| rdfs:comment
| - A Carbon Tax is a policy where emissions of carbon dioxide - one of the main causes of climate change - are taxed. This tax brings in money based on the amount of CO2 Emissions in the country. It's favored by the Environmentalists, since it encourages people and companies to reduce their carbon emissions, increasing the nation's Energy Efficiency while decreasing its CO2 Emissions. However, non-carbon emitting alternatives are typically more expensive, which can lead to a drop in the GDP.
- A carbon tax fueling a UBI (universal basic income) could appeal to all sides of the political spectrum and would be an incredibly good libertarian principle. Since "the rights of one stop where the rights of another start," A corporation that consumes natural resources that all humans have an equal right to is an infringement on the rights of those not participating in its consumption. by instituting a carbon tax on said resource consumption, it not only dis-incentivizes unequal resource consumption, it also provides a way to divvy out the rights to that resource to others a pair of shoes
- Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) and are released as CO2 when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. Accordingly, a carbon tax is effectively a tax on the use of fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels. Some schemes also include other greenhouse gases; the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.
|
| abstract
| - A Carbon Tax is a policy where emissions of carbon dioxide - one of the main causes of climate change - are taxed. This tax brings in money based on the amount of CO2 Emissions in the country. It's favored by the Environmentalists, since it encourages people and companies to reduce their carbon emissions, increasing the nation's Energy Efficiency while decreasing its CO2 Emissions. However, non-carbon emitting alternatives are typically more expensive, which can lead to a drop in the GDP.
- Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) and are released as CO2 when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. Accordingly, a carbon tax is effectively a tax on the use of fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels. Some schemes also include other greenhouse gases; the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Because of the link with global warming, a carbon tax is sometimes assumed to require an internationally administered scheme. However, that is not intrinsic to the principle. The European Union considered a carbon tax covering its member states prior to starting its emissions trading scheme in 2005. The UK has unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime. Note that emissions trading systems do not constitute a Pigovian tax, because they entail the creation of a property right. The purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and thereby slow climate change. It can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content. Unlike other approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the revenue from the tax is returned by reducing other taxes. Alternatively, it may be used to fund environmental projects.
- A carbon tax fueling a UBI (universal basic income) could appeal to all sides of the political spectrum and would be an incredibly good libertarian principle. Since "the rights of one stop where the rights of another start," A corporation that consumes natural resources that all humans have an equal right to is an infringement on the rights of those not participating in its consumption. by instituting a carbon tax on said resource consumption, it not only dis-incentivizes unequal resource consumption, it also provides a way to divvy out the rights to that resource to others also, it provides a way to incentivize cleanup by carbon sequestration technology. It could create a way for a company to be profitable solely by covering skyscrapers in carbon capturing devices, being able to figure out how much they are removing, and receive a negative tax at the same value for production. New technology that allows turning atmospheric co2 into ethanol could also make this possible. the bigger policy dilemma is that the resource claim is from all humans, not just Americans, and so how to figure out UBI if it is not simply an American disbursement. It could be based on "if you sell goods in America (or other countries that join the plan), you contribute to the carbon tax plan at $X per ton co2. That money is then disbursed to citizens of (countries that have joined the plan / UN countries / countries that are not in human rights violations.../ ?? ). The income would be distributed directly the the people, calculated at a ratio based on the quality of human rights. For countries with the lowest individual self-determination, they would receive 0.2x, if no violations, citizens of the country would receive 1x. If there is a low level of self-determination, no electoral system, no representation to minorities, path to immigrate and emigrate, path to citizenship, basic healthcare, reasonable taxation plans, access to education, each infraction would lower the ratio by 0.1x to a minimum of 0.2x. The US for example, might get 0.8 because of healthcare and educational disparities. Denmark might get 0.9 because of high taxes. The ratio's sole purpose is to get the people to force their government to give better standard of living. The government would seek to improve their ratio or the people will revolt. So, each country would get a civil rights score based on the scores of:
* immigration
* emigration
* naturalization and citizenship
* economic mobility
* educational mobility
* internet access
* political representation (does the majority have self-determination?)
* constitutional rule (is there a prescribed set of rules describing the transfer and balance of power?)
* minority representation
* regional self-governance (are regional differences respected and allowed to govern within the bounds set? is the right to secede respected?)
* taxation with representation (are taxes used with consent from the people)
* bill of rights (does the constitution include and enforce the main principles of individual liberty? is there religious freedom? ) if we do not institute the framework for UBI before automation and self-driving technology causes the loss of millions of transportation/trucking jobs, it will cause civil unrest around the world. I have no clue how disbursement could work. It could be changed into a new currency. It would need pretty massive artificial constraints on pricing as it would be going into economies with 100x differences in standards of living. Let's call it spacebucks. Everyone gets 1SB/day. account is based on retinal scans and fingerprints from cellphones and is proportionally distributed as best as can be guessed by census data. This potentially prevents oligarchy from holding humanitarian funds unequally, as is seen commonly. everyone's account maxes at 10SB. Any income above 10 is still disbursed, but instead pools into local communities, with a max of let's say 20SB/person, overflow from that goes into the larger district fund which maxes at 30SB/person. The communities can then spend money for corporations that can provide services to spend the SB, upgrade utilities, or get cleaner water. This is a way that wal-mart or whatever can move in and be profitable in the middle of nowhere. This then lets people use their SB better. price fixing might need to be pretty extreme at first, perhaps 1SB could equal:
* 1 week cellphone service (necessary for enrollment into the whole thing)
* a box of diapers a pair of shoes
* a nice outfit
* a water filter
* 1 week supply of WHO essential medication
* 1 vaccine I would be hesitant to initially include food as 3rd world livelihood often depends on farming, and that would be a delicate balance to mess with, at least with the initial implementation. poverty levels balance out, and access to basic online education becomes universal. Taking a month away from the farm to learn a skill is no longer a life or death decision. UBI could be a very republican idea. Drop all welfare, social security, disability, unemployment, college assistance, housing assistance, and all the fraud and bureaucracy inherent in those, and simply give everyone a base wage. It would not be comfortable living, but enough so that losing a car for a week doesn't make you lose your job lose your house lose everything. Starting a new company that is negative for the 1st 2 years is not as big a risk. any temporary disturbance that right now can cripple someone, but if weathered would increase the country's wealth, would be a thing of the past. Include universal healthcare and free online college, and make both sides happy. A welfare state and globalization are opposing forces. To enact social protections Exchange rates between companies earning the SB's back into other currencies could be difficult, but paying taxes using the SB could be a significant way.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)