Broadly agreed. IMO the Canadian carbon tax had a marketing problem. It should have been called a Carbon Dividend. First, it would have replaced the negative connotation of the word "tax" with the positive connotation of the word "dividend -- and it would have been more accurate to how the program actually worked.
replySecond, and probably more important: the rebates showed up in your bank account with a description that didn't make the source obvious enough for laypeople. Had people seen monthly "CARBON DIVIDEND" credits in their bank accounts, they would have noticed.
It was never called carbon tax, but carbon pricing. It being knows as carbon tax was the result of of opposition efforts. The same efforts and results would have happened had it been called dividend or anything else.
replyIn official communications it was called the Canada Carbon Rebate or previously the Climate Action Incentive
replyBoth of which were terrible marketing wise.
replyWhat makes "rebate" terrible but "dividend" good? They accomplish the same thing in my mind. In fact I think calling it a "dividend" would be a pretty unconventional and contrived usage of that word.
replyRebate: focuses attention on the tax. Dividend: focuses attention on the income people receive.
replyNever heard of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend? Except that one enshrines CO2 emissions instead of curbing them.
The feds had it labeled, "Canada Carbon Rebate", and to even get that they had to fight the banks.
replyhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-pricing-rebates-land...