Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan  (Read 23722 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #100 on: April 30, 2016, 06:32:55 PM »
The linked article reminds us that any carbon fee and dividend (revenue neutral carbon tax) plan must not only include taxes on fossil fuel CO₂ emissions but also on: N2O and CH4 (including that emitted by farm animals [including their waste], rice farming and waste dumps):

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/how-bacon-sandwiches-could-help-fight-climate-change-a7004171.html

Extract: " The Danish proposal for a red meat tax remind us of a bleak reality: climate change remains the greatest long-term threat to human prosperity and security – and we need policies that take it seriously
The Danish Council of Ethics – which sounds charmingly woolly but is, in fact, established by an Act of Parliament to advise MPs – has suggested that food should be taxed in proportion to its impact on climate change.
With cattle responsible for an estimated 10 per cent of all global greenhouse emissions, it is hardly surprising that beef should be in the Council’s immediate sights. But in pursuit of a more ethical approach to food consumption, other red meats may also take a hit, with less obvious targets perhaps to follow."
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 06:40:45 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #101 on: April 30, 2016, 08:21:53 PM »
The linked article discusses how due to political realities it is advisable to blend progressively increasing carbon pricing plans together with other popular pro-active government programs like government investment in sustainable energy research and regulation of pollution; and as time goes by and the carbon pricing amount increases, then revenue redistribution through dividends can be emphasized.  While, I agree that this makes political sense; it would have made even more sense if implemented in the early 1990's.  Still it is better to get started now, and at the same time acknowledge that such implementations will resulting in considerable climate change hardships:


http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11470804/carbon-tax-political-constraints

Extract (note SCC is social cost of carbon): "A carbon tax raises money. What should be done with it? This is the central issue in carbon policy design.
On its own, a tax will face tight political constraints and be held low, well beneath the SCC. Taxes just aren't very popular.

Depending on how it's deployed, the revenue can hold energy prices down, either by funding RD&D or by directly compensating low-income consumers. It can compensate consumers or fossil-fuel producers for their welfare losses through direct payments.
More broadly, as long as the tax is beneath the SCC, alternative uses of the revenue can a) achieve cost-effective emission reductions beyond what the tax achieves on its own, and/or b) loosen political constraints, allowing the carbon price to rise. So revenue is not a side issue. It's the whole enchilada.
The most fundamental choice to be made about the revenue is whether to allow the government discretion over how to spend (some or all of) it.
Schemes that would return the revenue in various prescribed ways are known as revenue neutral, because they result in the government receiving no net revenue from the system. All the revenue is automatically "recycled" back into the economy.

The main thing to note about tax-shift schemes is that they address few of the political barriers facing carbon pricing.
A carbon/income tax swap would be doubly regressive — raising a regressive tax to lower a progressive one. Reducing payroll taxes might have a net progressive effect, but it is very difficult to imagine the politics working. Fossil fuel and other carbon-intensive industries would balk. Every consumer would see the rise in prices. And those who benefited through an incremental decline in their payroll taxes are unlikely even to notice it.

Meanwhile, many climate wonks and activists have seized on a different scheme: tax-and-dividend (or I guess we're supposed to call it "fee-and-dividend").
The idea here is to return the revenue as equal per-capita shares (dividends) to every US citizen, in the form of annual checks.

Investing in renewables outpolls dividends all along the political spectrum, including Republicans. Why? More research is needed to answer this question, or to see whether the pattern holds over time.
But at the very least tax-and-dividend proponents should temper their claims that dividends are the skeleton key to climate policy until there is more, or at least some, evidence. It's a big scheme that mainly moves money around. It's going to require a lot of calm explanation and a lot of trust in government, neither of which are abundant in US politics these days.
Also, no one has any idea how to conjure up a grassroots movement around an abstract policy idea.

As it happens, we saw what the process of building support for carbon pricing looks like in the US Congress, when Henry Waxman navigated a cap-and-trade bill through the House in 2009. He made deals and compromises, just enough to get it over the finish line.
The very same people who are so messianic about carbon pricing today were unanimous in their scorn for the process. (Boyce calls it "cap-and-giveaway.") All that compromising. Why didn't Obama and Dems just … not compromise?
No one indulges in anti-politics more than Hansen, who has called Obama's Clean Power Plan "practically worthless" and the Paris climate agreement "a fraud really, a fake." Everything is judged against the perfect policy cloud castle he's constructed in his head, the one that requires no concessions, no political sacrifices — and everything is found wanting.
But purism doesn't get policies passed. If carbon taxes as high as economists want ever arrive, they will evolve out of compromised, suboptimal beginnings, like every other major policy ever.

So, given everything discussed above, it seems to me that carbon pricing strategy discussions should begin by accepting two premises. First, a new carbon pricing system, where it is possible at all, will begin with a relatively low price. And second, sweeping wonk systems for revenue neutrality will not do much to overcome political resistance, especially in the early stages.
What will?
All the polling I've seen indicates that clean energy is extremely popular. Using carbon tax revenue for clean energy R&D is the only thing that found majority support across the spectrum in the NSEE

Clean-energy regulations and investments work because they imply a very high "implicit carbon price" — the level at which carbon would have to be taxed to achieve the same effect. Those implicit prices are higher than any politically practicable explicit carbon tax.
This bothers economists, who believe that carbon prices should be uniform across the economy, but as Jaccard says, that's politically daft. If we can't get to the carbon price we need explicitly, why not do it implicitly, where we can? Voters certainly seem more amenable to it.

In practice, carbon pricing programs never devote all their revenue to a single purpose. Real-world programs involve some mix of clean-energy investments, protection for low-income households and trade-exposed businesses, tax reductions, and direct payments or dividends. Getting the mix right requires close attention to the political economy of particular jurisdictions.

This is the kind of close analysis that's required to get the mix of revenue uses right. But getting the mix right is what allows a carbon price to pass at all, remain politically secure, and rise over time. Revenue is not an afterthought; it's the key.

But remember, carbon prices are likely to begin at relatively low levels, well short of the SCC. At those low levels, they will have mostly marginal background effects.
In the early years, the programs and investments funded by the revenue will be more visible and salient to voters. And as a bonus, most uses of the revenue are more politically popular than a tax."

See also:

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/scholar-spotlight/ssn-forum-building-democratic-support-equitable-carbon-pricing

Extract: "Raising the price of carbon dioxide emissions would mitigate climate damage by reducing demand for non-renewable energy sources like oil, coal, and natural gas. But can we forestall new economic burdens for Americans with low or middle incomes?  SSN experts explore the issues and suggest ways to design economically equitable carbon pricing programs with broad democratic appeal."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2016, 09:10:02 PM »
The linked article discusses how critics of carbon pricing plans focus on how it is not perfect; rather than on how to roll-it out progressively in combination with other policies (like regulations).  The critics focus on the weakens of carbon pricing is a slight of hand and not good policy:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-were-getting-wrong-in-the-carbon-tax-debate/

Extract: "A carbon tax has surged back into the national conversation recently, thanks at least in part to Bernie Sanders, who hounded Hillary Clinton about the issue at the last Democratic debate. Unfortunately, much of the conversation has glossed over what’s good about a carbon tax and focused instead on how such a tax isn’t a perfect policy lever.

If tuned carefully, a carbon tax is a solid simple instrument for fighting climate change, and green infighting only adds to its political woes.

Politics still trumps policy. And this trump card shines most clearly from 50,000 feet, when Krugman writes that “the problem of limiting climate change isn’t all that complex.” Since ending coal-burning would get us a “significant way,” quick and dirty regulatory approaches (like, say, the Clean Power Plan) could be more appropriate interventions than broad carbon pricing. But there’s a reason the Clean Power Plan is hung up in the courts. The problem of limiting climate change is mind-bogglingly complex — precisely because of the politics."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

RoxTheGeologist

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #103 on: May 18, 2016, 09:01:08 PM »

I support the Fee/Dividend but it also has to be coupled with a way to take money from polluters and transfer it to non-polluters.

Unfortunately investment in renewables will not happen without the extra incentive. Cap and Trade is working effectively in California, as is the LCFS. However, it's still almost impossible to sell renewable transportation fuel into the California market place, because, frankly, the oil companies who hold the market power do not want it to be sold; and that's with tax regulatory credits worth $3.40 a gallon. The LCFS credits alone are running at $110 a metric ton.

Fee and Dividend is useful, but there has to be targeted programs that go along with it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #104 on: May 27, 2016, 09:25:16 PM »
Ironically, the auction failure could in part be due to the program being more successful than expected at getting emitters to reduce their GHG output.

California cap-and-trade auction falls far short, hurting bullet train
The latest auction in California’s cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases fell sharply below expectations, as buyers purchased just 2% of the carbon credits whose sale funds a variety of state programs -- notably, the proposed high-speed rail project.

The quarterly auction, conducted May 18 and announced Wednesday, will provide just $10 million for state programs, including $2.5 million for the bullet train. The rail authority had been expecting about $150 million.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-cap-trade-20160525-snap-story.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #105 on: June 07, 2016, 04:49:05 AM »
The linked article explains why carbon pricing is necessary to fight climate change; but also what its limits are; however I do note that what is politically possible today is much different than what will be politically possible if abrupt climate change begins:

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/07/carbon-pricing-necessary-limits/

Extract: "A price on carbon sufficient to drive sufficient change will be politically unacceptable. The right wing desire to eliminate regulation in return for a carbon tax that will undoubtedly be too low will possibly have serious negative consequences.

The answer, of course, is a blended model. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are policy tools. Regulation is a policy tool. Picking winners such as wind and solar to incent via tax breaks and feed-in tariffs are policy tools. Picking losers such as coal to eliminate is a policy tool.

The answer won’t be either taxes or regulation, but both."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #106 on: June 08, 2016, 12:59:27 PM »
Alberta passes first plank of climate-change plan
Premier Rachel Notley’s New Democrats have used their majority to pass the first part of Alberta’s landmark climate-change plan in the legislature.

Notley says she is extremely proud and adds that taking action on climate change was long overdue.

The legislation gives the province the power to levy a carbon tax on home and business heating bills and on gasoline at the pumps.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/alberta-passes-first-plank-of-climate-change-plan/article30329165/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

12Patrick

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #107 on: June 08, 2016, 09:13:31 PM »
This is a waste of time Arctic Sea ice will not wait for carbon fees...

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #108 on: June 08, 2016, 11:05:01 PM »
This is a waste of time Arctic Sea ice will not wait for carbon fees...

Carbon pricing is a necessary, but not sufficient step in fighting climate change.  Just because carbon pricing cannot solve all issues does not mean that it is not need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.  Additional measures that should proceed in addition to carbon pricing include: regulations, investments in sustainable energy technology, aid to developing nations for sustainable infrastructure (including energy and agricultural infrastructure); education, family planning, adaptive measures, etc.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

12Patrick

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #109 on: June 08, 2016, 11:15:53 PM »
Problem is it is to slow..
This is a waste of time Arctic Sea ice will not wait for carbon fees...

Carbon pricing is a necessary, but not sufficient step in fighting climate change.  Just because carbon pricing cannot solve all issues does not mean that it is not need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.  Additional measures that should proceed in addition to carbon pricing include: regulations, investments in sustainable energy technology, aid to developing nations for sustainable infrastructure (including energy and agricultural infrastructure); education, family planning, adaptive measures, etc.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #110 on: June 08, 2016, 11:28:39 PM »
Problem is it is to slow..
This is a waste of time Arctic Sea ice will not wait for carbon fees...

Carbon pricing is a necessary, but not sufficient step in fighting climate change.  Just because carbon pricing cannot solve all issues does not mean that it is not need to keep fossil fuels in the ground.  Additional measures that should proceed in addition to carbon pricing include: regulations, investments in sustainable energy technology, aid to developing nations for sustainable infrastructure (including energy and agricultural infrastructure); education, family planning, adaptive measures, etc.

That is why you do other things in addition to carbon pricing.  If you do not have any incentive to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, we will stay on a BAU pathway until the collapse as: (a) adding cheap sustainable energy will just encourage people to use more power (both fossil fuel and sustainable); (b) no one is going to do geoengineering anytime soon; and (c) the Paris Pact already provides as much regulatory changes as governments are currently willing to impose.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Cate

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #111 on: June 09, 2016, 01:46:25 AM »
Premier Kathleen Wynne announces a climate change action plan for the province of Ontario, home to one-third of Canada's population.

"The province will spend up to $8.3 billion on a range of programs to encourage people and companies to switch to more energy-efficient heating systems, buy electric or hybrid cars, convert big trucks to natural gas, add more bio-fuel to gasoline, and help the agriculture and industrial sectors adopt low-carbon technologies.

Most of the money is expected to come from a cap-and-trade program for industrial polluters that the Liberal government expects will raise $1.9 billion a year. All of the cap-and-trade money will go into a dedicated fund for lowering Ontario's carbon footprint."

Ontario is aiming to reduce GHG emissions from 1990 levels as follows:
15% by 2020
37% by 2030
80% by 2050.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynne-climate-change-1.3621658


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2016, 09:53:39 PM »
U.S.:  The Grand Oil Party: House Republicans denounce a carbon tax
Lobbying from the petroleum industry may have convinced Republicans to denounce a carbon tax
 -- but it appears to be a desperate measure against a policy that’s seeing growing bipartisan support and increasingly appears inevitable.
On Friday, the US House of Representatives voted on a Resolution condemning a carbon tax. As The Hill reported:

Lawmakers passed, by a 237-163 vote, a GOP-backed resolution listing pitfalls from a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and concluding that such a policy “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Six Democrats voted with the GOP for the resolution. No Republicans dissented.
...
Carbon tax proponents also see a silver lining, that support for a carbon tax has grown to a level where the oil industry and House Republicans feel the need to introduce this Resolution and pressure their members to vote for it.

They’re digging in their heels against a policy that’s seeing growing bipartisan support and increasingly appears inevitable, despite Friday’s vote. It’s becoming a question of how long the Republican Party can stand alone in denial, and how much longer they’ll sell out the future of their party and the climate to the oil industry.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/13/the-grand-oil-party-house-republicans-denounce-a-carbon-tax
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #113 on: June 22, 2016, 04:51:01 PM »
The linked article indicates that: "Carbon pricing is needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions during long periods of both low and high oil prices …"

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-oil-prices-costly-to-climate-20469

Extract: "A new study shows that if oil and gas prices remain at either extreme — very high or very low — for long periods of time, they are likely to prevent countries from keeping global warming from exceeding 2°C (3.6°F). That’s especially the case if countries do not have climate policies, such as carbon pricing, that try to aggressively cap carbon emissions.

If oil and gas prices remain low — less than $55 per barrel —  for decades, it will be a disincentive to develop renewable energy and decarbonize the global economy, according to the research by the World Bank and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
If oil and gas prices stay high for decades — $110 per barrel or more — oil demand still won’t be knocked down sufficiently to drastically reduce carbon emissions. High oil and gas prices encourage some renewables development, but their climate benefits are partially cancelled out by coal production. Coal gets a boost from high oil prices because it’s a cheaper alternative to natural gas, the research shows.

“High oil prices will not be a climate savior any more than low prices will lead to climate catastrophe,” said study lead author David McCollum, an IIASA researcher.  “If the world is really serious about meeting the kind of tight carbon budgets that are required for 2°C or lower, then strong climate policy signals that put a sizeable price on carbon will be needed.”

Carbon pricing is needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions during long periods of both low and high oil prices, he said. Cheap oil calls for a higher carbon price because there will be higher demand for fossil fuels and less incentive to develop renewables. Expensive oil calls for a lower carbon price because expanded renewables development will offset some of the emissions from increased coal production, the study says."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #114 on: June 22, 2016, 05:28:45 PM »
California’s signature climate policy is struggling through its awkward teen years
California is known the world over for its aggressive efforts to tackle climate change, which include, among other things, a statewide cap-and-trade system.

Policy-wise, cap and trade is a modest piece of the puzzle. It’s responsible for less than a third of the carbon cuts driven by state policy — the rest come from an array of regulations, standards, and investments.

Politically, it’s a different story. The cap-and-trade program has boosted California’s reputation as an environmental leader; it is studied by jurisdictions all over the world. Perhaps most importantly, it generates revenue for a variety of domestic projects important to state politicians and voters.

And it is in trouble.

Whether that trouble is terminal, an awkward phase, or much ado about nothing depends on who you ask and, more importantly, how things play out in the next few years. (Reuters, LA Times, and SacBee also have good stories on this.)

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11955104/california-cap-and-trade-troubles
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #115 on: June 22, 2016, 06:24:34 PM »
California’s signature climate policy is struggling through its awkward teen years

I would like to note that in my opinion cap-and-trade is a significantly less effective policy than is a well formulated revenue neutral carbon pricing plan (for many of the reasons that both the EU and now California have experienced with that application of cap-and-trade).
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2016, 08:04:01 PM »
California’s signature climate policy is struggling through its awkward teen years

I would like to note that in my opinion cap-and-trade is a significantly less effective policy than is a well formulated revenue neutral carbon pricing plan (for many of the reasons that both the EU and now California have experienced with that application of cap-and-trade).

For what it's worth, I agree with you.  :)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #117 on: June 23, 2016, 03:44:05 AM »
There are many examples of successful cap and trade systems (not just carbon) and there are enough examples of failed carbon fee systems (both revenue neutral and not).

Europe met its 2020 target 4 years in advance.
NE states took care of acid rain so well nobody seems to realize they used cap and trade.
Ontario effectively eliminated NOx and SO2 from the electricity system with cap and trade - again very few people even realized it happened it worked so well.
BC has revenue neutral carbon tax and CO2 emissions continue to rise. BC will be the only province to have emissions increase while the rest meet their targets.

and on and on... doubling the price of gas in Europe compared to North America didn't lower consumption until regulations forced emissions down.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #118 on: July 01, 2016, 01:23:43 PM »
5 reasons there’s more to climate policy than a price on carbon
2) Getting the cheapest carbon reductions first is not necessarily the best long-term strategy.

If the goal was to only reduce emissions by a small amount, then it might make sense to restrict policy towards achieving the most "cost-effective" reductions. Given the need to reach deep emission reductions, a policy overly focused on cheap and easy reductions could prevent us from achieving the final goal, either because we won’t have enough time to develop new innovations or because the initial reductions will be achieved in a way that excludes the new technologies and practices needed to reach the final block of reductions.

This last bit is key, so let me expand.

Assume that we eventually need to get to zero carbon. It is safe to say that the technological and institutional shifts needed to achieve the first 20 percent of those carbon reductions are different from what’s needed to get the final 20 percent.

We know the first 20 percent, for instance, could come through substituting natural gas for coal. But we know the final 20 percent will require 100 percent carbon capture and sequestration at all natural gas plants, or that all natural gas be replaced with synthetic natural gas, or that natural gas be eliminated as a fuel altogether.

Perhaps, knowing the substantial challenges of that final 20 percent, we don’t want to build the massive natural gas infrastructure necessary to achieve the first 20 percent that way. Perhaps, knowing renewable energy will be at the core of the final 20 percent, we ought to invest in scaling it up as soon as possible, in preparation.

Long-term strategy ought to inform short-term strategy. But with a carbon tax alone, there’s no mechanism for that. A carbon tax wrings marginal changes out of the system, incrementally; it does nothing to prepare for more large-scale, fundamental shifts further down the road.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/28/12045860/carbon-tax
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #119 on: July 01, 2016, 04:14:40 PM »
At the North American leaders summit in Ottawa this week Mexico indicated they wanted to join the Western Climate Initiative. This would triple the population covered by this cap and trade system. We'll see how this pans out.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #120 on: July 01, 2016, 04:39:42 PM »
Whether, or not, ExxonMobil is supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax as a cover for its legal exposure (see extract below); they are still proposing a good idea now; and hopefully a Democratically controlled White House and/or Senate, will work with them to pass such a law within the next year or two:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0630/Why-Exxon-Mobil-is-now-lobbying-for-a-carbon-tax

Extract: "Exxon Mobil is lobbying the rest of the American industry, as well as Capitol Hill, for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Exxon has welcomed a tax on carbon emissions since 2009. But December's Paris Agreement, aimed specifically at keeping most fossil fuel reserves in the ground, has prompted the company to increase its efforts over the past six months to convince the rest of the industry to get on board.



“Some of the revenue generated by such a tax could be used to cushion the economic blow suffered by low-income households as well as coal mining communities,” he writes. “Extra revenue could be used to reduce individual or payroll tax rates, help finance corporate tax reform, or trim the budget deficit.”

There are skeptics of Exxon’s motives. It began publicly supporting a carbon tax, as the cap-and-trade model – in which a limit is placed on the industry’s carbon production – gained popularity. If any firm exceeds the amount of carbon it can emit, it is penalized. Exxon is also facing two inquiries from Democratic attorney generals over whether it conspired to cover its knowledge about the impact of global warming.

But a carbon tax could become a reality, especially in a Democratically controlled White House or Senate."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

ghoti

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #121 on: July 01, 2016, 06:17:23 PM »
Can't help but think that if Exxon Mobil and several other of the biggest fossil fuel multinationals support a carbon tax they know it will have very little impact on their output.

Oil companies know two things:
1) carbon tax will affect their coal counterparts much harder and faster than oil/gas
2) carbon tax will start much too low at first to affect the oil/gas business

They also count on people to get angry if the price of gasoline goes up and for people to blame the tax for all price increases despite the tax being a very small portion.

Remember $30/ton tax is about $0.25 a gallon and in today's situation $30/ton is considered huge.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #122 on: July 01, 2016, 07:20:43 PM »
Can't help but think that if Exxon Mobil and several other of the biggest fossil fuel multinationals support a carbon tax they know it will have very little impact on their output.

Oil companies know two things:
1) carbon tax will affect their coal counterparts much harder and faster than oil/gas
2) carbon tax will start much too low at first to affect the oil/gas business

They also count on people to get angry if the price of gasoline goes up and for people to blame the tax for all price increases despite the tax being a very small portion.

Remember $30/ton tax is about $0.25 a gallon and in today's situation $30/ton is considered huge.

All valid points, but if we never get started with revenue neutral carbon pricing than we will never get very far from BAU scenarios.  So in my opinion if we get started now, by 2030 to 2040 when it is clear that the WAIS collapse is being accelerated by hydrofracturing (due to Austral Summer surface melting) then we will have a chance of progressing the carbon pricing to more effective levels.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #123 on: July 06, 2016, 06:33:24 PM »
Court Decision on Climate Plan Jolts Carbon Prices
A temporary halt to the federal government’s plan to cut electric power plant emissions has caused carbon prices in the Northeast’s only cap-and-trade program to plummet, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Carbon prices in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, have fallen 40 percent since the Supreme Court’s decision in February to stay the Clean Power Plan — from their peak at $7.50 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in December to $4.53 per ton in June.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/decision-on-climate-plan-jolts-carbon-prices-20497
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #124 on: July 08, 2016, 05:00:46 PM »
The linked article highlights the many, many weaknesses of cap and trade carbon plans.  If anyone is serious about fighting climate change they should support some version of revenue neutral aggressively progressive carbon fee (tax) together with carbon tariffs on associated carbon imports.  Saying that cap & trade is a free-enterprise solution is generally false advertising (when one bothers to read the fine print) to a gullible public:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-07/tough-to-keep-the-world-from-warming-when-carbon-is-this-cheap

Extract: "Carbon markets, the free-enterprise solution to saving the world from global warming, are now in danger themselves.

The idea was simple enough: Set a cap on carbon emissions, issue enough permits to allow power plants, refineries and the like to stay within those limits and then shrink the cap over time to achieve reductions. The companies whose emissions fall fastest can sell their permits for a profit to slower responders -- call it a reward for good behavior.

The reality, though, is more complex. Undercut by a lack of political will on the size of caps and overtaken by costly new environmental mandates, carbon markets in the U.S., Europe and Asia are collapsing, with prices so low they’ve become virtually valueless. The credits auctioned in the U.S. Northeast in June, for instance, sold for just $4.53 a short ton, a 40 percent drop from December.

“Climate policy has been muddled and messy,” said Michael Grubb, a professor at University College London’s Institute for Sustainable Resources who has advised the U.K. energy regulator. “Governments have set inadequate targets due to lobbying pressures and because they didn’t think carefully enough about overlapping efforts. That has destroyed investor confidence that carbon prices will rise.”"

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #125 on: July 15, 2016, 06:06:24 PM »
The reason why the Democrats are focusing on cap and trade rather than on carbon fees & dividends; is that it is possible for businesses (with sufficient effort) to get around much of the restrictions causes by cap and trade (thus keeping contributions flowing from these businesses); while the fossil fuel industry secretly continues to fight the more effective carbon fee & dividend (revenue neutral) approach (no matter whether publically ExxonMobil says that they support a carbon fee approach):

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14072016/democratic-party-embrace-carbon-price-tax-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Extract: "Democrats Embrace Price on Carbon While Clinton Steers Clear of Carbon Tax
Hillary Clinton seeks to balance pragmatism and ambition in her climate policies as she readies for the general election fight."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #126 on: July 16, 2016, 04:26:28 AM »
Canada to Introduce National Carbon Price in 2016, Minister Says
Canada will have a national price on carbon emissions by the end of this year, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says.

The federal government will publish an emissions reduction plan this fall that could include expanded, standardized emissions disclosure requirements for companies, McKenna said in an interview with Danielle Bochove on Bloomberg TV Canada.

McKenna spoke after appearing with Bank of England Governor Mark Carney in Toronto on Friday. Her comments come as provinces work to reach a deal on whether to set a mandatory cross-Canada carbon price, a plan not all provinces support.

“What we want to see is uniformity in terms of a national price, also that we’re doing it in a thoughtful way, and provinces and territories need to decide what they’re doing with the revenues,” McKenna said.

Asked whether she’d force a carbon price on provinces that have resisted a new measure. “I don’t like the word forced. I think this is really an opportunity,” McKenna said. “We need a national price on carbon. So that’s what we’re going to have in the fall.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-15/canada-to-introduce-national-carbon-price-in-2016-minister-says
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #127 on: July 17, 2016, 08:38:15 PM »
The Collapse of California's Carbon Cap-and-Trade Market

Markets have a way of acting like 'markets' and that can lead to unintended consequences. 

...But in early 2016, the price of carbon allowances being bought and sold in the secondary market fell below the minimum "price floor" that the state of California would charge for these allowances. Because it was cheaper to buy allowances in the secondary market from those who already owned them than from the state, 90% of the available carbon allowances went unsold in the May 2016 auction, and California received about $880 million less than expected. ...

 But the broader issue here goes beyond the California auctions and should be a concern to anyone who advocates a cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon emissions. A couple of years ago, prices for carbon allowances in the European Union carbon trading market also dropped dramatically. Is what went wrong in the California cap-and-trade market for carbon emissions related to what happened in the EU--and do these experiences point to an underlying problem with this approach?....((of course it does))

One final kicker is that the 2006 legislation had an end-date of 2020, and without new legislation, California apparently cannot plan for its carbon  market to exist after that date. Thus, carbon emitters in California only need to figure out if they are likely to have sufficient allowances to make it through to 2020--and it certainly appears that plenty are available....


http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-collapse-of-californias-carbon-cap.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #128 on: July 30, 2016, 01:03:45 AM »
Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax
Reporter: You are building this factory with more than a billion dollars in state incentives. Solar panels get big tax subsidies, cars get by with a lot of subsidies as well. Will these businesses ever be sustainable without these kind of subsidies?

Elon Musk: With respect to some of the other elements for solar panels and EVs, the big issue we have is that in reality if you accept the scientific consensus every oil burning activity is subsidized, dramatically. If you believe there is a value to the CO2 capacity of the atmosphere and oceans and that CO2 capacity is not being paid for by the price at the gas pump or the coal that is being burned for electricity generation or whatever its use may be then every single fossil fuel burning activity is massively subsidized. This has become sort of an ideological issue because there are people who think that global warming is not true. So if you believe it is not true then it is a subsidy for sustainable energy. If you believe it is true then all we are doing is trying to match the inherent subsidy for fossil fuels, match that on the sustainable energy side. That is all it is doing. It is not one is getting a subsidy and the other one isn’t. Fossil fuels are already getting a massive subsidy if you believe in global warming. If you don’t then it seems really unfair. If you do then it is like oh we are just trying to correct it.

The real right way to correct it would be to establish a carbon tax. If you ask any economist they will tell you that is the obvious thing to do, put the correct price on carbon because we currently have an error in the economy which misprices carbon at zero or something closer to zero. It is a fundamental economic error. For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are opposed to government intervention. They are actually opposed to government intervention because it causes false pricing. If the government says we are going to massively incent the production of corn, so that effectively corn gets mispriced and we make too much corn, that actually then does not benefit the country if you make too much of something because of a government driven pricing error. That is bad for people. That is sort of what people with a libertarian bent are opposed to.

However if you have something where you have an unpriced externality so that you have the case of the CO2 capacity of the oceans and atmosphere priced very close to zero then any government action to increase the price above zero reduces the error in the economy. I’m getting sort of esoteric in economics here, so what they should actually be opposed to is anything that increases the error in the economy, a pricing information error. So pricing carbon, if you believe in global warming, does not increase the price of the error it decreases the price of the error.

http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/07/28/elon-musk-makes-libertarian-argument-carbon-tax/87638264/

The linked article also has a link to Musk's remarks on Tesla's Nevada tax breaks.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #129 on: July 30, 2016, 01:15:51 AM »
The Collapse of California's Carbon Cap-and-Trade Market

Establishing a Carbon Cap-and-Trade Market is a little bit like establishing a market for infidelity; it just encourages bad behavior.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #130 on: August 25, 2016, 12:14:54 AM »
Now we are finally making political progress on a carbon fee and dividend plan (thank you Jerry Brown):

https://thinkprogress.org/california-legislators-carbon-fee-and-dividend-88735da0a8f2#.rm2mn1dvi

Extract: "California Legislators Want To Tax Carbon, But Give The Revenue To The People
All proceeds would be returned to middle- and low-income Americans.
When it comes to carbon, California legislators have a clear message for Congress and President Obama: Put a price on it, and give the money back to the people.
On Tuesday, the California State Senate voted to pass AJR 43, a joint resolution urging the federal government to enact a tax on carbon-based fossil fuels. But beyond placing a tax on carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the resolution also asks Congress to create a dividends program that would funnel revenue from the tax back to middle- and low-income households. The California State Assembly passed the resolution on June 30."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #131 on: August 29, 2016, 01:24:36 AM »
Green BAU advocates should stop pussyfooting around (as the linked article indicates that their current approach is not gaining sufficient political support) and fully support a tax-neutral carbon fee and dividend plan that would also redistribute wealth to the common man, and thus should gain more political support (assuming that as the climate crisis gets worse public interests can out-weigh the influence of lobbyists who represent the interests of the rich):


http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Extract: "A big question complicating the climate debate: Are current policies only benefiting the rich?

Last year, a number of black and Latino Democratic lawmakers balked at a proposal to cut gasoline use in half across the state, questioning how the provision or the state’s broad environmental program would benefit their constituents. That opposition forced Brown and legislative leaders to remove the provision from a major climate bill."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #132 on: August 29, 2016, 03:23:32 PM »
Why would Exxon publicly support a tax on carbon?    For public relations.

A federal carbon tax is imminent in the USA – and Exxon is pushing it
https://electrek.co/2016/08/29/a-federal-carbon-tax-is-imminent-in-the-usa-and-exxon-is-pushing-it/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #133 on: August 29, 2016, 04:58:01 PM »
They will also advocate for a carbon fee that is too low to actually have a meaningful impact. The article claim the success of BC's carbon tax but it is actually proving to be a failure because it was frozen at too low a price.

The article points only to fuel decreases which are unlikely to be related significantly to the BC carbon tax. The tax is economy wide and overall emissions continued to grow. The city of Vancouver has a fuel tax which is 150% larger than the BC carbon tax and is applied on top of it.

edit: found an article with charts and explanations:
http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/03/03/dont-believe-the-hype-on-bcs-carbon-tax/]
[url]http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/03/03/dont-believe-the-hype-on-bcs-carbon-tax/
[/url]

Remember I'm not saying a carbon tax can't work. I'm saying it will only work if it is large enough and always goes up.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 05:08:32 PM by ghoti »

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #134 on: September 07, 2016, 05:11:36 AM »
Per the linked article, the world's largest asset manager both recommends that investors need to assess climate change risks when investing, and that carbon pricing should be used to help limit climate change impacts:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/06/blackrock-climate-change/

Extract: "BlackRock Says Investors Need to Assess Climate Change When Investing  Because of likely physical effects, technological changes, and regulatory and social responses.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said all investors should factor climate change into their decision-making and doing so would not mean having to accept lower returns.

...

In the report, BlackRock suggested higher carbon prices could limit the cost of reducing emissions and push companies to create solutions to the problem."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

ghoti

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #135 on: September 07, 2016, 06:47:05 PM »
Meanwhile does Blackrock even provide an ETF or fund which is broadly based and explicitly excludes fossil fuel and pipeline companies? Never mind the more complicated carbon use evaluation of every company.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #136 on: September 19, 2016, 09:31:20 PM »
Canada’s federal government takes a cue from British Columbia’s price on carbon
Yet another departure from the Harper era of government.
Canadian Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna pledged Sunday to enact a nationwide carbon price on provinces that don’t do enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions on their own.

McKenna did not give specific details on how the plan would be devised, or how the price would be imposed, though she said it would be in place sometime before October.

“It’s mandatory that everyone will have to have a price on carbon,” McKenna said. “If provinces don’t do that, the federal government will provide a backstop.”
https://thinkprogress.org/canada-promises-nationwide-price-on-carbon-5e2ecbe1ae70
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #137 on: October 04, 2016, 04:38:49 PM »
McKenna touts "amazing" progress on climate after three ministers leave meeting
Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna praised her provincial colleagues for making "amazing" progress on discussions to tackle global warming on Monday, after her government's proposal to make polluters pay drove a few of them out of the room.
...
According to the new federal policy, all Canadian jurisdictions must adopt a carbon pricing scheme by 2018 with a minimum price of $10 per tonne. The price must rise to reach $50 per tonne by 2022.

If provincial and territorial governments are unable to meet these requirements either through a direct price on carbon pollution or a cap-and-trade system, the federal government will impose its own system.
...
Wall is considered Canada's most vocal political opponent to a national carbon tax, but Alberta Premier Rachel Notley joined him in opposing the new federal mandate. In a statement released Monday, she said she supports the idea in theory, but will not back any climate action from Ottawa unless the federal government makes progress on new oil pipelines to Canada's coast.
...
Outside of the Montreal meeting, activists from several environmental groups staged a demonstration saying that they were opposed to any new pipelines and that the governments would need to do a lot more than carbon pricing to solve the threat of climate change.

"We are united against all pipelines. We will not accept (Kinder Morgan's) Trans Mountain (expansion pipeline project), we will not accept (TransCanada Corp.'s) Energy East pipeline, we will stop it any way we have to," said Carole Dupuis, the coordinator of an anti fossil fuels group in Quebec called Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec. "Governments, you cannot look the other way. If you want to save the climate, you (must) stop those projects.”

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/03/news/breaking-feds-announce-pan-canadian-carbon-price-plan-2018
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #138 on: October 05, 2016, 02:45:46 PM »
Canada can clean carbon for cash at $50/ton.  Trudeau:  “There is no hiding from climate change”
According to the Energy Fact Book of 2015-2016, Canada emitted 726Mt of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases. Canada’s total emissions at C$10/ton would generate $7.26B/year. Trudeau stated that the revenue would be stay in the provinces from where originated (thus a revenue neutral model). The tax would increase one liter of gasoline by about C$0.024 (US$.098/gallon) in 2018, while rising to C$0.118/liter (US$0.59/g) in 2022.
https://electrek.co/2016/10/05/canada-can-clean-carbon-for-cash-at-50ton-there-is-no-hiding-from-climate-change/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #139 on: November 01, 2016, 06:53:37 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #140 on: November 01, 2016, 07:15:28 PM »
The most dramatic climate fight of the U.S. election is in Washington state
Voters in a progressive Pacific Northwestern state could approve the nation’s first carbon tax next week, providing a much-sought victory to proponents of legislative climate action — and possibly a model for the rest of the country.

And yet the ballot measure is at equal risk of failing spectacularly. Not because of the usual oil and coal industry foes, or even because it includes the dreaded t-word. No, the biggest obstacle in its way: other environmentalists.

An unlikely array of local and national organizations have come out against — or declined to support — Washington state’s carbon tax initiative, which will appear on the ballot as I-732. Their concerns: That a revenue-neutral carbon tax wouldn’t raise money for investing in clean energy and communities, and that people of color didn’t get a fair say in crafting the policy.

http://grist.org/election-2016/washington-carbon-tax-732/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #141 on: November 01, 2016, 07:41:51 PM »
Fossil fuel interests spend big to defeat Washington carbon tax
Washington state’s carbon tax is doing better in the polls — and fossil fuel interests have taken notice.
With just over a week until Election Day, the only statewide carbon tax on the ballot is pulling slightly ahead in the polls — and fossil fuel and manufacturing interests have taken notice.

Two recent polls out of Washington state show Initiative 732— which would put a revenue-neutral price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels — polling ahead with voters, with the share of undecided voters declining. That’s a marked improvement from a few months ago, when polls showed the initiative trailing (but only by a few points) and a third of voters undecided.
https://thinkprogress.org/washington-carbon-tax-opposition-money-8886294620fc
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 10971
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #142 on: November 09, 2016, 04:59:12 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Washington voters reject initiative to impose carbon tax on fossil fuels".  It looks like scientists would do well to focus on the RCP 8.5 scenario projections, and write-off the other scenarios as wishful thinking:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/carbon-emissions-tax-initiative-732/

Extract: "Initiative 732, the nation’s first state ballot measure to impose a carbon tax on fossil fuels, failed Tuesday on a crowded slate of statewide initiatives facing Washington voters this November."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

oren

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 975
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #143 on: November 10, 2016, 07:01:42 AM »
It looks like scientists would do well to focus on the RCP 8.5 scenario projections, and write-off the other scenarios as wishful thinking:

So true. Considering Trump's various "plans", it seems RCP 9.0 should be adopted.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #144 on: November 10, 2016, 07:21:01 PM »
The voters let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  A detailed look at the fight for and against the proposal.

Washington State Voters Reject Nation's First Carbon Tax
The measure was unpopular with social justice groups and divided environmental activists, many arguing it did not go far enough in promoting clean energy.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112016/washington-state-carbon-tax-i-732-ballot-measure
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #145 on: December 13, 2016, 02:35:08 AM »
Canada sets its first national carbon price at C$10 a tonne
Eight of 10 provinces have signed deal to implement carbon tax or cap-and-trade markets, says Justin Trudeau
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/10/canada-sets-first-national-carbon-price-of-c10-a-tonne
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #146 on: February 08, 2017, 07:23:30 PM »
‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for U.S. Carbon Tax
A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.

The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.

Mr. Baker is scheduled to meet on Wednesday with White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, the senior adviser to the president, and Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, as well as Ivanka Trump.

In an interview, Mr. Baker said that the plan followed classic conservative principles of free-market solutions and small government. He suggested that even former President Ronald Reagan would have blessed the plan: “I’m not at all sure the Gipper wouldn’t have been very happy with this.” He said he had no idea how the proposal would be received by the current White House or Congress.

A carbon tax, which depends on rising prices of fossil fuels to reduce consumption, is supported in general by many Democrats, including Al Gore. Major oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, have come out in favor of the concept as well.

The Baker proposal would substitute the carbon tax for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a complex set of rules to regulate emissions which President Trump has pledged to repeal and which is tied up in court challenges, as well as other climate regulations. At an initial price of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the tax would raise an estimated $200 billion to $300 billion a year, with the rate scheduled to rise over time.

The tax would be collected where the fossil fuels enter the economy, such as the mine, well or port; the money raised would be returned to consumers in what the group calls a “carbon dividend” amounting to an estimated $2,000 a year for the average family of four.

The plan would also incorporate what are known as “border adjustments” to increase the costs for products from other countries that do not have a similar system in place, an idea intended to address the problem of other “free-rider” nations gaining a price advantage over carbon-taxed domestic goods. The proposal would also insulate fossil fuel companies against possible lawsuits over the damage their products have caused to the environment....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/a-conservative-climate-solution-republican-group-calls-for-carbon-tax.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #147 on: February 22, 2017, 04:34:51 PM »
Singapore Plans Southeast Asia's First Carbon Tax From 2019
Singapore plans to implement Southeast Asia’s first carbon tax starting in 2019, a move that would raise energy costs in the island nation and require more than 30 big polluters such as power plants to pay the levy.

The proposal would charge between S$10 ($7) and S$20 a ton on emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said in a speech outlining the government’s 2017 budget. The tax is equivalent to a $3.50-to-$7-a-barrel increase in the cost of oil for combustion. It would raise electricity costs by 2 percent to 4 percent, according to a government report released after Heng’s speech.

“The most economically efficient and fair way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to set a carbon tax, so that emitters will take the necessary actions,” Heng said. “Singapore is vulnerable to rises in sea level due to climate change. Together with the international community, we have to play our part to protect our living environment.”

The revenue from the tax would help fund industry measures to reduce emissions, Heng said. The government has been consulting with industry leaders and plans to begin public meetings on the tax in March before deciding on a final tax and implementation schedule. The government also hopes the move will spur job creation in clean energy.

Singapore would be the first Southeast Asian nation to put a price on carbon. Japan has a national carbon tax along with some regional emissions trading markets, and South Korea and New Zealand have national emissions trading. China has several regional trading markets and is planning to launch the world’s largest national carbon market this year. ...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-20/singapore-plans-southeast-asia-s-first-carbon-tax-by-2019
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #148 on: February 25, 2017, 12:21:25 AM »
Exxon, again yesterday via its blog, pushing for carbon tax and *government intervention* – Exxon wants a carbon tax because internal combustion vehicles will slowly disappear while natural gas, which Exxon is heavily invested in, replaces coal. A carbon tax on coal is about double natural gas – and Exxon is losing serious money on expensive oil investments. Plus an interesting phrase from a company that constantly attacks government: At ExxonMobil, we’re encouraged that the pledges made at last year’s Paris Accord create an effective framework for all countries to address rising emissions; in fact, our company forecasts carbon reductions consistent with the results of the Paris accord commitments. Governments can help advance the search for energy technologies by funding basic research and by enacting forward-looking policies. If you’re Exxon, you can doubly win – support a carbon tax that hurts your competition, while also making it look like you’tr supportinf international climate change agreements (many say a $40/ton carbon tax will mean we meet both Paris and Clean Power Plan goals....
https://electrek.co/2017/02/24/38197/

Exxon's new Chairman and CEO Darren Woods calls for a carbon tax:
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/the-future-of-energy-opportunities-and-challenges/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 7350
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #149 on: March 01, 2017, 04:13:19 PM »
Call it a "carbon dividend" rather than a "carbon tax."   Then people may like it .
https://mobile.twitter.com/Stphn_Lacey/status/832230067904327680

Electrek says:
Would you be interested in voting for a carbon dividend? – If the PR people can spin the term up – and help everyone ‘forget’ that it is a carbon tax, we’re all going to start singing the praises of a revenue neutral carbon dividen. The term itself won’t be the reason a carbon tax will win – broader society is in support of doing something, and broader society knows doing something costs money. However – for that extra 5-20% of the voters needed to boost it over the line, it’ll get the job done.
https://electrek.co/2017/02/17/electrek-green-energy-brief-9/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.