The Truth About Carbon Taxes

The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1

Patreon:
Facebook:
Instagram:
Reddit:
Twitter:
Discord:

References:

Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus

Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.

Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

[Eggster]

We live in a global economy. Any carbon tax MUST apply equally to imported goods. Failure to do so will create an unfair advantage for imported goods. The two issues must be linked and addressed in a clear manner. The concurrent tax reductions mentioned in the video do not address this.

To put this another way, offshoring pollution does not address climate change.

[Tinjinladakh]

Wish govt. don't shut Nuclear Energy, with current technology its very safe. the anti try to use example of Chernobyl but it was 36 year ago. Now we have best tech.

[nApucco]

This was very informative and interesting.
Please don't shy away from these deep dives into a specific study. It's what we need right now.

It's the first time I have heared of this study and I'm looking forward to searching about the state and progress of carbon taxes here in Europe and Switzerland now.

[Vaporizer_YT]

It’s probably important to point out that very rarely in the history of US taxes, has the tax money gone largely to their intended relief programs

[MadMadCommando]

It's strange that even in the high tax scenario, nuclear fission and hydro generation don't rise. I think this is from the model assuming a totally free market electrical grid, since it's governments that build nuclear and hydro, not companies. A major oversite in my opinion, since the model predicts a huge increase in solar and wind driven by free market forces, but that would require massive energy storage solutions that use technologies that simply doesn't exist yet.

[BrianFrichette]

Dude this was an excellent and informative production. Not dry or tedious at all, IMO. Thanks

[randomuser]

EU considered removing yachts from the carbon tax. Just saying im not trusting these taxes.

[chodeshadar]

I wonder how good the computer simulations are at predicting how taxing cigarettes would put cigarette companies out of business.

[roflchopter]

12:48 it's funny because the VW emissions cheat resulted in vehicles that consume less fuel and emit less CO2 (but more NOx)

[ri-ojul]

I notice nuclear energy remains constant over the following decades. How reasonable is this assumption given that we are not building nuclear plants and are shutting down the ones that are getting old in some cases? Also I see the future sees us relying on about 40% wind power... are we assuming we find ways to store the energy generated or maybe that it gets consistently more windy?

[jacobs.macauley]

What’s extremely interesting is Carbon Taxes have been in use in British Columbia since 2008. The government when it introduced the carbon tax did 4 other things to reduce the tax burden of the new tax. 1) It sent everyone in the province a rebate check of a couple hundred dollars 2) Lowered higher marginal personal tax rates 3) Lowered corporate tax rates 4) For lower income households you receive a rebate check from the government if you make below a certain amount of income you receive a couple hundred dollars per quarter this rebate reduces the burden of the carbon tax plus sales taxes which tend to regressive taxes for poorer households.

I found it interesting that the authors assumed that increasing the carbon tax rates would occur consistently. In BC the carbon rose from $10 in 2008 to $25 in 2012 and remained unchanged for 5 years then in 2017 with a change of government the tax rate is approaching $50 in the next year or so. This is one of the issues of a carbon tax if it doesn’t increase to keep up with inflation it losses it’s effectiveness. Thereby increasing it plus adjusting it for inflation increases the effectiveness of it overtime.

[maxon]

I shiver at the assumptions made to build an economic model that complex at that scale. Very interesting video.

[thecentalist]

I'm still not completely sold on the carbon tax, because the big corporations will pass down the losses to the customer and still heavily profit from the subsidies that they still get from the government.

[cursedlycan]

5:21 As an engineer I want to shake hands with you like the epic hand shake meme, for refusing to use BTU as a unit. 🤝

[jerrymiller]

The tax estimate assumes no reduction in coal use. If the tax is on coal use it would drop to zero revenue as coal use drops to zero. Instead the graph shows tax revenue growing over time not shrinking

[karsongrady]

The production quality here is absolutely insane with the blender scenes. Are you using RTX or Quadro GPU's? Thanks for the video. You made an already fascinating subject that much more fascinating.

[bouldershoulder]

Actually loved the in depth dive, I would have never come across this information otherwise please keep doing what you are doing.

[Maniac]

Governments are often reluctant to lower taxes, so I'm not expecting the tax swap to work as advertised.

[johnfausett]

It's difficult to calculate the effects of an imaginary force. Its effect on humanity depends upon how well it's sold, and it's been a hard sell everywhere on earth that has access to mass media. The COVID hysteria was taken from the same playbook and uses the same scare tactics. The coach knows that this play always produces a touchdown.

[Croz]

I think the hardest thing to forecast in these models is the future capital and operational costs of different kinds of energy generation. I don't know what these models used, but I would assume they are either assuming the costs are the same in the future as they are now, or are using some kind of forecast model that may not be terribly accurate. In all the scenarios nuclear remains pretty flat or grows only slightly, but it's possible it could grow a lot more if SMR or Generation IV technology slashes costs and construction time, or the opposite, new plants become so expensive to construct that it shrinks down to nothing as reactors reach the end of their lives. Even with the more understood areas of renewables and gas, there still a lot of uncertainty. Cheaper storage would allow for more renewables in the mix, but if it remains expensive (which is possible, for example a shortage of lithium ore would probably make lithium battery grid storage economically unviable), then gas will stick around for longer as the backup for their intermittency. There's also the question of quite how expensive CCS will be at scale.