Comment Log Display

Carbon Tax. 
Impressive big picture discussion but short on psychology,
incentives to adopt, and incrementalism. Paying attention to the
big picture may get in the way of thinking about a smaller but
major part of the big picture, i.e., vehicle fuels only.
They have the advantage of limited ability of buyers to escape a
tax, especially a small one. They could even be implemented by
county, again, if the price differential with
just-across-the-border is not too great. 

I've always supported a return of funds to the general population,
but recently I've had to admit to myself that the psychology is
wrong because it pits a known cost increase against a possible
future small benefit (a semi-rebate), and has administrative
overhead to make the transfer. 

Think about the success of county level sales taxes for
transportation. The country leaders worked out a wish list
(expenditure plan) and sold it to the voters. The voters still had
a cost they didn't like but benefits they couldn't get otherwise.
The rules for a county GHG tax (ad valorem tax on fossil fuels)
could channel funds to GHG reducing actions--even rebates--and away
from GHG increasing things. Now the psychology is based on an
incentive for local officials and trade offs the public can
understand. 

While the tax would have to be fixed, it would probably be on the
low side, preventing disruption, and would not prevent add-ons. A
system like this works better psychologically and incrementally. As
with the sales tax, success in the initial counties led to others
doing it.