Because wealthier groups and individuals can afford to pay taxes that impoverished people can't? There are all kinds of subsidies for the poor today where wealthier people pay a higher price. There is precedent here for that.
> Because wealthier groups and individuals can afford to pay taxes that impoverished people can't?
Yes, definitely.
I could afford paying 50% tax on flights. Most people in the world could not pay 50% more for their transportation.
The problem with a carbon tax is that it values all emissions equally. But on a global scale, some emissions are more essential than others. (Food, shelter, transportation to work etc)
That's the benefit of it isn't it? Its supposed to force paradigm shifts in how we fuel our supply chain. It's supposed to not maximize profit in the near term. It's not good that our most basic needs are so reliant on greenhouse gas emissions and if we continue to subsidize the emissions of this market with our health and ecology nothing will ever change.
I agree with you that the whole economy needs to shift eventually. But as I see it, the most utilitarian way to reduce emissions would be to reduce the overconsumption of carbon emissions in the rich world. The market will not produce the "correct signal" to achieve this because of the enormous income disparity in the global economy.
Example: India vs Us carbon emissions per Capita is 4 times higher than India GDP vs Us GDP per Capita.
Any price increase on carbon will be felt 4x more by an Indian than by an American.
