Lets say there is a $5 "carbon tax" per gallon of gasoline. Your Chevy Suburban gets 12 mpg, thus costing you about $8.60 to drive 12 miles. (Not including the $3/gallon subsidy the US govt. currently pays to keep oil flowing from the middle east with military intervention) Your suburban is getting really old and you need a new vehicle. If you don't like paying 72c per mile in gas costs alone, you will buy a vehicle that gets better gas mileage. Chevy is losing business since you don't buy their gas hog anymore so they design a vehicle that gets better gas mileage.
The carbon tax is a simple carrot and stick approach to getting people and companies to change their ways. As hydrocarbons are relatively cheap now, people and companies aren't going to produce more efficient products unless the price of energy is raised. When the price of energy goes up then innovation goes up to produce better products.
Global warming/CO2 might be part of the reason for carbon taxes, but the US sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas every year for fuels that are wasted is also a major issue. If we make more fuel efficient products from vehicles to toasters to lightbulbs then we won't be using as much power and the money can be invested in the economy another way.
If I have to pay a carbon tax on coal, and I own an energy company, will I put in a new coal plant when I need to increase capacity? Or am I more likely to go with nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, or something else that won't have a carbon tax, so I can keep my customers buying electricity from me?
If I'm a homeowner, and the price of energy has gone up because of a carbon tax, don't I have more incentive to insulate my home better, install a solar panel, turn my thermostat down in the winter and up in the summer, and so on?
If LED lighbulbs save me $50/year per bulb in energy costs, doesn't it make sense to buy them even if they cost $10/bulb, as long as they'll last at least a year? (estimates are that most of them will last 10+ years, meaning they may cost less in the long term than traditional bulbs even discounting electricity savings...)
If I make widgets, and my competitor can sell his widgets cheaper because he installed solar panels and isn't paying as much for his electricity, don't I have a pretty strong incentive to lower my energy costs as well (either by installing my own solar panels, or by using a more energy-efficient manufacturing process, or whatever), if I want customers to by my widgets instead of his?
Even if all of the costs of a carbon tax are passed on to the consumers (and they won't be, at least in most cases), that will just put the "make better carbon decisions" ball in the consumers' court.
The thing I like about carbon taxes is that they don't force a particular path, they just put pressure on people to travel in a general direction. If there is a carbon tax, I can reduce my costs by switching to any non-fossil fuel energy source (there are several), or by reducing my energy use in one of many different ways, or I can simply pay the extra tax. Most people will do one of the first 2, which will lead to an overall decrease in carbon emissions.
You don't seem to understand economics. The idea is to more closely represent the costs of the pollution in the prices of the products and services. If the cost is passed down to the consumer, the consumers will choose the more beneficial options available to them.
The Ogallal Aquifer is already crossed by pipelines and railways, plus the acquifer is being tapped at a higher rate than it is being replenished. Indeed, it is the leftover of the last glacial period and the glaciers aren't in a hurry to refill it. America will be begging for the pipeline to be converted to water in 50 years.
Conspiracies are just too difficult to keep for any period of time. You still lack logic and many of your premises are still false.
Yes, it will be passed on consumers as all the other taxations. It won't prevent anything. It will help to corrupt government even more.
Look at the plastic bags ban. They are not really banned. They just taxed. You pay another few cents for every bag in the store. They are still as deadly for rats as they were. There are no holes in plastic bags for rats to breath through. These are the animals who usually stuck in plastic bags and die from deprivation of oxygen. But hey are favorite pests, should I say pets of envoronMentalists. That is why you should pay for every plastic bag more. Even though originally you already paid for plastic bags with your every grocery purchase even before that new law. No plastic bags did not stop to be any less dangerous for rats. No, there are no less of them flying around on the streets and in the plains around the nature. It just another way to get more money from you to feed hungry, pesky, slimy, fat government thugs...
Unless a provision is put in to stop that from happening, the cost will just be passed onto the consumer. But this may eventually price consumers away from fossil fuels, getting them to buy power from solar plants and wind turbines. So it might have it's desired impact, some day.
Taxes on carbon emissions WILL be passed on to the consumer. Then the products will cost more so consumers will buy less of them. Then less of them will be made and that will lower emissions of the makers. At least that is the idea.
well the main issue with carbon taxing is that we got to wait hundred of years to measure if its worth while doing or not.
Its also a political agenda to tie in to justify population control...each human being is a carbon dioxide producing factory
It won't help CO2 emissions but it will make Al Gore, George Soros, Maurice Strong and others like them richer. Then they can fly their airplanes more often and increase CO2 emissions. It will have the opposite effect. More money in the hands of the polluters means more pollution.
The Carbon Tax in British Columbia is revenue-neutral, meaning that the tax revenues are returned to taxpayers. People who increase emissions are losers, people who reduce emissions are winners. There is no revenue increase to government.
Funny that the conspiracy whacko who thinks Marxists control the world and the conspiracy whacko who thinks alien lizards control the world are enjoying each other's company while being ignorantly wrong. But at least its comforting to know that JimZ's Marxists are now friends of the lizards.
It is a joke. All it will do is rise energy prices and simply trickle down to the people who rely upon energy to survive. The elite will pump as normal while you simply pay more and more poor people will drop well below the bread line to the point of giving their children away(already happening) and being taxed to death(genocide). How on earth can you think that taxing carbon is a good idea? If you think that then your seriously living in a dream world and need to get out more.
So let us pray:
ALGORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.
He maketh me lie down in Greeneth pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.
He selleth my soul for CO2:
He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason
I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me
Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion,they comfort me.
Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:
Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my obedience runneth over.
Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever..........
"Incidence of taxation" is covered in decent introductory economic courses. Why post questions irrelevant to the category simply in order to display your lack of knowledge?
