Canadian Politics Today

The trouble with the economic models that make most economists think that carbon pricing is wonderful is the models don't care if people suffer by going without because it costs too much or if they actually found an alternative that lets them do the same thing without emissions. All the models care about is demand CO2 emission producing activities goes down. Politicians, OTOH, have to care if a policy results in suffering even if it reduces emissions.

I guess the question is: who do you think would be suffering, and why?

Many jurisdictions that have implemented carbon taxes have attempted to keep them revenue neutral, either through a reduction of other taxes (such as income tax or corporate tax) or rebates. So for a certain segment of the population, they will see their overall taxes stay constant (or even go down). Lower income people will probably be better off, since they tend not to use personal vehicles or live in large single-family homes (and any increases in the costs of food or other purchased goods caused by the carbon taxes would be more than offset by rebates or other tax reductions).

I personally will probably find carbon taxes neutral... I do have a vehicle, but its a fairly small one, I live in the city and have a short commute to work, and my home is a town home (easier to heat).

The people who will end up paying more are those who, well, use more carbon... those people who commute further, drive bigger vehicles, crank up their furnace in the winter, etc. But then, while they may end up paying more, they were initially causing more harm to the environment in the first place.