this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
70 points (97.3% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5307 readers
5 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Following up on an paper posted earlier this week on disproportionate carbon emissions based on income. This article, by one of the paper's authors, proposes the possibility of imposing carbon tax on investment income as a more equitable means of influencing emissions.

Instead of putting the responsibility for cutting emissions on consumers, maybe policies should more directly tie that responsibility to corporate executives, board members, and investors who have the most knowledge and power over their industries. Based on our analysis of the consumption and income benefits produced by greenhouse gas emissions, I believe a shareholder-based carbon tax is worth exploring.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IndefiniteBen@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which article? Was there meant to be a link?

Also, and I must say I haven't kept updated on the topic, I thought the idea of a carbon tax is to tax the emitters of greenhouse gases? Tax the companies responsible for most of the emissions. If they can't find a cheap way to do it they will increase prices of their products and lose out to competitors who can cheaply limit emissions?

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just updated with the link to the article, apparently it had gotten removed when I also added an image ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Regarding the carbon tax, the article talks more about it, but in short, taxing emitters, even with a dividend, puts more pressure on lower income families, whereas taxing investors more proportionally keeps the pressure on higher income individuals, especially those in the top 0.1% who likely have significant sway over business decisions.