Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan  (Read 33661 times)

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2015, 12:32:11 PM »
ALSR

Thanks.

I have written about the REMI study for the Citizen's Climate Lobby in
Joined up economic and climate research needed
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/economic-models-for-climate-policies/

Briefly. REMI assume 2°C is safe and they use climate models with missing feedbacks.

These maay be politically motivated assumptions to avoid algoreisation ("Al Gore ization") but many of us would think these assumptions unrealistic.

For similar algoreization reasons, I think Hansen avoids the international dimension of carbon fee and dividend. The polluting citizens of Europe and USA (i.e. you and me) may not be persuaded to hand over large amounts of cash to the less pollting citizens of China, India and Africa.

Are you sure you are happy with a carbon price of less than $50 next year rising to $350 in 2030?

At current levels when will the IPCC's optimistic remaining carbon budget be exhausted?

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1723
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2015, 06:02:36 PM »
As the carbon fee equals the carbon dividend
...
common man will not actually be paying this amount, but he will be receiving this amount

Will prices increase just by the amount of the carbon tax?

I expect that there will be some substitution away from carbon heavy spending. This will mean lower quantities for these businesses who will then have to spread their overheads over those lower quantities. Maybe some businesses will fail lowering the total overheads but this may take time. The risk in these businesses of the carbon tax escalating all the time and having these knock on effects may also mean that they want a higher profit margin to compensate for the risk which will presumably be seen as more imminent once the system is in place.

It may not be necessary to have the carbon tax all that high - other knock on effects may also further rise the price of carbon heavy items.

The average wealth/income family may only be better off if they can do nearly or at least as much substituting away from carbon heavy expenditure as average.

I think it needs to start low and ramp up. Otherwise it is just too disruptive. As to the precise peak amount - I think we need to judge what the peak amount should be as we approach the level. We will get better at judging whether we need to raise the amount further or if we are doing enough.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2015, 07:19:47 PM »
Crandles

I think it needs to start low and ramp up. Otherwise it is just too disruptive.

It should start at, say, £200($292) per tonne CO2e and go higher, to £1000 ($1460) in ten years then perhaps higher.

I obviously want the world to have a higher level of insurance against dangerous climate change than you do.

I believe the "remaining carbon budgets" are hopelessly optimistic. 2°C seems even more disruptive than the effects you mention.

You seem to be assuming a consumerist model of value/utility.

In order to cut my carbon emissions, say I decide not to fly (much) or eat beef. That decreases my own personal contribution to GDP but it won't cost me much. How disruptive is that?

But if you are worried about algoreisation, you may have a point.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2015, 08:44:12 PM »
Scrap fossil fuel subsidies now and bring in carbon tax, says World Bank chief.
Jim Yong Kim calls for five-point plan to deliver low-carbon growth, including removal of incentives to exploit oil, gas and coal.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/13/fossil-fuel-subsidies-say-burn-more-carbon-world-bank-president
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2015, 12:42:50 AM »
Crandles

I think it needs to start low and ramp up. Otherwise it is just too disruptive.


It should start at, say, £200($292) per tonne CO2e and go higher, to £1000 ($1460) in ten years then perhaps higher.

I obviously want the world to have a higher level of insurance against dangerous climate change than you do.

I believe the "remaining carbon budgets" are hopelessly optimistic. 2°C seems even more disruptive than the effects you mention.

You seem to be assuming a consumerist model of value/utility.

In order to cut my carbon emissions, say I decide not to fly (much) or eat beef. That decreases my own personal contribution to GDP but it won't cost me much. How disruptive is that?

But if you are worried about algoreisation, you may have a point.


Geoff,

I concur with your logic, and I note that the following extract from the linked SciAm article, carbon pricing is single most important thing that society could get out of CoP21 in Paris.  We will have to see what CoP21 actually delivers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/have-we-passed-the-point-of-no-return-on-climate-change/

Extract: "In a recent lecture at Georgetown University, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim reported that whether we are able to cut emissions enough to prevent catastrophe likely depends on the policies of the world’s largest economies and the widespread adoption of so-called carbon pricing systems (such as emissions trading plans and carbon taxes). International negotiators meeting in Paris next December are already working to hammer out an agreement mandating that governments adopt these types of systems to facilitate emissions reductions. “A price on carbon is the single most important thing we have to get out of a Paris agreement,” Kim stated. “It will unleash market forces.”

While carbon pricing will be key to mitigating global warming, Greenpeace adds that stemming the tide of deforestation in the world’s tropical rainforests and beyond and adapting our food systems to changing climatic conditions and increasingly limited resources will also be crucial to the health of the planet."

Best,
ASLR
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2015, 02:33:33 AM »
The linked article discusses the findings of a team that unanimously endorsed putting a price on carbon pollution as a key strategy for Canada.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/price-on-carbon-key-to-canada-tackling-global-warming.html
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2015, 05:29:26 PM »
In an open letter to world leader, 43 CEOs urge concrete action to fight climate change beginning this year.  They want solid emissions-reduction targets from each country, a price on carbon, an increase in renewable energy research, and an end to deforestation (among other things).

https://medium.com/@ClimateCEOs/open-letter-from-global-ceos-to-world-leaders-urging-concrete-climate-action-e4b12689cddf
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2015, 05:56:03 PM »
The linked article discusses parallel measures that need to be taken together with carbon pricing in order to reduce GHG emissions:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/11/beyond-carbon-pricing-five-ways-to-green-economies/
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2015, 06:35:57 PM »
Carbon Pricing Is Expanding: Initiatives Now Valued at Nearly $50 Billion
Carbon taxes, valued at $14 billion globally today, are levied at a set rate based on greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon content of fuel. Together, carbon pricing instruments now cover about 7 Gt CO2e, or about 12 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Countries, cities, states and provinces responsible for almost a quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions now have carbon pricing.

The revenue is also used in different ways in different jurisdictions, often with the goal of supporting climate change mitigation efforts and offsetting the impact on poor people. The EU ETS directive, for example, requires that at least half of the revenues be used for climate and energy purposes, such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, research and sustainable transportation.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/05/26/carbon-pricing-initiatives-nearly-50-billion
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #59 on: May 26, 2015, 09:29:02 PM »
The graphic is already out of date. Ontario is not considering a carbon tax as they have already joined the cap and trade system used by California and Quebec.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2015, 08:38:38 PM »
Six leading oil and gas companies Monday called on governments to put into place a carbon pricing system, saying this would be the most effective way of cutting the emission of greenhouse gases.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-energy-companies-carbon-pricing.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #61 on: June 11, 2015, 08:17:26 PM »
I've just written a piece which suggests applying Carbon Fee&Dividend to every individual person - ignoring national boundaries - in the world. It does contain some criticisms of CF&D and the GSI's Contraction and Convergence. I would be grateful for comments.

The piece ends...

What if a Fee&Dividend scheme were applied to all the people in the world - ignoring national boundaries? Each world citizen would pay a fee to a carbon fund. Each world citizen would receive a dividend from the fund... a gradual introduction would give a form of Contraction and Convergence.


It starts by estimating the remaining personal carbon budget...

Carbon Brief reports the remaining carbon budget to give a 66% chance of keeping global warming below 1.5˚C as 243 billion tonnes. That means, if humanity emits 243 billion tonnes more of CO2e global temeraature will rise to 1.5˚C above pre-industrial. Using the same calculations, the remaining carbon budget to keep below 2˚C is 843 billion tonnes...

World population was estimated recently at 7,317,801,293 by Worldometers. That means remaining the carbon budget per person is a maximum of 33 tonnes CO2e for a 1.5˚C rise or 115 tonnes for a 2˚C rise.


and notes that

UK emissions are 20 tonnes CO2e per person per year
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #62 on: June 26, 2015, 08:08:01 PM »
Alberta, Canada's newly-elected government tackles the tar sands.

Alberta's New Climate Plan Seen as a Meaningful First Step
The newly elected government in the Canadian province of Alberta announced what it called "important first steps" to rein in the province's growing emissions of greenhouse gases. It vowed to tighten its existing regulations, raise its carbon price modestly, and promised new rules governing the oil and gas sector.

But it appears that the new approach, like the old one that was about to expire, would allow carbon dioxide emissions from Alberta’s gigantic tar sands operations to keep rising, at least for the time being.

http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/25062015/alberta-new-democratic-party-climate-plan-reduce-tar-sands-oil-carbon-emissions


Alberta NDP's plan to increase carbon fees another strain on oil industry
The province’s new NDP government on Thursday said carbon levies on major polluters would increase to $30 a tonne over two years, up from $15 a tonne under current regulations. The fee would rise to $20 a tonne starting Jan. 1 next year, and to $30 in 2017. Companies will also be required to reduce emissions by 20 per cent over time, compared with a 12-per-cent target today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/alberta-ndp-plan-to-increase-carbon-fees-further-strains-oil-industry/article25121784/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #63 on: June 26, 2015, 10:37:18 PM »
What the media always seems to miss is that Alberta has never and still doesn't apply the "carbon tax" to total emissions. They are only regulating reduction in "emission intensity". Since tar sand extraction is growing massively reducing emissions per barrel by 10-20% has almost no impact and virtually no cost to the producers. For example oil production increased 14% 2014 to 2015.

What was just announced is they aren't letting the pitifully tiny carbon tax expire completely. So that can be considered a step in the right direction. However, given how this is getting reported as if it is a huge step in the carbon tax direction it creates the false impression that Alberta is somehow being a responsible citizen of the world.

Remember as well that the over 2 million barrels of oil produced per day have no carbon tax on them. Only the emissions from the production of that oil that exceeds the intensity reductions are taxed. It is a very bad joke.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2015, 11:06:06 PM »
The linked article indicates that on the road to Paris, an increasing number of academics and economists are calling for the global implementation of carbon pricing:

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/670859-scientists-issue-carbon-price-call-to-curb-climate-change.html

Extract: "Academics and economists have called for a price on carbon and an end to fossil fuel subsidies to help curb rampant greenhouse gas emissions harming Earth's climate system.

Rather than an economic burden, such measures offered novel money-making opportunities that would also ensure a liveable planet for future generations, they concluded at a climate science conference in Paris.

But time for action was running out fast, and mankind's voracious burning of coal, oil and gas has not abated."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #65 on: July 15, 2015, 10:54:36 PM »
The Northeast U.S.’s Electricity Bills Have Dropped $460 Million Since They Started Paying For Carbon
Under the RGGI plan, nine states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont — have reduced the amount of carbon allowed from electricity producers by requiring them to buy a credit for every metric ton of carbon they emit. There are only a limited number of permits, which are put up at auction every quarter. The states use the proceeds from the auctions to invest in further carbon reduction programs, such as efficiency retrofits and renewable energy development.
...
For example, investing in efficiency programs — such as weatherizing houses — reduces the amount of electricity used. But that’s not actually why bills are going down. The decrease in electricity demand actually reduces the overall price of electricity. That means the costs go down for everyone, not just someone who installed new, efficient windows.
...
Jackson Morris, director of the eastern energy program for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), agreed that efficiency measures have been critical for lowering emissions across the industry. In the 1950s, the amount of electricity we used increased alongside our economic growth, he said. Now there are so many ways to become more efficient, projections for our future electricity needs are flat in some places. In other words, we are getting more efficient as quickly as we are needing more power.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/14/3680269/rggi-boosts-economy-lowers-carbon/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2015, 06:24:47 PM »
The linked article discusses how slowly policy makers are addressing the issue of carbon pricing, due to the multiple issues involved, and focuses on some lessons learned by the EU on the inevitable road to global carbon pricing.  My concern is that policy makers will be too timid to fully engage global trading partners to enact carbon import tariffs to prevent "leakage" (free-rider) attempts to get around non-universal carbon pricing:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/17/why-are-big-eu-polluters-moaning-about-carbon-leakage/

Extract: "The idea of putting a price on carbon has influential backers, notably the World Bank.  It makes polluters pay for climate damage, cuts emissions and gives a boost to low carbon investment.  Here’s the rub: businesses will lobby like mad against anything that puts their costs up.  More to the point, if there is a price on carbon in one jurisdiction but not another, manufacturers threaten to leave, taking jobs with them.  It is fear of such a flight of industry – known as “carbon leakage” – holding back the EU from tighter carbon market rules.  But is that fear justified? If so, what is the best way to deal with it? And how can others learn from the EU experience?



China is planning to introduce a national carbon market from next year, building on seven regional pilots.

“It’s no longer a matter of if or when to price carbon – there is a growing sense of inevitability to put a price on carbon,” Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s climate envoy, has told RTCC.
The subject doesn’t feature heavily in the draft text for a global climate deal, due to be signed in Paris this December.  But Paris will be an opportunity for the EU and advocates to mobilise more support for pricing carbon.

Another option floated for the EU is to tax imports based on their carbon footprint, to cancel out the difference.  That would put the leakage complaints to bed but likely run into stiff opposition from trading partners."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2015, 09:11:33 PM »
Per the linked article, if we had all known to frame a fee as a "carbon offset" instead of a "carbon tax", then we would have already made more progress towards a friendlier environment.  Maybe it is not too late to pay our respects to the power of words:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-governments-nudge-us-to-make-good-choices/

Extract: "One barrier to climate change is bad choice architecture. If we frame a fee as a “carbon offset” instead of a “carbon tax,” we could nudge people to make more environmentally friendly decisions."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2015, 01:10:35 AM »
The linked article indicates that on September 25 2015, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced legislation to the US Congress for a Carbon Fee and Dividend plan.  I will keep my fingers crossed that this pending legislation is approved:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/255884-we-need-an-insurance-policy-for-climate-change

Extract: "On Sept. 25, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) detailed his plan for combating climate change in the United States: put a price on the main instigator, carbon dioxide.
Whitehouse is the sponsor of legislation that would put a fee on greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. This bill, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act, would charge the equivalences of the Obama administration's estimated "social cost of carbon," $45 per ton of carbon dioxide/equivalent emitted. The beauty of this proposed legislation is that it would not increase the size of the federal government. All revenue collected from this fee, around $2 trillion in 10 years, would be returned to the American public through corporate tax cuts and rebates to consumers, making it revenue neutral. The goal here is to make polluting industries more accountable for their impact while giving the incentive to reduce emissions."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2015, 07:31:18 PM »
The linked article indicates that the head of the IMF is now calling for a carbon tax:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/08/3710467/imf-says-to-tax-carbon/

Extract: "The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called for a carbon tax late Wednesday at the IMF/World Bank annual meeting in Lima, Peru. Meanwhile, reports show that more and more places are adopting carbon taxes, in largely successful efforts to use market forces to increase clean energy development."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2015, 05:59:14 PM »
Press Release: Carbon pricing can work and now is the time to expand it across the world
Washington/London, October 7, 2015: A new paper, Implementing effective carbon pricing, from the New Climate Economy shows that carbon pricing works and doesn’t harm the economy. It urges developed and emerging economies, with the G20 in the lead, to commit to introducing carbon prices of roughly comparable levels by 2020.
...
- Around 40 national jurisdictions and 20 cities, states and regions have adopted or are planning carbon prices. These cover 12% of global emissions, triple the coverage of a decade ago.
- Over 1,000 major companies and investors have endorsed carbon pricing, and 437 use an internal carbon price, up from 150 in 2014, with several hundred more planning internal carbon pricing in the next 2 years.
- China now has seven regional trading schemes and will implement a national cap and trade system from 2017.

http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/press-release-carbon-pricing-can-work-and-now-time-expand-it-across-world
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #71 on: October 21, 2015, 07:59:59 PM »
Per the linked article international support for putting a price on carbon is growing:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3714188/world-leaders-back-carbon-pricing/
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #72 on: November 11, 2015, 03:00:49 PM »
"the Kyoto Protocol, is so ineffectual that global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased by about 3% per year"

New mailing from Hansen

It starts

MOST governments have paid little attention to the threat of human-made climate change. They have acknowledged its likely existence, notably in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992), in which 195 nations agreed to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. However, the instrument chosen to implement the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, is so ineffectual that global fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions have increased by about 3% per year since its adoption in 1997, as opposed to a growth rate of 1.5% per year in the decades preceding the Kyoto Protocol [http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Emissions/, which is an update of a graph in Hansen and Sato (2001)].
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #73 on: November 11, 2015, 05:30:56 PM »
"the Kyoto Protocol, is so ineffectual that global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions have increased by about 3% per year"

New mailing from Hansen

It starts

MOST governments have paid little attention to the threat of human-made climate change. They have acknowledged its likely existence, notably in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992), in which 195 nations agreed to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. However, the instrument chosen to implement the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, is so ineffectual that global fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions have increased by about 3% per year since its adoption in 1997, as opposed to a growth rate of 1.5% per year in the decades preceding the Kyoto Protocol [http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Emissions/, which is an update of a graph in Hansen and Sato (2001)].



Which is to say that: "Actions speak louder than words", and if the CoP21 agreement were a truly serious replacement for the Kyoto Protocol then it would include provisions for a international Carbon Fee & Dividend program.  Unfortunately, the inability of policy elites to effectively implement a Carbon Fee & Dividend program speaks volumes about the gamesmanship/brinksmanship that they are engaging in at the world's expense.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #74 on: November 12, 2015, 09:47:30 AM »
ASLR

Unfortunately, the inability of policy elites to effectively implement a Carbon Fee & Dividend program speaks volumes about the gamesmanship/brinksmanship that they are engaging in at the world's expense.


Exactly.

One way the UK cheats is to use production-based carbon emissions rather than consumption-based emissions! Closing UK steelworks cuts UK carbon emissions but does not cut world emissions. So we get Spin about the UK footprint.

Depressing.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #75 on: November 15, 2015, 11:35:28 PM »
It international (UN) and federal bodies are too paralyzed to enact Carbon Fee & Dividend programs, then maybe local (states, etc.) governmental bodies will need to do the heavy lifting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-could-be-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/

Extract: "Washington requires citizens’ initiatives to raise 246,372 signatures via petition to qualify for the ballot. So far, Carbon Washington has raised 304,000 signatures, according to Bauman, and is hoping to reach 330,00 before it submits the petition at the end of the year to have a buffer of about 25 percent of the needed number of signers.
“Once we qualify, it goes to the legislature in January, and the legislature essentially has two choices,” Bauman said. “Pass it and it goes to law, or it goes on the ballot in 2016.”
Washington state isn’t the only one. Citizens and legislators in a handful of other states around the country, including Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Oregon, are in various stages of introducing similar proposals to their own state legislatures."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2015, 08:36:08 PM »
Alberta launches $3-billion climate change strategy with carbon tax

Albertans will pay $3 billion more annually in a new economywide tax on carbon, and will likely have to shell out more for electricity as a result of an accelerated retirement of coal-fired power plants under the NDP government’s new climate-change strategy released Sunday.

But:
The plan for the first time puts a 100-megatonne cap on emissions from the oilsands — it’s currently 70 megatonnes — to provide room for the industry to grow and time for it to reduce the level of emissions per barrel of produced oil.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-unveils-details-of-its-climate-plan
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2015, 05:54:07 PM »
The linked Dec. 3 2015 article states that Obama (and most everyone else) has long known that carbon pricing is the best way to fight climate change, but he feels that carbon pricing will not be implements during his term in office.  This emphasizes that crony capitalism (fossil fuel industries levering influence to bias the political system) needs to be fought directly & publically if effective headway is going to be made in a timely manner:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060028785

Abstract: "Steven Chu was meeting with the president for his "exit interview" when the outgoing Energy secretary told his boss that the best way to attack climate change is with a carbon tax.
That marked a shift in thinking for the physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in 1997. Chu supported President Obama's earliest efforts to apply a cap-and-trade system to the economy nationwide. But the program's use of carbon credits, and the way they could be given to favored industries, made him realize that cap and trade is "easier to game."

A carbon tax is simpler and cheaper. And that's what Chu told Obama in their last private conservation in late 2012, after Obama won re-election in a campaign that rarely mentioned the issue that now dominates his agenda -- climate change.

Obama's response was politically realistic, Chu said in an interview yesterday.

"He said, 'It's not gonna happen,'" Chu said. "And in his term, he's right."

The conversation happened two years after major climate legislation failed to find traction in the Senate. But Obama suggested yesterday that he still believes that an economywide carbon price is a better option than the Clean Power Plan, the regulatory approach he's using to advance a global agreement on climate change over the next two weeks in Paris.

"I have long believed that the most elegant way to drive innovation and to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on it," Obama said yesterday in a press conference in Paris."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2015, 09:36:20 PM »
Elon Musk: “We designed civilization to be super sensitive to climate change”
On the margins of the UN conference on climate change in Paris, Elon Musk was at the Pantheon-Sorbonne University yesterday for a talk about what can be done to curb CO2 emissions, which he followed with a Q&A with students.

The main point Musk was trying to make during the talk was that the fundamental problem with carbon emission is that companies are currently incentivized to use fossil fuels rather than sustainable energy. He argued that to end the incentives, you need to attach a price to carbon emissions, and the best way to that is to introduce a carbon tax.

http://electrek.co/2015/12/03/elon-musk-we-designed-civilization-to-be-super-sensitive-to-climate-change/

From the article:
"To paraphrase Fredric Jameson: It’s almost as if people find it easier to envision the end of civilization than the end of capitalism."
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2015, 12:54:58 AM »
From the article:
"To paraphrase Fredric Jameson: It’s almost as if people find it easier to envision the end of civilization than the end of capitalism."

I would paraphrase that further to say: "It's almost as if people find it easier to envision the end of civilization than the end of crony capitalism."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #80 on: December 09, 2015, 03:40:20 AM »
His solution to humankind's "dumbest experiment in history ever": a carbon tax. 
Transcript and video of Elon Musk's Sorbonne talk.

Elon Musk On Climate: Tax Carbon Appropriately, Tesla Founder Says
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101299_elon-musk-on-climate-tax-carbon-appropriately-tesla-founder-says-video
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #81 on: December 22, 2015, 12:04:45 AM »
Exxon's Support of a Tax on Carbon: Rhetoric or Reality?
The company has never put its muscle behind a tax on carbon to confront global warming, though it claims to support the concept.
"It seems like Exxon favors a carbon tax when and if their arms are twisted behind their backs, but until that time, they only like the theory of a carbon tax when it gives them something to be 'for,'" he said. "When Tillerson blurted out his personal predisposition against a carbon tax in 2013, it was probably a clue to the real conversation going on inside the company."

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122015/exxon-mobil-carbon-tax-rhetoric-or-reality-climate-change-rex-tillerson
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2015, 10:37:22 PM »
I concur with the revenue-neutral carbon tax approach, but any such tax should be progressive as $25/ton of carbon should only be the beginning of any carbon fee:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-30/washington-state-should-tax-carbon-then-give-back-the-money

Extract: "In 2016, voters in Washington will get the chance to enact the first state carbon tax. To make sure they provide a good example for the other 49, they should adopt the smartest policy with the broadest bipartisan appeal: a revenue-neutral tax.
Carbon Washington, an organization that has gathered some 350,000 signatures to put a $25-per-ton carbon tax to a vote, has long favored the revenue-neutral strategy. Its measure would return the money generated by cutting income and corporate taxes. Unfortunately, many left-leaning carbon-tax supporters in Washington feel strongly that the revenue should be used to make new investments in clean energy, education and other social programs.
Their strategy undercuts one of the most powerful arguments in favor of a carbon tax: Climate change is everyone's problem, regardless of political philosophy, so the effort to lower greenhouse-gas emissions should be undertaken in the least partisan manner possible. Putting a price on carbon can encourage energy efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels, and it can be done without getting sucked into the eternal debate over the proper size and scope of government."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #83 on: January 01, 2016, 05:59:22 PM »
CAPITALISM MAY SOLVE THE CLIMATE PROBLEM BUT ...


ADAM SMITH DIDN'T LIKE BIG INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES

I sometimes describe myself as a very, very, very left-wing supporter of the capitalist system. Not because I like capitalism per se but because its power gives one of the few chances the world has got (but I'm not too sure what exactly "world" means here).

My views are close to those of Adam Smith, whose ideas have been captured by apologists for crony capitalism. He disliked the power and influence of large international companies

Such companies, in Smith’s view, had corrupted and captured many European and non-European governments and undermined their societies’ ability to engage in peaceful transnational affairs and equitable self-rule.

CARBON TAX - WHAT TO DO WITH THE PROCEEDS?

I care a bit less about what happens to the proceeds of a carbon tax than the actual carbon price but I disapprove of cutting corporate taxes too much: the non-markets benefits given to corporations (e.g. bankruptcy and patents) should be paid for but reduced corporation taxes might be a price worth paying to get a carbon tax accepted. Similarly with income tax: it pays for the service government gives to citizens but if a reduction helps the cause so be it.

I welcome the redistributive effect of Hansen's scheme: It taxes those with high carbon pollution (basically, the rich and affluent) and rewards those with low levels of pollution (the poor). Ideally this should be on a world wide basis as in World Wide Carbon Fee and Dividend

A few week ago, I attended a conference run by the LSE, Economics of innovation, diffusion, growth and the environment. One of the interesting themes of the economists was to study how government support for innovation transferred into patent. One message I remember is that is is much more effective to spur green innovation with government grants than to spend it on subsidising green energy.

DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING BUT ...

My reading of computer software projects gives me the gut feeling that governments (or government officials) are bad at picking winners. However, our modern microchip economy started with government support. The FT said

“All of modern high tech has the US Department of Defense to thank at its core, because this is where the money came from to be able to develop a lot of what is driving the technology that we’re using today,” said Leslie Berlin, historian for the Silicon Valley Archives at Stanford University.

The early railways in the USA also had government support

The massive amount of capital investment (over $100,000,000 in 1860 dollars) needed to build the railroad was obtained by selling government guaranteed bonds (granted per mile of completed track) and railroad company bonds and stock to interested private investors.

I also believe that the governments of the good guys (if there are any) should be spending much more on a kinder, fairer version of military force and diplomacy. I suppose that's a bit of a fantasy but we probably do need lots more government expenditure.

CARBON PRICE SHOULD PROBABLY BE VERY HIGH: $1000

As to a carbon price, it probably needs to be much greater than most presume. I remember being at the Westminster Carbon Counting Conference in 2008, where, as I remember, one of the speakers said to make enough difference in construction a carbon price would need to approach £2000 ($3000) a tonne of CO2e. That seems a bit high but if a new house in the UK has embodied carbon of about 100 tonnes CO2e, £1000 a tonne CO2e might only add 30% on the price.

Given the uncertain effects of a carbon price, an empirical approach might be best: Start with $100 a tonne CO2e now and increase this by $100 a tonne until the climate looks safe.  My guess is that safety might be about the $1000 a tonne CO2e that Hansen once suggested - if Timothy Worstall has reported this correctly.

But taking a lesson from the LSE conference, government should invest in innovations that allow the development of low carbon lifestyles, with different shadow prices for carbon: e.g. $500, $1000, $2000 per tonne.

PROTOTYPING NEW LIFESTYLES

This probably means constructing new settlements, where the way of life has few cars, substantial production of food for local consumption and low embodied carbon.   The residents would be constrained to have low carbon footprints through the carbon price mechanism.

I would be surprised if such settlements (if designed well) could not attract residents.  Many would love to get away from the expense, rush an pollution of "modern living" just as train passengers in the UK voted with their feet when they were able to separate themselves from the smokers.

URBAN EXPANSION?

The current urbanisation story, that most people will move into cities must be questioned. In the carbon intensive way they are built now, this will be a disaster?

But exactly what do we mean by "city" anyway?

VENICE OR LA?

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #84 on: January 02, 2016, 03:59:08 AM »
The linked article indicates that the Washington Post concurs that a Carbon Fee & Dividend plan is a good idea (if progressively administered correctly).  Also I note that not putting a carbon fee/tax on GHG emissions is theft (i.e. crony capitalism):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fighting-climate-change-is-not-impossible/2016/01/01/955f7a96-af22-11e5-b281-43c0b56f61fa_story.html

Extract: "Why haven’t our needed energy breakthroughs come soon enough to help us avoid the worst effects of climate change? There is simply no economic incentive for private investors to fund research and development in these technologies as long as fossil-fuel users are free to foul our atmosphere.

We could turn this situation around by applying a gradually increasing greenhouse-gas-emissions fee on fuel extractors and importers and returning all fee revenue to households equally. Prices for gasoline, fuel oil and natural gas would rise, providing an economic incentive for investors, entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in conservation, efficiency and renewable energy sources. Revenue returned to households would help consumers with rising energy costs during the transition to a clean-energy economy. A revenue-neutral greenhouse-gas fee would benefit jobs, the economy and health outcomes while dramatically reducing emissions."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #85 on: January 03, 2016, 01:54:05 AM »

My views are close to those of Adam Smith, whose ideas have been captured by apologists for crony capitalism. He disliked the power and influence of large international companies

Such companies, in Smith’s view, had corrupted and captured many European and non-European governments and undermined their societies’ ability to engage in peaceful transnational affairs and equitable self-rule.



For those want a fuller understanding of the term "crony capitalism", I can recommend seeing the movie: "The Big Short"
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #86 on: January 03, 2016, 09:40:05 AM »

My views are close to those of Adam Smith, whose ideas have been captured by apologists for crony capitalism. He disliked the power and influence of large international companies

Such companies, in Smith’s view, had corrupted and captured many European and non-European governments and undermined their societies’ ability to engage in peaceful transnational affairs and equitable self-rule.



For those want a fuller understanding of the term "crony capitalism", I can recommend seeing the movie: "The Big Short"



Fake quote attributed Mark Twain in the movie "The Big Short": “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Real quote from the book: "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine" by Michael Lewis
Leo Tolstoy: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.”

While both the movie, and the book, address crony capitalism, both the fake quote and the real quote can just as well be applied to climate change and the disservice that scientists who err on the side of least drama are doing when they publish reports like AR5 that policymakers can so firmly hold on to that the truth cannot be explained to them.
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2016, 05:26:45 PM »
The linked article and associated open access report, indicates that large majority of economists concur that climate change will damage the US economy and that a market-based system, or carbon pricing, is the preferred approach to correcting this problem.  Unfortunately, the Republican Party leadership is currently blocking this rational approach in the US:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/95-consensus-economists-cut-carbon-pollution.html
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

Extract: "The survey also asked the experts about the most economically efficient method of reducing carbon pollution. 81% said a market-based system (carbon tax or cap and trade system) would be most efficient, while 13% answered that coordinated performance standards and programs that prioritize cleaner fuels and energy efficiency would be most efficient.
In the US, President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is closer to the latter system of performance standards, although the president has said he would prefer the type of market-based system favored by 81% of economic experts. Implementing a carbon tax or cap and trade system would require bipartisan congressional action, but over the past several years, Republican Party leaders have shown scant interest in crafting the efficient climate policies favored by economic experts and by their own voters."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2016, 10:40:03 PM »
The linked (open access) paper/PDF by Weitzman, cites that carbon pricing (carbon fee/tax) is less risky to implement than internationally tradable permits in a cap & trade system:

Martin L. Weitzman (August 28, 2015), "Internationally-Tradable Permits Can Be Riskier for a Country than an Internally-Imposed Carbon Price"


http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/riskier.permits.than_.prices_0.pdf?m=1441129680

Abstract: "This paper compares internationally-tradeable permits with a uniform carbon price, as seen through the lens of an individual country. To ensure a level playing field, these two approaches are initially calibrated to be welfare-equivalent for the country in a deterministic setting. While both price and quantity instruments have identical consequences under perfect certainty, outcomes differ substantially when uncertainty is introduced. The uncertainty analyzed here takes the reduced form of idiosyncratic country-specific abatement-cost shocks. Then, because of cross-border revenue flows, internationally-tradable permits can expose a country to greater risk than the imposition of a uniform carbon price (whose revenue proceeds are domestically retained).  This result is formalized in a very simple model that highlights the core essence of the argument. Some implications are discussed. I suggest that this relative-riskiness result may be a pertinent consideration in choosing between negotiated price-based approaches and negotiated quantity-based approaches for controlling worldwide carbon emissions."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2016, 08:13:16 PM »
The IMF says that carbon pricing is central to any plan that will effectively address climate change:

http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2016/01/imf-carbon-pricing-central-climate-change-challenge

Extract: "Emissions charges and carbon pricing should be “front and centre” in addressing climate change, the International Monetary Fund has said.



A central problem, it explained, is that while no single firm or household has a significant effect on the climate individually, collectively their effect it huge. Pricing, which forces the factoring of climate effects into individual-level decisions, must therefore have a “central role”, it said."

For an open source pdf of the associate IMF paper on this topic see:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1601.pdf

“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2016, 07:59:36 PM »
The linked article (and attached image) indicates that for the first time in 2016 the WEF recognized climate change as the world's greatest risk & merited the implementation of carbon pricing; however, a parallel WEF survey of large businesses found that they are still dragging their collective feet w.r.t. timely & effective climate change action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-zwick/in-davos-big-business-sen_b_9066708.html

Extract: "In Davos, Big Business Sends Mixed Signals on Climate Amid Calls for Carbon Pricing.



But when the WEF surveyed 13,000 business leaders, it found climate change to be far down on the list of things to worry about; and when PricewaterhouseCoopers surveyed 1,400 CEOs, it found that fear of over-regulation is what keeps 79% of them up at night, while only 50% saw climate change as an urgent threat."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2016, 10:37:22 PM »
The linked article discusses a New York Times editorial that suggests that implementation of a carbon pricing plan would help (not hurt) the economy:

http://stgist.com/2016/01/is-carbon-pricing-one-of-the-solutions-to-climate-change-6469

Extract: "Climate change or not, new editorial suggests that carbon pricing works and it doesn’t hurt the economy."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #92 on: February 05, 2016, 01:59:42 AM »
Obama proposes bold new clean transport program financed by a $10/barrel oil tax
The White House announced today its plan for a proposed “21st Century Clean Transportation System”.

The President’s plan will be part of the final proposed budget next week and will include over $300 billion in investments in mass transit systems, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation systems aiming to reduce carbon emissions over the next 10 years.

 What is particularly interesting, but at the same time depressing due to the extremely low odds of making it passed a Republican-controlled Congress, is that Obama’s plan would include a $10/barrel oil tax to fund the new clean transpo

http://electrek.co/2016/02/04/obama-new-clean-transport-oil-tax/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #93 on: February 29, 2016, 04:30:43 PM »
The State of Washington Considers Nations First Carbon Emissions Tax
SEATTLE (AP) -- Washington could become the first state in the nation to impose a direct tax on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline and natural gas.

A ballot measure before the state Legislature would create a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton of fossil fuel emissions burned in Washington, while reducing taxes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CARBON_TAX_WASHINGTON
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #94 on: March 02, 2016, 05:29:15 PM »
The linked article discusses how well the carbon tax is working in British Columbia:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html?_r=0

Extract: "In 2008, the British Columbia Liberal Party, which confoundingly leans right, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. The party stuck to the tax even as the left-leaning New Democratic Party challenged it in provincial elections the next year under the slogan Axe the Tax. The conservatives won soundly at the polls.

Their experience shows that cutting carbon emissions enough to make a difference in preventing global warming remains a difficult challenge. But the most important takeaway for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised.

British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined."
“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: 12427
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #95 on: April 24, 2016, 04:52:43 PM »
The linked article is entitled: "Carbon Pricing Becomes a Cause for the World Bank and I.M.F.".  I wish them Godspeed as they start on a difficult journey:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

Extract: "The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are pressing governments to impose a price tag on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions, using economic leverage and technical assistance that institutions like the United Nations cannot muster."
“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: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #96 on: April 26, 2016, 08:11:57 PM »
UK envoy: carbon pricing ‘too sluggish’ to meet climate goals
Carbon pricing is “too sluggish a weapon” against climate change, top UK envoy Sir David King said on Monday.

Speaking at a sustainability event in London, Sir David argued innovation to bring down the cost of clean technology would bring swifter results.

“I don’t think it [carbon pricing] is a fast enough driver for change,” he told Climate Home on the sidelines. “It needs to go hand in hand with other regulatory systems.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/25/uk-envoy-carbon-pricing-sluggish-climate-goals-sir-david-king
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2016, 02:35:45 AM »
The political hurdles facing a carbon tax — and how to overcome them
In this post, I'm going to do something different: I'm going to accept the premise. Let's assume that a carbon tax, equal to the social cost of carbon, is the ideal climate policy — the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Let's stipulate that it is our ultimate goal.

Now, how do we get there?

To answer that question, we have to go beyond economics to political economy: institutional structures, power, and influence. We have to grapple with the political constraints on carbon pricing and think about how they can be overcome.

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

Click on the image to view it full-size.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2016, 05:36:59 PM »
Australia:  Labor proposes two emissions trading schemes costing $355.9m
As Australia’s greenhouse emissions from electricity generation continue to rise, Labor’s policy promises to speed the shift to renewables, through a radical plan under which power generators would be forced to pay for the closure of a competitor’s dirty brown-coal fired plant and also through an electricity-industry specific “intensity based” trading scheme, similar to the kind of scheme many in business expect will be created post-election after a review of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan.

But the policies have been cautiously crafted – and some crucial details deferred – to avoid a repeat of the anti-carbon tax campaign waged by the Coalition in the past.

The intensity-based scheme would require generators with an emissions intensity above an electricity industry wide baseline to buy “credits” from those below it – effectively penalising polluting power stations and rewarding clean ones.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/27/labor-proposes-two-emissions-trading-schemes-costing-555m
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 8332
    • View Profile
Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« Reply #99 on: April 28, 2016, 09:55:39 PM »
Carbon Fee Debate Goes Mainstream in Washington State
Washington voters will decide in November whether to introduce a carbon tax on fossil fuels and electricity from coal and natural gas, with the goal of slowing global warming while reducing taxes on sales and manufacturing and keeping total tax revenue flat overall.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-fee-debate-mainstream-washington-state-20287
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.