Want to cut emissions? Young advocate says tax the rich — and what they own

Written By Peter Allan

Tasnia Hussain arrives at the Max Gluskin House, the headquarters for the University of Toronto's school of economics. Photo by: Kate Baggott

 

By Patricia Lane & Tasnia Hussain

Tasnia Hussain wants us to tax the carbon pollution from Taylor Swift’s corporate holdings — not just the emissions from her jet fuel. This University of Toronto PhD student has done the math that shows we can cut carbon pollution faster by taxing the emissions produced by billionaires' investments rather than just the emissions from their consumption.

Tell us about your research.

Many of us recognize that the wealthiest 1% are responsible for a disproportionate share of the emissions driving extreme weather, wildfires and floods. People are understandably frustrated when they see celebrities and billionaires flying private jets, driving luxury gas vehicles, cruising on yachts, and living in enormous homes — apparently without regard for the carbon pollution their lifestyles create. Many of us worry about climate change and try to do our part, but it can feel futile to recycle, eat less meat or bike to work when a single private-jet trip produces more emissions than most people generate in a year.

It is tempting, therefore, to focus on taxing luxury consumption. My research shows that while taxing luxury emissions could help, it will not reduce carbon pollution nearly as much as requiring the wealthy to pay taxes as a way of taking responsibility for the emissions produced by the companies and investments they own. The largest share of emissions linked to rich individuals comes not from their yachts or jets, but from the production of their businesses.

This approach is both more effective and more fair. The concept of carbon inequality recognizes that the highest income earners produce disproportionally more pollution from emissions. Taxing ownership-based emissions reduces the share of carbon pollution produced by the top .1% roughly three times more than taxing personal consumption alone. It targets the real sources of emissions while aligning responsibility with control.

READ MORE Free to read — no sign-in required.

 
Peter Allan
Previous

Young leader harnesses AI to help streamline sustainability disclosure
Next

Charting her own course in the climate movement