The poor person in West Virginia getting his electricity from dirty coal and driving a 10 year old F150 is getting the same rebate. He's buying stuff from Walmart that's shipped from China.
Are you rewarding people for using less carbon or is the rebate to help offset the cost past through from companies passing on the extra tax onto consumers? Two different claims are being made.
They may be getting the same rebate, but they aren't paying the same tax. If the rebate is the same for all, then those who use less will make a profit, considering the $rebate - $tax amounts, while those using more will pay more tax than they get in rebates. (This is assuming a revenue neutral arrangement).
I havn't looked into it in detail, but I was under the impression that it wasn't so much to affect consumer choices directly, as commercial behavior.
That is, putting a price on carbon will result in businesses either putting up prices, or choosing lower emission production options. All other things being equal, this should result in having lower emission companies having a pricing edge, and then consumers picking those products.
Are you rewarding people for using less carbon or is the rebate to help offset the cost past through from companies passing on the extra tax onto consumers? Two different claims are being made.