Arguments against a Carbon Tax

[Triipe]

• A carbon tax will not be pro-growth. Most carbon tax scenarios reduce GDP for the entirety of the 22-year forecast period. Better than break-even economic performance may not be possible unless revenue is devoted entirely to corporate tax relief. A lump-sum rebate results in lost GDP equal to between $3.76 trillion and $5.92 trillion over the 22-year forecast period.
• A carbon tax is not an efficient revenue raiser for tax reform. Using standard scoring conventions, a carbon tax is likely to only produce net revenue available for tax reform of 32 cents on the dollar.
• No carbon tax modeled is consistent with meeting the long-term U.S. Paris Agreement INDC. As a standalone policy, consistent with World Bank and IEA estimates, all carbon tax scenarios analyzed are far off of the trajectory the Paris Agreement sets for 2040, undermining claims that a tax-for-regulation swap will satisfy emissions commitments.
• Depressed GDP leads to long-term fiscal challenges, with particular stress on states. Persistent reductions in economic performance lead to trillions of dollars in lost GDP, thereby reducing state tax revenues and straining state budgets. The average annual burden on the states and local government during the first 10 years of the tax would range from $18.9 to $30.6 billion.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

So a carbon tax would force growth in the green tech then. Since most people would be moving away from coal and gasoline because of it.

New jobs, more jobs, better paying jobs.

Look at that. I found the silver lining.

 

[acri1]

So what should we do about climate change then? Just ignore it?

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

So what should we do about climate change then? Just ignore it?

It's called passing the buck, or waiting until it's too late and even then, one political party was blame it on the next to garner votes.


As I said in another thread I created, Economics will be the destruction of man kind.

And when aliens visit the planet millions of years from now and see the remnants/archives, they will look at humanity and laugh.

Economics stagnates growth. Wealth is subjective in the grand scheme of things.

 

[mbewane]

The problem is that we are stucj in a paradigm in which growth in itself is pursued, as opposed to the better level of life that should theoretically come with it.

Growth as an economical concept is terribly outdated. We already produce more than we need, have enough food to feed the entire world multiple times, change cellphones every year. We don't need growth, we need better allocation of ressources and especially to economically atke into account what is still called "externalities" such as, indeed, pollution, health issues (stress, depression, etc...all linked to the way we work) which have very real costs.

As long as we stay in the mindframe of growth as the endgame, there is no way to think a viable solution for pollution, because said pollution is not taken into account on how growth is calculated. So we're stuck with half-measures that or may not work, but that in now way go as far as the problem needs them to go.

What I'm saying is that we need a full change of paradigm, new economical theories and a whole new mindframe to approach this new challenge to humanity. Pollution is not some bump on the road that a couple taxes will solve.

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

Agree with the last few posts. In short, *ahem*, fukk your GDP argument. I don't want to trade in my clean breathable air for a $2 increase in your stock that I'll never see.

 

[hashmander]

i got the best argument for all of this worrying about the future shyt ... fukk THE WORLD.