Photo Credit: https://grist.org/election-2016/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/29/california-has-urged-president-obama-and-congress-to-tax-carbon-pollution
In the article above, the state of California which I would like to say is a very pioneering state has called for taxes to be imposed on carbon pollution. The really interesting part is that they are calling for the tax to be revenue neutral.
“By returning 100% of the taxed revenue to American households, the policy blunts the rising costs of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. In fact, studies project that a majority of Americans would receive a rebate larger than their increase in energy bills; only those who use the most fossil fuel energy would see costs rise more than the rebate. It’s a policy that’s hard to dislike. It makes polluters pay, goes a long way toward tackling the immense threat of human-caused global warming, results in cleaner air and water by reducing the burning of dirty fossil fuels, and has a modestly beneficial overall economic impact.”
Everyone does not agree with these “green taxes” however, “green taxes” are seen as an incentive to lessen environmental burden and preserve the environment. The revenue generated by these taxes, if not returned back to households can also be used for other environmental preservation projects or to cut other taxes, however the return I’m sure is highly attractive to consumers. When faced with the factor that climate change can, and if not halted- will, result in the events depicted by attached U.S map, one would hope to coerce all into supporting anything that supports an environmentally sustainable future.
This is, overall, very interesting. I would want to see how the transfer could create unintended externalities. Also, nothing is revenue neutral. The program has to be managed by someone and that costs money – somewhere. We also should consider burden hours for reporting purposes, who is required to do reporting and how many hours of labor will that cost.
All this pushback to say, yes, I love it and I think its a great idea – but to call something revenue neutral, I think, tends to be misleading inasmuch as there is always cost hidden somewhere.