Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Carbon tax  (Read 5039 times)

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 453
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 72
Carbon tax
« on: April 16, 2013, 11:19:14 PM »
To start the discussion, here's an insightful article from historian and author Gwynne Dyer:

Why the Chinese government wants a carbon tax. It's short enough to reproduce here, to get the discussion going on a CARBON TAX.

Why the Chinese government wants a carbon tax.


"Last week’s announcement by China’s Ministry of Finance that the country will introduce a carbon tax, probably in the next two years, did not dominate the international headlines. It was too vague about the timetable and the rate at which the tax would be levied, and fossil-fuel lobbyists were quick to portray it as meaningless. But the Chinese are deadly serious about fighting global warming, because they are really scared.           

"A carbon tax, though deeply unpopular with the fossil-fuel industries, is the easiest way to change the behaviour of the people and firms that burn those fuels: it just makes burning them more costly. And if the tax is then returned to the consumers of energy through lower taxes, then it has no overall depressive effect on the economy.

"The Xinhua news agency did not say how big the tax in China would be, but it pointed to a three-year-old proposal by government experts that would have levied a 10-yuan ($1.60) per ton tax on carbon in 2012 and raised it to 50-yuan ($8) a ton by 2020. That is still far below the $80-per-ton tax that would really shrink China’s greenhouse-gas emissions drastically, but at least it would establish the principle that the polluters must pay.

"It’s a principle that has little appeal to U.S. president Barack Obama, who has explicitly promised not to propose a carbon tax. He probably knows that it makes sense, but he has no intention of committing political suicide, the likely result of making such a proposal in the United States. But China is not suffering from political gridlock; if the regime wants something to happen, it can usually make it happen.

"So why is China getting out in front of the parade with its planned carbon tax? No doubt it gives China some leverage in international climate-change negotiations, letting it demand that other countries make the same commitment. But why does it care so much that those negotiations succeed? Does it know something that the rest of us don’t?

"Three or four years ago, while interviewing the head of a think tank in a major country, I was told something that has shaped my interpretation of Chinese policy ever since. If it is true, it explains why the Chinese regime is so frightened of climate change.

"My informant told me that his organization had been given a contract by the World Bank to figure out how much food production his country will lose when the average global temperature has risen by 2 ° C. (On current trends, that will probably happen around 25 years from now.) Similar contracts had been given to think tanks in all the other major countries, he said, but the results have never been published.

"The main impact of climate change on human welfare in the short- and medium-term will be on the food supply. The rule of thumb the experts use is that total world food production will drop by 10 percent for every degree Celsius of warming, but the percentage losses will vary widely from one country to another.

"The director told me the amount of food his own country would lose, which was bad enough—and then mentioned that China, according to the report on that country, would lose a terrifying 38 percent of its food production at plus 2 ° C. The reports were not circulated, but a summary had apparently been posted on the Chinese think tank’s website for a few hours by a rogue researcher before being taken down.

"The World Bank has never published these reports or even admitted to their existence, but it is all too plausible that the governments in question insisted that they be kept confidential. They would not have wanted these numbers to be made public. And there are good reasons to suspect that this story is true.

"Who would have commissioned these contracts? The likeliest answer is Sir Robert Watson, a British scientist who was the director of the environment department at the World Bank at the same time that he was the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"George Bush’s administration had Watson ousted as chair of the IPCC in 2002, but he stayed at the World Bank, where he is now chief scientist and senior adviser on sustainable development. (He has also been chief scientific adviser to the British government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the past six years.)

"He would have had both the motive and the opportunity to put those contracts out, but he would not have had the clout to get the reports published. When I asked him about it a few years ago, he neither confirmed nor denied their existence. But if the report on China actually said that the country will lose 38 percent of its food production when the average global temperature is 2 ° C higher, it would explain why the regime is so scared.

"No country that lost almost two-fifths of its food production could avoid huge social and political upheavals. No regime that was held responsible for such a catastrophe would survive. If the Chinese regime thinks that is what awaits it down the road, no wonder it is thinking of bringing in a carbon tax."

Author credit: Gwynne Dyer, March 2013
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 03:32:44 AM by Artful Dodger »
Cheers!
Lodger

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4281
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2013, 10:47:53 AM »
They may be suffering from the delusion that "climate change has plateaued", but at least The Economist have nonetheless been consistently promoting the idea of a carbon tax. I do have some sympathy for their latest leader on the topic - "Bonfire of the subsidies". However are The Economist(s) right when they say:

Quote
Moving to an ever-lower-carbon economy at a deliberate pace is a good idea. The best way to do it is to set a carbon tax and let the market decide the cheapest, cleanest answer while researching future alternatives. Some renewable technologies would play a big role in that. But those who pursue renewable energy as an end in itself fail to see the wood for the trees.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 453
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2013, 09:15:42 PM »
Hi folks,

Renowned Climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen recently retired as Director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to pursue advocacy and action on climate change. Jim Hansen, author of the book "Storms of my Grandchildren", is rightly famous as the scientist that warned us in his 1988 testimony to the US Congress that climate change had begun.



Here is Dr. Hansen's proposal on how to implement an effective carbon tax:

Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend vs. Tax & Trade
Testimony of James E. Hansen
to Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
25 February 2009

Quote
We have a planet in peril. The President recognizes this. The situation is clear.

Evidence from Earth's history and ongoing climate changes reveal that the dangerous level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is much less than once believed. The safe level is no higher than 350 parts per million, probably less, and we just passed 385 ppm.

Climate change threatens everyone, especially our children and grandchildren, the young and the unborn, who will bear the full brunt through no fault of their own.

It is clear that we cannot burn all fossil fuels, releasing the waste products into the air, without handing our children a situation in which amplifying feedbacks begin to run out of their control, with severe consequences for nature and humanity.

We must face the truth. We cannot burn all of the coal, let alone unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil shale, unless the combustion products are all captured and disposed of, which is implausible.

Read the rest of this 7 page testimony in the PDF linked above.
Cheers!
Lodger

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »
I did manage to get a piece on the Labour Policy Portal on Carbon Taxes http://www.labourpolicyportal.org.uk/2013/03/carbon-taxes/. It quotes some hpeful signs that the public may less resistant to them than politicians think.  e.g. Friends of the Earth in the USA have published the results of a survey on carbon taxes.
Quote
Carbon tax v. spending cuts: 67 percent of respondents thought that, compared with cutting spending on social and environmental programs, taxing “carbon dioxide pollution from big polluters such as oil, gas and other companies” was a better way to reduce the nation’s deficit (59 percent strongly, 8 percent not strongly). Only 15 percent favoured cutting spending.

I've also had a discussion with Tim Worstall who writes for Forbes Magazine. He supports carbon taxes - up to a point. http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/will-tim-worstall-stick-to-his-principles/.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Stephen

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2013, 12:56:49 PM »
We've had one in Australia since July 2012, levied at $23 per tonne, but the leader of the opposition, (who is leading in the polls by 55/45 and looks like getting elected next September) has vowed to abolish it.  Meanwhile the government decided to tie it to the Euro carbon trading scheme where the price recently collapsed to $3.

So the future for Australia's Carbon tax isn't looking very good at all.

We really need the big CO2 emitters like China and USA to get on board.  Going it alone just damages the local economy without much effect on total worldwide CO2 levels.
The ice was here, the ice was there,   
The ice was all around:
It crack'd and growl'd, and roar'd and howl'd,   
Like noises in a swound!
  Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2013, 02:08:22 PM »
Stephen

This seems strange but true: "David Cameron supports Australian carbon tax" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8673736/David-Cameron-supports-Australian-carbon-tax.html

In the UK only the Telegraph seems to have reported it.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4281
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2013, 03:19:52 PM »
For more on the Australian carbon tax see also David Gould's "Appearance before the Australian Senate environment committee"
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2535
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 09:07:15 PM »
World Bank and UN carbon offset scheme 'complicit' in genocidal land grabs - NGOs
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/03/world-bank-un-redd-genocide-land-carbon-grab-sengwer-kenya

Thought it is different...there is a scheme that is being pushed forward here in Limousin (France) called carbon +.
The enterprises to be able to pollute pay a tax and this tax helps "managing" the forest. the idea to managing the forest sounds good...oh yes but...The right to pollute doesn't work because once the CO2 in the air, it very difficult to remove it plus climate change is there and I should add that if managing the forest may be good like any industry we really have to count the quantity of carbon released during the processes directly and undirectly...

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2019, 07:59:06 PM »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2019, 07:26:15 AM »
Munich Re CEO calls for higher price on carbon emissions

Quote
Joachim Wenning, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at reinsurer Munich Re, has urged European policymakers to increase the cost of emitting carbon, according to reports from the Financial Times.

Wenning believes that such a move would create financial incentives to accelerate the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, thereby helping to limit the effects of global warming.

“On the current trajectory of carbon emissions, we have to expect an increase of global temperatures by 3.5C by the end of the century,” the FT quoted Wenning as saying.

“The property damage is [already] bad enough, but the toll of human victims would rise significantly,” he added, warning of the impact on areas vulnerable to drought and coastal flooding.

Wenning explained that the introduction of a meaningful price on carbon emission could be done either by emissions trading or by a tax on carbon.

He pointed to the example of Sweden’s regime, which puts a tax of €115 on every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, compared with the European system that charges €24 per tonne.

“The CO2 price needs to be high,” Wenning said, remarking that the use of fossil energy needs to become economically unviable for some of the largest consumers.

The Munich Re boss also acknowledged that a higher price on carbon could cause some carbon-reliant companies to go out of business. “A responsible government needs to keep these effects in mind,” he noted.

Link >> https://www.reinsurancene.ws/munich-re-ceo-calls-for-higher-price-on-carbon-emissions/

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2019, 06:17:03 PM »
Alberta to reimpose carbon tax:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mckenna-imposes-carbon-tax-alberta-1.5174482
Well, not exactly. Alberta is having a carbon tax reimposed on it by the federal government. Canada decided to institute a national minimum carbon tax, but did not impose a particular tax on the provinces, allowing them to decide precisely how to build in a price on carbon. Canada is the referee, deciding if a provinces actions are effective. Some provinces have a carbon price that satisfies Canada- such as B.C., some, in a fit of pique, removed a satisfactory carbon tax so Canada had to impose a tax on them This is what Alberta did. It removed its carbon tax, now its government can blame Canada for the carbon tax. The province has hitched its wagon firmly to some of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels on the planet (coal, fracked O&G, bitumen mining), and single handedly making it impossible for Canada to achieve its Paris commitments.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2019, 09:57:19 PM »
Provinces, territories to have input in future price of carbon: McKenna
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/27/news/provinces-territories-have-input-future-price-carbon-mckenna
Quote
Any decisions about future increases in the carbon tax would take into account the views of provinces and territories, the federal environment minister says, using language that sparked accusations from Conservatives that she was misleading voters about the future of the levy.

But Catherine McKenna also said the Liberal government's plan for the tax hadn't changed and there was "no secret agenda" by the party to pump up the price on carbon beyond the $50 per tonne it will reach in 2022.

Ford takes carbon-price fight to top court as election looms
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/28/news/ford-takes-carbon-price-fight-top-court-election-looms
Quote
Previous story
Five days ago, Doug Ford said the Canadian people would make the final decision on the validity of the federal price on pollution.

"This carbon tax, it's not going to be the courts that are going to decide. The people are going to decide when the election is held," he told The Canadian Press on Aug. 23.

A federal election is due in October, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are in a tough fight with the federal Conservatives, led by Andrew Scheer, who have said they would scrap the “job-killing carbon tax” if elected.

"Once the people decide, I believe in democracy, I respect democracy, we move on. The people will have the opportunity, not the courts," Ford said at the time.

Despite this, on Wednesday, the Ford government declared that it was taking its own legal fight against the federal government's price on pollution to the highest court in the country.

The government waited until the very last possible day it could to file the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in a 4-1 decision in June that Ottawa was well within its rights to insist that provinces meet certain emission-reduction targets via a price on carbon pollution because it related to a matter of “national concern.”

"Despite this decision, we remain committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight against the job-killing carbon tax, which is making life more expensive for Ontario's hard-working individuals, families and businesses," Ontario Environment Minister Jeff Yurek said in a statement.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 10:09:13 PM by Tom_Mazanec »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2019, 01:00:05 AM »
<snipped>
"Despite this decision, we remain committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight against the job-killing carbon tax, which is making life more expensive for Ontario's hard-working individuals, families and businesses," Ontario Environment Minister Jeff Yurek said in a statement.



Douggy Boy, now that's one very dull tool.
Jeff Yurek - another tool that's not too sharp.


Allowing sharp tools to fall into their hands would be like allowing pointed scissors in a special needs class.  8)


Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2019, 09:31:20 PM »
<snipped>
"Despite this decision, we remain committed to using every tool at our disposal to fight against the job-killing carbon tax, which is making life more expensive for Ontario's hard-working individuals, families and businesses," Ontario Environment Minister Jeff Yurek said in a statement.

Douggy Boy, now that's one very dull tool.
Jeff Yurek - another tool that's not too sharp.


Allowing sharp tools to fall into their hands would be like allowing pointed scissors in a special needs class.  8)

Terry

The CPC with outright lies, as the carbon tax is rebated in a progressive way. The rebate is complex though, it should have been a straight "fee and per capita dividend" which would have been much harder to lie about. Ontario sells excess electricity at a loss to the US, would be so much better to sell it cheap to Ontarians to power their EVs.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2019, 12:09:30 AM »
<snipped>
The CPC with outright lies, as the carbon tax is rebated in a progressive way. The rebate is complex though, it should have been a straight "fee and per capita dividend" which would have been much harder to lie about. Ontario sells excess electricity at a loss to the US, would be so much better to sell it cheap to Ontarians to power their EVs.
Or intermittently smelting aluminum, or selling to the western provinces presently burning coal, or mining Cryptocurrency, or heating the Ontario Parliament Buildings, or powering Toronto's E-Buses, or powering Waterloo's new light rail, or lighting Niagara Falls round the clock, or generating hydrogen fuel, or heating public swimming pools, chilling public ice arenas, or ...


So many options - any of which is preferable to selling electricity to Trump's America at a loss.
My understanding is that much of Ontario's excess power simply warms one of the Great Lakes a fraction of a degree as they dissipate the excess heat/energy.


When the Province owned the energy providers, not disrupting private energy suppliers wasn't a problem. Yet another reason to end privatization.
Terry
Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2019, 10:44:37 PM »
Could not agree more on the public ownership of the energy utilities, just like in Quebec! The much cheaper public Quebec car insurance would also be a great idea in Ontario - shame that an ex Ontario premier wimped out on that one in the early 1990s.

The Waterloo light rail seems to be one of the most useless transport projects I can think of (it even diverts from the main thoroughfare of King Street!). Electric buses would have been much cheaper, much less disruptive and much more flexible. I live in Waterloo and have to watch this white elephant every day. Makes it so easy for the conservatives to make fun of low carbon initiatives (e.g. "that white elephant is what my carbon taxes are paying for?!!!").
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 10:50:33 PM by rboyd »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2019, 11:54:06 PM »
Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/democrats-climate-change-plans.html
Quote
In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition. Around the country and the world, opponents have attacked it as an “energy tax” that could raise fuel costs, and it has been considered politically toxic in Washington for nearly a decade.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4412
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2019, 10:21:03 AM »
That this idea is considered controversial just shows how fucked up US politics are. Pardon my French...

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2019, 03:06:53 PM »
<snipped>

The Waterloo light rail seems to be one of the most useless transport projects I can think of (it even diverts from the main thoroughfare of King Street!). Electric buses would have been much cheaper, much less disruptive and much more flexible. I live in Waterloo and have to watch this white elephant every day. Makes it so easy for the conservatives to make fun of low carbon initiatives (e.g. "that white elephant is what my carbon taxes are paying for?!!!").


I spoke to a number of KW residents a few evenings ago, and though none had ridden the trolley/light rail, they all claimed to have seen ~dozen passengers each time one passed.
It's still a very young system - give it a little chance to grow and become accepted. It has yet to see it's first winter.
The group I was speaking to were older, probably wealthier people who may be the demographic most resistant to change.
Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2019, 08:58:49 PM »
<snipped>

The Waterloo light rail seems to be one of the most useless transport projects I can think of (it even diverts from the main thoroughfare of King Street!). Electric buses would have been much cheaper, much less disruptive and much more flexible. I live in Waterloo and have to watch this white elephant every day. Makes it so easy for the conservatives to make fun of low carbon initiatives (e.g. "that white elephant is what my carbon taxes are paying for?!!!").


I spoke to a number of KW residents a few evenings ago, and though none had ridden the trolley/light rail, they all claimed to have seen ~dozen passengers each time one passed.
It's still a very young system - give it a little chance to grow and become accepted. It has yet to see it's first winter.
The group I was speaking to were older, probably wealthier people who may be the demographic most resistant to change.
Terry

One of my friends (in her twenties), who takes public transport often, told me that a number of bus routes had been cancelled, therefore forcing people to ride the light rail. I am very supportive of public transport, but I am also against obviously wasteful expenditures.

The example of Curitiba in Brazil shows what is possible with well planned dedicated bus routes at much less cost:

How Curitiba's BRT stations sparked a transport revolution – a history of cities in 50 buildings, day 43

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/26/curitiba-brazil-brt-transport-revolution-history-cities-50-buildings

Curitiba Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit

https://www.reimaginerpe.org/curitiba-bus-system

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2019, 08:49:29 PM »
UK To Impose Carbon Tax After No-Deal Brexit
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/09/09/uk-to-impose-carbon-tax-after-no-deal-brexit/#7ab7c3953ab5
Quote
The United Kingdom is set to impose a £16 per ton tax on carbon if it leaves the European Union without a deal on October 31, according to government plans.

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, it will also leave the EU’s Emissions Trade System (ETS), the centrepiece of the bloc’s efforts to meet European countries’ emissions reduction obligations. The cap-and-trade system requires power plants and industries to purchase permits to emit more carbon than they are allocated for free in the system.

In the event of no-deal, the UK would replace the ETS with a carbon tax “to help meet the UK's legally binding greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Climate Change Act,” the governments no-deal preparedness guide states. “The tax would apply from November 4 2019 to all stationary installations currently participating in the EU ETS”.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Hans

  • New ice
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2019, 09:26:57 PM »
The United Kingdom is set to impose a £16 per ton tax on carbon if it leaves the European Union without a deal on October 31, according to government plans.

....and in this case a significant lower tarief compacter to the present ETS.  So it is a step in the wrong direction.

bluesky

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2019, 11:04:39 PM »
B Johnson (Trump'son) is surrounding by an armada of hard Brexiter/ hard liner narrow minded members of the "European Research Group" (!)  most  of them are  denialist , I  would not be surprised to find some notorious denialists among people /organisation who  financed the Leave campaign. Lord Nigel  Lawson, notorious denialist, that the BBC invited for  years to debate with climate scientists (for a balanced and non partisan view!!!!!) was ranking high in the leave campaign. Lawson has direct interest in coal mining and coal based energy  in Eastern Europe...

In a recent interview, the CEO of Munich Re, the largest reinsurance company in the world, was calling for an increase in the carbon tax from EUR 24 /tonnes up to the level in Sweden ( EUR 115/ tonnes), but many carbon experts think that 115 per tonnes is stil not enough although it would be a big step in the right direction,
 thus EUR 16/ tonnes is a the level of climate denialist to turn the UK into a carbon tax heaven, and likely into a full tax heaven corporate, private equity, oligarchs and other tycoons (not for the working and middle class though)

Munich Re's CEO interview
https://www.reinsurancene.ws/munich-re-ceo-calls-for-higher-price-on-carbon-emissions/

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 741
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 4848
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2019, 06:36:13 AM »
For direct emissions: Since we should have decabonised >2 decades ago, I propose a meaningful carbon tax of EUR 5000/tonne (EUR 5/Kg). This also applies to personal travel by aeroplane, boat and bus. But not for public transport which is exempted.
Corporations are legal persons and to be treated as natural persons wrt carbon tax.

To ease the change, step it up in three years from EUR 500, EUR 1000 to EUR 5000. Right now, we should be shaking from being in a feverish hurry to change our ways if we take reality and eco/climate science seriously. "I want you to panic".

Half of the carbon tax revenue must be distributed to poor people in your rich country, so rich people will have a strong incentive to change their behaviour. The other half must be invested in electrification of all public transport and making it free for all. A beautiful effect will be the disappearance of the abomination of foodbanks. And oil-derived biocides.

For indirect emissions of products (food, clothes, packaging etc): make it mandatory to state the carbon footprint per unit of mass/volume on the packaging so consumers are aware of the real cost. After 2 years, impose the same carbon tax on the products. By this time the poor people should have enough money cover the increased costs of basic products such as food. Organic food (local) will be cheaper so that sector can grow and expand.


I haven't really thought it through for the many unintended/unforeseen consequences (too complex and not enough knowledge). Financial breakdown is not an unintended consequence. We need to stop these high energy, high carbon footprint lifestyles! We are already too late to prevent catastrophic climate change (>2C GMST).


edit: changed "a" to "the same" in 2nd to last pararaph.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2019, 04:02:24 PM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Carbon tax
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2019, 05:28:21 PM »
EU plans energy tax to combat climate change
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-plans-energy-tax-to-combat-climate-change/a-50426176
Quote
Climate protection is high on the public agenda and EU finance ministers want to get in on the discussion. They have many ideas on carbon dioxide emissions pricing, but are yet to find an answer, reports Bernd Riegert.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS