this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
280 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

6961 readers
480 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


👒 Lifestylecoming soon


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Other


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here:

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No porn.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think the idea is that you will not necessarily choose near zero carbon alternatives such as cycling to work or buying an electric car. Those simply won't work for most for a variety of reasons. But by bumping the price of gas, it makes people who can't or won't choose an alternative very aware of the cost of going anywhere, and causes many to drive more sparingly by carpooling, waiting until they have multiple reasons for trips or choosing not to go out every weekend. For those with deep pockets it is probably little more than an annoyance that won't change their behaviour, but increasing fuel prices works very well to curb overall demand.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ahh, a poor people's tax then. Nice.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 7 points 7 months ago

It's actually the opposite.

While yes it looks like things are more expensive, it's still effectively a wealth transfer where the poorest get more money back from the system.

It's sorta genius in that way, poorer folk are still rewarded for picking the less polluting option, but in the end don't actually end up payijg more after the quarterly rebate