Im all for charging more taxes on high emissions goods, but allowing it to be a fuck you to the consumer that has to engage with capitalism and not the corpos who dont have to offer high emissions goods, kind of blurs the whole “Earth is dying” conundrum we’re in.
Right, its my fault for buying gas for my car that I need to go to work to keep society functioning. Its not the gas companies fault or the car manufacturers fault. Its totally my bad for wanting a livable wage the only way you can get one.
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!)
If that’s the case, then the whole process is as wrong-headed as can be. You can only choose an alternative if a viable alternative exists. Transit isn’t supported enough to be a universally practical option while electric vehicles are too expensive and have infrastructure requirements that can’t necessarily be met by everyone. And speaking as someone who’s tried cycling, well, Edmonton is making some big moves, but In Calgary? Maybe I’ll give it a shot again when I get tired of living.
And none of that covers the fact that what is being paid at the pump as a surcharge to cover carbon taxes holds no relationship at all with what the oil companies are paying. It’s being used as an excuse to bilk the consumer even further and to line the pockets of investors.
80% of Canadians get more back than they pay. It’s not a tax, it’s a redistribution.
On the margin, it adds small incentives to shift consumer behaviour. Lots of people in warmer climates in Canada are shifting to e-bikes, for instance, and heat pumps are becoming increasingly common.
Sure, some Canadians are paying more than they get in rebates… like my old neighbour who commutes to work in an F-350, but that’s the point. He shouldn’t be driving to an office job in an industrial truck!
People below a certain income and have less options get that tax money spent back.
Those who are wealthier and can afford other options like Electric vehicles and heat pumps don’t get the money back. That money goes ideally towards developing green infrastructure like charging stations (no idea if they actually do, but that’s the idea)
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit.
In some cases that alternative is cycling.
In some cases that alternative is carpooling.
In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently.
In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car.
In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won’t work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can’t or won’t choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won’t change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate
It’s supposed to be reflected in the price to the consumer. That’s what’s supposed to cause the consumers to make less carbon-intensive choices.
For goods or services that don’t actually have any fossil carbon used, there probably should be a mechanism to call them out for misinformation.
Im all for charging more taxes on high emissions goods, but allowing it to be a fuck you to the consumer that has to engage with capitalism and not the corpos who dont have to offer high emissions goods, kind of blurs the whole “Earth is dying” conundrum we’re in.
Right, its my fault for buying gas for my car that I need to go to work to keep society functioning. Its not the gas companies fault or the car manufacturers fault. Its totally my bad for wanting a livable wage the only way you can get one.
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!)
If that’s the case, then the whole process is as wrong-headed as can be. You can only choose an alternative if a viable alternative exists. Transit isn’t supported enough to be a universally practical option while electric vehicles are too expensive and have infrastructure requirements that can’t necessarily be met by everyone. And speaking as someone who’s tried cycling, well, Edmonton is making some big moves, but In Calgary? Maybe I’ll give it a shot again when I get tired of living.
And none of that covers the fact that what is being paid at the pump as a surcharge to cover carbon taxes holds no relationship at all with what the oil companies are paying. It’s being used as an excuse to bilk the consumer even further and to line the pockets of investors.
80% of Canadians get more back than they pay. It’s not a tax, it’s a redistribution.
On the margin, it adds small incentives to shift consumer behaviour. Lots of people in warmer climates in Canada are shifting to e-bikes, for instance, and heat pumps are becoming increasingly common.
Sure, some Canadians are paying more than they get in rebates… like my old neighbour who commutes to work in an F-350, but that’s the point. He shouldn’t be driving to an office job in an industrial truck!
You tax what you want less of. Its pretty simple.
That’s why the rebate.
People below a certain income and have less options get that tax money spent back.
Those who are wealthier and can afford other options like Electric vehicles and heat pumps don’t get the money back. That money goes ideally towards developing green infrastructure like charging stations (no idea if they actually do, but that’s the idea)
It’s not wrong headed at all. There is always an alternative.
In some cases that alternative is transit. In some cases that alternative is cycling. In some cases that alternative is carpooling. In some cases that alternative is driving an existing car more efficiently. In some cases that alternative is choosing to buy a ICE smaller car. In some cases that alternative is buying a BEV.
In all those cases, even a small step will reward someone for making that choise.
I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won’t work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can’t or won’t choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won’t change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.
Ahh, a poor people’s tax then. Nice.
It’s actually the opposite.
While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it’s still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.
It’s sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don’t actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate