Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I don't think that the point is to make "everything" more expensive though. The point is supposed to increase the cost of somethings to change behaviour. I question whether increased home heating and grocery expenses are behaviours that should be changed (if they can be changed in the first place). But that $8bn removed from the economy seems like a poor outcome as well?
|
The goal on food would be to purchase food grown near you to reduce the CO2 impact. Do you need asparagus from Chille or will the beats works. The only way a carbon tax has any affect is if everything is increased in price and the Carbon winners reduce in price. For example choosing vegetarian options instead of meat should be more attractive under a carbon pricing system(though we're stupid about it and don't tax cow farts but tax has to ship vegetables)
Heating to the Carbon tax is supposed to change behaviour as upgrading windows, doors and furnaces becomes more economical and just turning down your heat a degree or two becomes more attractive.
Austraiias GDP is 1.4 trillion so 8 billion is the margin of error. I suspect they mean the government collected 8 billion. And a small loss of GDP is usually the affect of a tax increase as the private sector is generally more efficient.
It was politically unpopular there as it will be here as anything that drives food, gas, heat and electricity is but that doesn't mean it's not working.
If there really is to be a fight against global warming consumption of everything needs to be more expensive.