Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 17, 2024, 11:30 AM

Quote from: RE on Apr 17, 2024, 01:43 AMIf I missed something here, please lemme know without the big fonts.  I still may not understand how it's supposed to work correctly.

RE

While it is true that most carbon taxes are regressive, there is one carbon pricing policy that is actually anti-regressive and helps lower income people the most. It's called Fee and Dividend and it is quite simple: A fee is collected from fossil fuel companies at the point where fossil fuels enter the domestic market — at the mine, well or port of entry. The fee starts small — about $15 per ton of carbon dioxide embedded in the fuel – and goes up $10 every year.

What does that mean for consumers? By the time it reaches $100 per ton, the fee will raise gasoline prices 90 cents per gallon. It will also raise the price of every product or activity that relies on fossil fuels. This higher price will spur development of low carbon energy and products made with little or no fossil fuels, driving a transition to a clean energy economy.

Here is the key to Fee and Dividend: The money collected — every penny — is distributed as a dividend to all legal residents on an equal basis. You and Bill Gates get the same amount, received every month in your bank account, or on a debit card if you have no bank. The dividend will be substantial — a $100 per ton carbon fee with today's fossil fuel use translates to about $5,500 per year for a family of four — a significant sum for lower income Americans.

Because wealthy people generate much more carbon dioxide than poor or middle-class people do, the dividend for almost all lower income people will exceed the increased prices they pay due to the carbon fee. In fact, the U.S. Treasury Department estimates that the bottom 70 percent of households by income will make money under Fee and Dividend, with the poorest having the biggest increase. The top 30 percent of households will pay more in higher prices than they get in the dividend, but it won't be a big relative cost for them. 

source: JAMES E. HANSEN

Well, I get the concept there to make it antiregressive and transfer money from the rich to the poor, but I would have to see the way the money distributes out, and my sense is that the estra cost will not affect Bill Gates at all, obviously he can pay anything you could charge.

For the really poor who make less than $50K year, an extra $5K will be a nice bonus if they drive 0 miles, and don't take public transport, but few are that low in carbon footprint.

The average person with average income driving average miles will end up even at zero.

As you move outward on the curve away from the median, above average consumers would pay more and get back less on a scale going from 0--->$5500  Below average $5500-->0.  Basically it would be a reversion to the mean with some above average income people spending less, but past a certain income they don't give a shit.  Lower income people would get a bonus, but would probably use the money to take a vacation or burn carbon in some other way.

So, bottom line I still don't see it reducing consumption all that much.

RE