Raise the Hammer

Chris wrote:

"Why is it that so many on the left still believe that taxes will somehow be borne by those who can "afford" it."

I don't know what you mean by "the left". Perhaps you are one of those Fox News enthusiasts who considers centrists and corporate environmentalists to be left. But as someone familiar with the left milieu in Canada, I can say that the ACTUAL left (social democrats, social anarchists, marxists, etc.) generally opposes carbon taxes as regressive (ie., they harm workers and poor people disproportionately), which is basically the argument you made.

I have been trying to take issue with that position, and argue instead that carbon tax is at worst a vice tax, and at best a progressive measure which would ultimately contribute to more social equality, assuming the proceeds are pumped back into cities for transit and other grassroots programs.

My reasoning is largely an inversion the argument Ivan Illich laid out in his classic essay, Energy and Equity, as well as some of his other writings. In a nutshell, Illich argued that, beyond a certain threshold, a high energy flow through a society produces inequality by FORCING the rich and poor alike to consume industrial outputs.

To illustrate: imagine being a low wage worker in a totally sprawled out city like Atlanta or Phoenix. You can't afford a car but you need a car. It's simply not a luxury or an individual choice no matter how many times you tell yourself (and the commercials tell you) you love it. (Sorry A Smith.) Now imagine being a low wage worker in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, where most jobs are easily accessible by bike.

Illich called this lack of choice a radical monopoly - when industrial outputs become mandated. You can do little things like ride a bike and garden and buy local. But ultimately you can't just "individually" choose as a "consumer" to live a low impact way. It takes collective social and political action to bring this possibility about.

Energy and Equity is available free if you google it.