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
It make solution that emit less carbon more competitive. For example, let say that your product cost 500$ to produce and create some carbon emission. You could switch to a method that produce less carbon, but that would cost 520$ to produce it. Now if your carbon taxe is 35$ and by using the new method you can drop that to 12$, then the old method actually cost you 535$, while the new method would cost you 532$ which is cheaper and incentive you to switch to the method that cost less carbon.
Of course this work overtime, it doesn’t reduce carbon the moment you create that tax, it just slowly change the way people do business and consumer buy product.
By making other places seem more feasible to do business, industries leave Canada or can’t expand and it gives the illusion we are reducing emissions while actually just sending business to the US and killing our economy in the process.
Do you believe that costs affect business and consumer behaviour?
If yes, then you agree in principle that a carbon tax can work.
Obviously in areas where carbon intensive fuels are necessary for daily life this has less of an effect, and also poor implementation of policy can also reduce effectiveness.
I’m assuming this is a troll post (really? you couldn’t figure this one out on your own?) but just in case:
It incentivizes cleaner choices by assigning an extra cost to the unclean ones. In other words, it makes polluting expensive, which makes non-polluting alternatives cheaper by comparison.
That’s exactly what it’s for, to just add another tax to the public.
Does anyone actually know what percentage humans contribute to Annual Global emissions? It’s less than 4% of all annual global emissions (oceanic being the biggest contributor to emissions):
>our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year
[https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)
Kind of funny how Greta just ‘disappeared’ after the Canadian elections, and even funnier how she focused on a Country that contributes to less than 2.5% of annual human Emissions, and majority of that is from our forests:
>**Canada emits** roughly 700 megatonnes of **CO2** each year
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink-or-source-1.5011490)
Amazingly Canada pays Carbon taxes for contributing to less than 0.09% of the global Emissions ‘slow clap’.
When you have ‘climate change deniers’ they don’t deny that the world is entering into a state of climate change (The worlds gone through 6 major climate disasters btw) they are denying the human element of it. Saying “10k Scientists signed a study” or “the facts are there, and your stupid if you don’t believe it” is not an argument, climate change deniers don’t believe that humans contributed solely to the environmental changes, and that the world will and is continuing to enter natural climate cycles. It’s a easy way to tax people (as we see in this case) without people getting angry.
Even if Canada was to produce ZERO emissions it still wouldn’t solve anything.
**Edit**: to the people who are going to vote me down, at least have the balls to tell me how I’m wrong, because all I’ve done is given facts.
Latest Answers