Quote Originally Posted by damianob
Quote Originally Posted by antagoniser
Quote Originally Posted by damianob
Quote Originally Posted by antagoniser
Don't use environmental issues as a means for wealth redistribution.
... why not?
Its a seperate political question which is ultimately decided upon by the electorate. Everyone of all political persuasions has a stake in environmental issues and it is an issue that needs a unity of purpose among all stakeholders. Using the issue as a means of furthering your own political ideals by stealth is counter productive.

You're being a little disingenuous here.

Every policy instrument is likely to have economic side-effects. You can try to deal with climate change issues in a manner which is equitable - such as using carbon credits - or in a manner which preferences those who already have power, wealth and influence.

Carbon taxes (at modest levels) are stacked in favour of the wealthy. They have greater capacity to absorb the extra costs and so will continuing spewing out carbon as before. Poorer people however, will see a greater share of their income eaten up by the taxes and will have to make deeper cuts in their carbon use.

The result - a greater imbalance between rich and poor. And the cost of reducing carbon emissions is shouldered disproportionately by the have-nots.
Hmm. Not quite true - you mean that it has a disproportionate impact on the poor, surely? The same as any other non-progressive tax?

However, if the rich already use more resources, and it's the use of resources that attracts the carbon tax (so, added like VAT, but based on a carbon-cost calculation for the product), then the tax becomes progressive. Even more so if, in order to fit into the budgets of the poor once carbon tax is added, products for the widest number of people need to become the least polluting.

And yes, that does mean the rich can afford more pollution, but that really is an ideological question.