--- Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a very simple way to make a carbon tax
> progressive - in
> effect that is. Steal the idea behind the sky trust.
> Take, revenues
> from the carbon tax and divide them equally among
> the population. The
> result is sort of flatly progressive. The very poor
> receive
> significantly more than they pay; most of the
> working and middle
> classes get back about what they pay (some castes a
> bit more, some
> castes a bit less). The rich pay a lot more than
> they get back,
> though not in proportion to their income. So very
> slightly
> progressive, but better than extremely regressive.
> And in terms of
> winning a popular support, a whole lot better than
> any other type of
> carbon tax. You might even refer to it as a "No Hair
> Shirt" carbon
> tax.
[WS:] By why on earth would you want subsidize consumption of energy? It may put a few extra bucks in th epocket of low income folk, but iw will do little for poluution. A better way is to subsidize investment in more energy efficient technologies. That is, the tax on energy uses will two components: on ethat pays for th eremedy of externalities caused by actual energy production (cleanup, remedies for health hazard, et.c), and the alternative technology investment. The latter would subsidize th edevelopment of new technolgies and offset the cost of the dissemination of these technologies.
Fo example, you impose say a $10 tax per gallon on gasoline. $6 goes toward cleanup, $4 goes to the investment fund. Instead of giving the money back to polluting consumers, the fund finances the development and construction of low pollution public transit (e.g. the nifty train that you introduced earlier). Of course, the drivers will initially scream bloody murder, but when they have to shell $10 per gallon to fill up they gas guzzlers or take the nifty train for pennies (the fare would be low because it would not have to retutrn the original investment) - they would take the train.
The same holds for small farmers, that Patrick Bond loves so much. The high energy cost plus lack of subsidies would make their small farms non-viable, of course, but if they pool their land and form a cooperative - they may get some capital from the investment fund to buy energy efficient farm technology that will boost their productivity. This way, we will not only reduce pollution, but eliminate private land ownership - which is the bastion of reaction and right wing populism :)
In sum, it is not the tax (progressiv eor regressive) or market vs. non-market, but the subsidy on energy-efficient investment rather than energy consumption. It is the subsidy on consumption that got us int thi mess in the first place.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com