From the Mind of Trevor Stone

Tom Mayer’s call for a wealth tax rightly points out that the wealthiest 10% of the population step with a disproportionately large carbon footprint, and justly calls for those who contribute most to climate change to pay a large share of the bill to fix the problem. As a well-to-do and climate-concerned Boulderite, I’d be happy to pay a higher tax to cover my share of excess pollution. But there’s a more effective way to do it than a wealth tax.

A wealth tax would take the same 2% from the owner of a solar panel company as it takes from the owner of a coal mine. A wealth tax would value a $5,000 car the same as a $5,000 bicycle. And a wealth tax wouldn’t see a dollar from someone who spends all their money on international flights, because money spent on consumption doesn’t accumulate as wealth. In other words, a wealth tax doesn’t reward people for reducing their climate impact, just for owning assets, no matter how clean or dirty.

A carbon tax would make the biggest climate polluters pay the biggest price while simultaneously creating an incentive to reduce carbon emissions and thereby save money. The folks who make their money from fossil fuels will be on the hook for the damage they cause while entrepreneurs leading the clean energy transition will see a reward. An electric bicycle will become a better investment than a gas-powered car, and carbon-intensive products will be more expensive than sustainably built ones.

The wealthy have bags of tricks to hide wealth to avoid tax. A carbon pollution fee at the mine or well would be easy to enforce and reward people for doing the right thing by reducing emissions.