Quote from: RE on May 05, 2024, 01:31 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 04, 2024, 09:20 PMYou should be on the citizens assembly that sets the rate.  Don't be late.

As long as I don't need to fly or drive.

What's the proposed rate?  What would gas cost at the pump today?

RE

There is no answer for that because as time goes by the rate increases.  This is why a citizens assembly must control the pain.  The Citizens' Climate Lobby proposes starting at $15 per ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 per ton each year. This gradual increase is intended to give businesses and consumers time to adjust and to provide a clear signal to invest in cleaner technologies.

I struck out the bullshit.  If you made the rate high initially there would be enormous disruption.  Cleaner tech has nothing to do with it.  That is a lie.  The truth is money piles are threatened and the author of the above was not honest enough to state an uncomfortable truth.  The program changes human behavior by modifying the choices people can make and has nothing to do with tech.  Time to adjust means keep disruption within reasonable limits.  Changing people's choices is a threat to the established and well off. 

Consider two McMansions one in the city, and one thirty miles out in the burbs.  They are worth the same now. The mcMansion in the burbs is bigger and nicer if they are worth the same, because the land in the city is worth more.  Now double the price of gas overnight.  The property value of the suburban lot crashes.  The burb McMansion essentially becomes worthless.  This is the actual reason Carbon Fee and Dividend has to start slow.  The pain of too high a rate would cause a conservative counter-revolution.  There would be too many people who's lives would suddenly not work.

As people enjoy payments (in a program done right), the program becomes more popular and the rate ratchets up.  After a few years raising the rate causes less pain.  There are no more housing starts in the deep burbs now, and the dense city planning urban planners want is well under way.  People have adjusted, and as the rate ratchets up there is less pain.

$15 per ton of CO2 increased by $10 per ton each year will increase the cost of a gallon of gas by about $1.40 after ten years.  Average consumption of 23 gallons a week provides a weekly deposit of $32.20 per person. 

Ten years to get that far is way too long.  That said I'd be fine with a low initial rate which does not do much.  Not much is not the same thing as nothing, and as climate shocks wake up the general population there will be pressure to set the rate higher.  With the system is already in place, no problemo.

Once Fee and Dividend is in place society will change as fast as it wants to.  The way to fuck it up is to let politicians get in charge of Fee and Dividend and they will try, and this being America the sheep will probably let them.

I can already hear 'them' screaming 'this is how we do it in America'.  But as soon as politicians are in charge, special interests will game the system. 

Getting the system in place is more important than fighting capitalist nimrods who want to have the system their way and put politicians in charge right now.  We fight nimrods later.  By any means necessary.  The theft of the commons must stop.

Citizens climate lobby came up with this.

I think we can assume that the rate structure described earlier generated the graph.  I do not think it means anything without more info.  Citizens Climate lobby spins the proposal along capitalist lines.  Not exactly what I want and 'experts' absolutely should not be running things behind closed doors.

What the fuck is up with this graph going to zero.  The citizens assembly should structure things for a flat line set at a thousand a year or so at the end.  the graph is a wank IMHO.  The actual fact is an average consumer should always get a dividend.  The reason is corporations also buy fossil fuel and they do not get the kickback.  Their prices are higher because of their added fossil fuel costs.  The consumer deserves the kickback to offset the higher prices corporations will pass on.  Just having a graph does not mean smarts are involved.

I have to accept that an actual American system won't be perfect to start with.  If a movement for Fee and Dividend gets traction I'll be writing about how to do it right.  That is all I can do.  Try.

Fee and Dividend is fundamentally different from a tax because government does NOT get the money.  But after that distinction is made, there are a range of variants to the proposals.  Meaning your question about how much you would get has no answer at this time.