By BRAD PLUMER and NADJA POPOVICH APRIL 2, 2019
NATIONAL PRICE ON CARBON
LOCAL PRICE ON CARBON
SCHEDULED PRICE ON CARBON
Mass., N.Y. and seven other states
Note: A local price on carbon is only highlighted where no national or European Union rules are in place. Some countries with a national price on carbon also have local-level programs that operate under separate rules. | Source: World Bank
The idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions to help tackle climate change has been slowly spreading around the globe over the past two decades.
This week, Canada’s federal government took the latest step when it extended its carbon-pricing program nationwide by imposing a tax on fossil fuels in four provinces that had declined to write their own climate plans.
More than 40 governments worldwide have now adopted some sort of price on carbon, either through direct taxes on fossil fuels or through cap-and-trade programs. In Britain, coal use plummeted after the introduction of a carbon tax in 2013. In the Northeastern United States, nine states have set a cap on emissions from the power sector and require companies to buy tradable pollution permits.
THE CONSERVATIVE CASEFOR CARBON DIVIDENDS COUNCIL LAUNCH EVENTCo-authored by a who’s who of conservative elder statesmen, this public statement marks the first time leading Republicans put forth a concrete, market-based climate solution. Watch full video of the Council’s high-profile February 8th launch event. Speakers included James A. Baker, III, Martin Feldstein, Ted Halstead, and Greg Mankiw.
It sounds like an impending environmental nightmare. I have added my two cents in the first comment at the other blog.– David Lindsay
The country has invested billions in Ecuador and elsewhere, using its economic clout to win diplomatic allies and secure natural resources around the world.
“EL CHACO, Ecuador — Where the Andean foothills dip into the Amazon jungle, nearly 1,000 Chinese engineers and workers have been pouring concrete for a dam and a 15-mile underground tunnel. The $2.2 billion project will feed river water to eight giant Chinese turbines designed to produce enough electricity to light more than a third of Ecuador.
Near the port of Manta on the Pacific Ocean, Chinese banks are in talks to lend $7 billion for the construction of an oil refinery, which could make Ecuador a global player in gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products.
Across the country in villages and towns, Chinese money is going to build roads, highways, bridges, hospitals, even a network of…
View original post 42 more words
This is some of the best writing I’ve ever seen on climate change issues. Mark Hertsgaard in Businessweek:
“Pricing carbon would address what economist Sir Nicholas Stern in a 2006 report called “the greatest market failure in history.” Greenhouse gas emissions cause profound damage—drought slashes crop yields; hurricanes flood subways; rising seas inundate property—but that damage is not reflected in the emissions’ market price. Indeed, the market price is zero: The costs of climate impacts are shouldered by third parties or society as a whole.
Economists from right to left agree that taxing carbon is the most efficient way to cut emissions. A rising, predictable carbon price would unleash the power of the market against climate change, giving both producers and consumers an incentive to shift to lower-carbon energy choices.
ExxonMobil’s approach to carbon pricing was revealed in a September report in the online magazine Yale Environment 360 by Mark Schapiro, author of the book Carbon Shock. Alan Jeffers, ExxonMobil’s media officer, told Schapiro the company has been applying a proxy price to carbon since 2007. The price is different for different countries, and it goes up or down according to how likely ExxonMobil thinks a given country’s government is to regulate carbon.”
I recommend you take the link below and read the whole article.
This writer thinks divestment is not a useful tool. Only a carbon tax will change behaviors, which is what is needed.
Apparently, I am not alone. Although 300 professors at Stanford have just called for divestment, there are dissenters.
“But Harvard rejected a campaign by students and 100 faculty to remove fossil fuel holdings from its $32bn endowment, claiming such a move would have only a negligible financial impact.
George Shultz, secretary of state under Ronald Reagan and a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution who has tried to push fellow Republicans to act on climate, said the university should think instead about imposing a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
“I am very much on the side of worrying about climate issues,” he said. But he did not support the divestment campaign, adding: “It’s mainly to make people here feel good.” ”