Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 16, 2024, 12:34 AMMy problem with these types of ideas is they're always premissed on a 'this far but no further' technocratic logic. Who is defining carbon footprint, what part of that is taxed, and in whose interest? If you say by and for the people, well in that case they would skip this roundabout system of economic redistribution and just organize in a way that minimizes unnecessary surplus/waste. Rainfed tropical land gets less fertilizer than irrigated temperate land unless the added surplus is useful/can be distributed at reasonable energy cost. At that level of international working class coordination production will be centrally directed (just like now). No need to punish/incentivize owners of production, as if that has ever actually helped the mass of producers.Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 03:18 AMThe majority of people aren't choosing to do anything with fossil fuels........ Why wouldn't they choose to rationally manage fossil fuels, population etc?Excellent point.
The way we live our lives is dictated by culture and power. As citizens we are dis-empowered. With isolating technologies now deployed to make sure people only connect in ways power finds acceptable.
A tax on carbon paid to all citizens (with which they can buy anything they want) What would happen?
This dog would make sure I spend less on carbon. I would want to use less than average so I have tax money left to invest on happiness.
Others would ENVY the prosperity of my ways.
A low carbon lifestyle would become socially acceptable and common. There would be a cascade effect. Low carbon would become a thing. All this would happen from a tax on carbon that gets distributed as a UBI.
Currently we have nice companies making up reasons for why they're green, then selling the carbon credits they've earned to the naughty companies who can't afford to pretend. Judging by your description I don't see how carbon dividends will work any better under this system. And under a democratic system they'd be unnecessary.