Climate Income. So don't call it a tax. Because it isn't.
A carbon tax would be a terrible idea. It would cause riots, like the Yellow Jackets in France in 2018. And set us back on enacting meaningful climate policy. Please don't advocate for a carbon tax. (Note, I am not advocating for a carbon tax. It would be a terrible idea.)
Third, you'd start out with a relatively small fee and then increase the fee each year, to give everything time to transition and lesson shocks. The fee would do a lot more than make a gallon of gas more expensive. It would make steel more expensive, and plane tickets...
Products and services would increase in price according to their greenhouse-gas intensity. But this is exactly what you want: to make true green alternatives more affordable in comparison, across the board. And keep in mind it's progressive due to the arithmetic described above
Did I mention yet that it is economically progressive? As in, not regressive? As in, it is a transfer of wealth from rich people to poor people, in accordance to their greenhouse gas emissions? As in, it is deeply equitable? As in, it is a form of climate justice?
Finally, a universal Climate Income would not solve climate and ecological breakdown by itself. But it would help. And it has zero downside. I've been looking for a downside for 12 years, and there is none. We should do it ASAP, there is no good reason whatsoever not to.
Yes, this is the same policy Citizens' Climate Lobby advocates for. But with a far better name. Unfortunately, CCL has not done a good job dispelling the confusion around this policy. Also they put too much energy wooing the right, which acts in bad faith, while ignoring the left
You'd have some small overhead (scale of 1%) to administer the program (maybe piggyback on social security) and to pay to educate the public so they understood that the monthly check was offsetting higher prices at the pump etc. The check itself would say this in neon of course
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
