It seems to me it just makes people pay more tax and doesn’t actually help climate change. I researched the Canadian carbon tax btw
In: Other
The theory is that some industry is much better suited for lower emissions, it is easier for a windmill to be clean than a coal fired power plant. It is easier for me to drive a fuel efficient car than it is for Wal Mart to drive a fuel efficient tractor trailer. While that may be the overall goal for Wal Mart, it isn’t as practical for Wal Mart as it is for me.
So if I am electrical car manufacturer X and I get a certain amount of carbon credits, I can sell them to Ford. Ford can then do business as usual with an incentive to not pay that tax anymore by long-term investments in cleaner vehicles. Meanwhile, my business (the electric car manufacturer) gets more money in my pocket to continue my investments. Eventually Ford starts producing clean cars (like me), they don’t have to pay the tax, I compete fairly with them, and cars (one of the largest sources of air pollution) are much cleaner. This isn’t just cars, agriculture is awful for both air and ground water pollution. Factory farms are already hurting family farms and the environment, so charge them out the wazoo for polluting by providing credits to family farms who use more environmentally friendly processes. They need the help anyway, and they aren’t really the problem so why should they have to deal with regulation aimed at factory farming?
The point isn’t to destroy an industry, in fact it is purposely designed such that businesses can stay in business while they adjust. Just think, if Republicans are vehemently against it than it probably benefits the common man and, as it is known in academic circles, the economy of the commons. They hate that for some reason.
Latest Answers