Who should pay for climate solutions? The debate is heating up

www.latimes.com

Column: Who should pay for climate solutions? The debate is heating up

Archived copies of the article: archive.today web.archive.org ghostarchive.org

12 comments

Wealth owners: billionaires should be degraded to millionaires, starting from the industrial revolution. and voila!
in the form of flat fees on their monthly electric bills
Base fees are regressive and financially disincentivize progress.
If you want people to use less electricity, remove base fees and increase usage fees.
Another way of looking at it: imagine you had to pay a big fee to enter the grocery store, but once inside, everything was similarly priced. A potato would cost almost the same as a ribeye steak. You'd see lots of people walking out with steak, and as a result we'd have a major increase in agriculutural climate emissions.
Electricity is the same way. When everyone's paying base fees to artificially lower usage rates, poor people are subsidizing the extravagant usage of the rich.
Remove regressive base fees and charge people for the damage they do.
- The proposal had the fees based on income
  
  The article says:
  The Golden State’s poorest residents — those already enrolled in discounted rate programs — would pay small fixed charges.
  and
  Millionaires and billionaires would be slapped with the same fixed charges as middle-class families struggling to get by
  Maybe I'm misreading, or maybe the article is poorly written, but it sounds like everyone would be paying fixed fees.
  Setting a fee based on income sounds super error prone and vulnerable to gaming in the same way that the rich can avoid taxation. Imagine a CEO making $1 in salary with the rest in stocks, how would that be charged? Or imagine $1 in salary, but the rest in free housing, food, transportation, etc. What's the overhead for properly monitoring all this? It must be huge to do a credible job. We're already not doing it and repeating the same obvious error can only be assumed to be intentional.
  Just remove base fees and charge people for their usage. Poor people already use much less electricity than rich people so they would save money under my proposal, while the people who use more would have to pay more.
"Lawyers are responsible"
They're responsible for the lax climate regulations. They are also responsible for putting more strict regulations in place.
The biggest polluters should, like oil and gas industries. They've profited off the destruction, they should pay their fair share in cleaning it up.
- You have to legislate that they can't pass the expense on to consumers, or they'll just pass the expense on to consumers. And that's where it hits a wall, because all of the conservatives go fucking ballistic when you start talking about the government mandating how a business should run, despite the fact that they're perfectly okay with all of the anti-competitive laws that the big business got passed to keep them in absolute control over everything.
The owners of the industries that are causing it. They could be doing different energy sources but care about profits only. Eat the rich.

12 comments