Political deals (sometimes dubbed «grand bargains») to win Republican support for carbon taxes, such as the proposal by Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Brian Schatz (HA) therefore risk alienating labor, low - income advocates and economic - justice activists, many of whom are already tepid at
best about carbon tax legislation that doesn't directly invest considerable carbon revenues in a «just transition.»
Not exact matches
Put another way, despite all the
good things
about B.C.'s
carbon tax (and it got some laudatory words in the OECD report), it's barely stringent enough to fit into the IEA's 450ppm path and it's not likely to be stringent enough to see BC's emissions decrease between now and 2020 (see Table 17).
Scheer had been noticeably tightlipped
about Trump's exit; some Conservative supporters were pretty happy that Trump was giving the bum's rush to climate science they view as hokum, while others had,
well, supported Michael Chong and his
carbon taxes for the Conservative leadership.
Phillips is one of the government's smartest cabinet ministers, and has done a
good job promoting the flagship Climate Leadership Plan, but the NDP have fallen short when it comes to easing Albertans worries
about the cost of implementing the
carbon tax during an economic downturn.
They are not governments - that kind of deal - making comes in December (or rather in the glacial negotiating sessions throughout this year), so I see no problem with them having earnest conversations deep into the night
about the relative merits of
carbon taxes over cap and trade, or any other issue, that have no substantive outcome other than to generate more research proposals, newspaper column inches and comments in
well - meaning blogs.
Rosenthal says that if
carbon dioxide emissions become
taxed in the future due to continuing concerns
about global warming, his solar - driven catalyst for making synthetic fuel will compete even
better economically with fossil fuels.
I tend to wonder / worry
about Steve's
good point (# 22), i.e., whether a preference for cap - and - trade, rather than a
carbon tax, is driven mainly by those who want to make a profit from the trading?
However this view is based on a lack of knowledge of what Marx actually wrote
about the nature of the modern state which was: «The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie» Some leftists may
well scream in exactly the same way as the new rightists, that
carbon taxes are part of a plot by the wicked capitalists to make the poor freeze in winter.
If you're concerned
about a further delay in devising and implementing a
carbon tax,
well it's an ill wind that blows us all some
good there in the form of a global recession / depression.
A new survey suggests the conventional wisdom
about carbon taxes is wrong: Promising to give people their money back with rebate checks isn't the
best way to win public support.
I would like to see more open discussion
about the Hartwell paper analysis, and other nuanced analysis — but to repeat one last time: Categorizing any arguments for even strong
carbon taxes as «Marxist» does not seem to me like a
good starting point (as would categorizing the Hartwell paper as «denialist.»
JimD FYI the very serious problem with Benghazi is the known false cover story (BTW I know a lot
about the specific details of this event) not so bad except for the poor wannabe movie maker they arrested to cover their lie free speech... once a liberal value I am a «denier» because of my
best evaluation of the evidence not because I'm «scared» of a
carbon tax not because I don't like Obama
The two of us disagree
about how
best to price
carbon, with one of us favoring
carbon trading across countries and trace gases, while the other favors a low
carbon tax to finance clean energy innovation.
Are cap - and - trade markets the
best mechanism for bringing
about large - scale
carbon - dioxide emission reductions, or would a
tax, or even straightforward regulation, be more effective or efficient?
And the most important public
good served by the
carbon tax would be climate stability, brought
about by the consequent reduction in use of
carbon fuels and the incentive to invent less
carbon - intensive energy sources.
The
best that any
carbon tax in the United States could ever hope to achieve would be to reduce the amount of global warming across the 21st century from
about 3.0 °C down to
about 2.8 °C.
And although he has to deal with internal squabbles
about whether cap and trade or a
carbon tax is the
best way to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, at least the Obama team does agree on the goal.
Thus, if you are worried
about climate change, the
best «Silver Bullet» available is to support a
carbon tax and get involved with Citizens Climate Lobby.