Lemmie pitch you a big government policy idea…
We’ll call it a Carbon Tax.
No, it doesn’t matter that no one knows what that means.
It’s like a 50/50 draw to help save the planet!
We can’t say we want people to use less gas exactly, so we’ll say we want them to use less “carbon”.
We can say that the price people are paying for gas (carbon) doesn’t capture the harm, the cost, it’s really having to our communities, country, and world.
Who doesn’t want a better world?
We need someone to pay for pollution.
So here’s what we’ll do:
We’ll say we’re gonna help people save the planet while also personally winning a prize.
Here’s what…
We’ll put an additional tax on gas (“carbon”).
We’ll start small. Let’s make it 14 cents a litre this year, and then increase it just a little, 3 or 4 cents a litre every year, so that people don’t balk. Here’s the official schedule. We’ll stop when the amount coming in gets maxed out because people can’t afford any more gas. Don’t worry. They’re addicted and in spite of the grousing, gas costs less than bottled water per litre and they’re buying that by the gallon.
We can just hide the tax amount in the price per litre undisclosed, and then we can even charge HST on it. People won’t notice that because people don’t like to do “percent”, that’s where most people checked out in math class.
We’ll tell people we’re sending them the money we collect. So they’ll get a cheque for roughly the amount a typical person would pay for this new tax.
Then, we’ll tell them, they can actually make money, save the world, and be good citizens, if they just personally use less gas than the average person. That way the amount of their cheque will be more than the amount they pay in gas tax.
But we won’t pay out all the tax income. Just like a lottery or a casino, it’ll be kind of like a 50/50 draw. We can keep a good portion of the money… for a good cause. It’ll create new departments, administration, and new administrative jobs. Everyone wins.
Sidebar:
Pigouvian Tax
A Pigouvian tax, named after 1920 British economist Arthur C. Pigou, is a tax on a market transaction that creates a negative externality, or an additional cost, borne by individuals not directly involved in the transaction. Examples include tobacco taxes, sugar taxes, and carbon taxes.
OK, back to the story… We’ll run all this through large departments and budgets so no one, not even us really, will know how much is skimmed off the top, how much the program is making, how much it’s costing, or if it’s doing the thing we say it is for anyone.
The cool part is, the activists, the folks speaking out loudest for change, the ones who believe they are already doing their part, will be the biggest supporters, shouting down anyone who questions us, because they think it’s saving the world a bit and that they are also, because of their efforts, the ones that come out ahead. But it’s fair, because they would think, everyone should and could, live like they do. So the marketing, promotion, political support, and policing is done for us.
It’s a perfect idea.
What do you think?
Well, a couple things…
Here’s a CTV survey asking, sort of, what people think of this new gas tax 50/50 draw scheme. Looks like government is winning. Or at least it was in November. The tax increase comes in April of each year. Things may be different this week.
But note the wording of the question. Pollution is bad. Climate change is bad. “Carbon Tax” is… well, most people don’t know what it is, and no one has real data on how effective it is. So this poll is really just embarrassing people into saying… something. It’s more a poll of human nature than anything. Maybe the most hilarious option on the poll is the “Average” response that nearly 25% of people gave. As if they are comparing it to all the other climate change policy results they know of.
What’s Really Going On Here?
Governments often craft complex tax policies with misleading or jargony slogan names like the carbon tax and cap and trade systems for several reasons that go beyond their publicly stated goals of reducing carbon emissions and promoting environmental sustainability. Here's a look into some of the underlying motivations:
1. Revenue Generation: Complex tax systems can be significant revenue generators for governments. By imposing taxes on carbon emissions, governments collect funds that can be used to balance budgets, fund special projects, or reduce deficits without directly increasing other more visible taxes like income or sales taxes.
2. Political Leverage: Complex tax policies can serve as tools for political leverage, allowing governments to appease or negotiate with various stakeholder groups, including environmental lobbyists, industrial sectors, and the general public. These policies can be adjusted or manipulated to gain support or reduce opposition among key voter blocks.
3. Economic Steering: By adjusting the economic levers through taxes and trading systems, governments can indirectly influence market behaviors. In this case, a carbon (Gas) tax does steer some people towards “greener alternatives”, new businesses and ideas that businesses and industries want to fund without direct legislative actions that might be politically unfeasible and indefensible.
4. International Standing: On the global stage, having sophisticated environmental policies like carbon taxes can enhance a country's reputation as a leader in fighting climate change (more on that in later posts). This can translate into political capital in international negotiations, trade agreements, or global forums. If you were playing in the big leagues of international politics, this would be your game.
5. Control and Regulation: Complex policies provide a mechanism for greater control over economic and industrial processes. By implementing systems that require detailed tracking, reporting, and compliance, governments gain more insight and regulatory control over industries that are significant polluters… but really this translates into meaning an ever-growing bureaucracy with more ‘stay at home’ jobs far from the frontline of human suffering and work.
6. Distraction and Diversion: Sometimes, complex policies serve to distract from other pressing issues or to shift public focus. By engaging the public and media in debates over intricate tax systems, governments might deflect attention from other controversial topics.
7. Experimentation and Innovation: Complex tax systems can act as testing grounds for new economic theories, ideologies, or approaches to governent. What can government get away with? Let’s find out. By implementing systems like carbon taxes, governments can experiment with exploring what exactly people will put up with. The answer? Most people have never had it so good. They’ll put up with a lot. Many don’t no and can’t imagine any different. They’ll just go along. A lot of people are in on the game - government employees, connected industries, agencies, boards, and commissions - they folks have no incentive to speak out. Sure, there’ll be a few: people let on the outside of this golden circle, people with different ideas, people with big imaginations who can imagine different, more and better.
And then there are a few people who just like to point out what’s wrong… they’re the easiest to deal with, just let them write blogs that nobody will read and discourage them from joining and supporting political parties.
While the official narrative often focuses on environmental benefits, the realpolitik behind such policies can involve economic, political, and strategic factors that serve the interests of the government, parties, people in power and those in on the game. These motivations can be as diverse and intricate as the policies themselves.
In the next post let’s talk through the pitch for the Greenhouse Gases line of talk.
But first. You tell me. Do Pigouvian Taxes work?
Will people use less gas?
Do regular people get to choose how much gas they use?
Do taxes like this affect everyone equally? Does everyone have the same opportunity to save?
Are the alternatives really better?
Is this program worth it, given the difference it will really make?
Have you noticed that, for the reasons given above, government gets things wrong sometimes?