Sentences with phrase «carbon consumption tax»

This makes a lot of sense, especially in the context of their specific proposal, which is for a carbon consumption tax.

* Chancel / Piketty propose a progressive carbon consumption tax.

Not exact matches

Whether individuals are better off for this quid pro quo depends on how carbon taxes affect fuel consumption.

A reduction in income or consumption taxes, financed by an increase in carbon taxes, would be a clear gain for the higher income, lower carbon demographic.

For example, a carbon tax that reduced oil consumption might be deemed an illegal restraint of trade unless it were mandated by some international body.

Peter Ryan's letter makes a good argument for taxing carbon emissions on the consumption rather than production of goods (22/29...

And relying only on a carbon tax, with no R&D subsidies in the mix, would be equivalent to a 1.9 percent annual drop in consumption.

Computer models play a significant role in environmental policy, but offer only a partial picture of the industrial system Whether it's electric automobiles, renewable energy, carbon tax or sustainable consumption: Sustainable development requires strategies that meet people's needs without harming the environment.

And so this all implies that given the pressing climate change issue and Paris targets set at 2050, smaller population and reduced consumption will have very limited impact, so we are mainly going to be reliant on renewable energy and carbon taxes and so on in the shorter term over the next 20 — 30 years or so.

My personal preferences would be for states to impose a new consumption tax on something that's bad for the world, like gambling or carbon emissions or sugar or cigarettes, but states could also impose a special tax on millionaires or rent out some state asset (like highways or parking lots).

The US has to address our own big input into the climate change equation and that means using whatever means — probably a carbon tax — to drive down per capita consumption.

And so this all implies that given the pressing climate change issue and Paris targets set at 2050, smaller population and reduced consumption will have very limited impact, so we are mainly going to be reliant on renewable energy and carbon taxes and so on in the shorter term over the next 20 — 30 years or so.

There was some bad news for Drax recently as the UK government decided that biomass subsidies would not keep climbing as the «carbon price floor» — levied on fossil fuel production (and due to rise further)-- on electricity consumption has caused a backlash from manufacturers, consumer groups and energy suppliers who are concerned that the «tax will push up prices, make the UK uncompetitive and force the premature closure of coal - fired power plants, increasing the risk of blackouts.»

With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, the stars are aligned for adopting a carbon tax on consumption of fossil fuels, Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary and presidential adviser, says in the Washington Post.

Whereas a five cent increase in the market price of gasoline might yield a 2.2 % reduction in gasoline consumption in the short - run, a 5 cent increase to the cost of gasoline due to the carbon tax, a level approximately equal to a carbon price of $ 25 per metric ton, generates a 10.6 % short - run reduction in gasoline demand.

For example, while a carbon tax would likely reduce consumption of oil, gas, and coal (and make polluters internalize the costs of the damage they cause), it doesn't tackle many of the other greenhouse gas emissions out there, like methane from livestock and landfills, or deforestation in the tropics.

Since 2006, Boulder, CO has had a carbon tax levied on electricity consumption that acts as a funding mechanism for the city's Climate Action Plan.

Based on a literature review of seven studies analyzing the GHG impacts of the carbon tax, they determined that «the effect of the tax was to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions 5 — 15 % in British Columbia.»

In BC, a carbon tax was expected to reduce gasoline consumption, but drivers simply went elsewhere to get cheaper gas, like Alberta or Washington State.

The authors argue that the carbon tax there has had little impact on fossil fuel consumption, suggesting that carbon taxes can not achieve their advertised end.

Unfortunately for these free - market proponents, the real - world record fails to demonstrate that British Columbia's carbon tax reduced carbon emissions, fossil fuel consumption or vehicle travel.

A carbon tax with large «rebates» to the poorer segments of society becomes a poor mean of both raising revenue and discouraging consumption.

Pekka What I wrote previously is correct from an economic perspective «A carbon tax with large «rebates» to the poorer segments of society becomes a poor means of both raising revenue and discouraging consumption.»

By taxing carbon emissions, every transaction is incentivised toward lower - carbon options of production, delivery and consumption.

WTO rules were built around a consumption tax — the European Union's Value Added Tax; Hsu suggests that a carbon tax should similarly be supportable under WTO rultax — the European Union's Value Added Tax; Hsu suggests that a carbon tax should similarly be supportable under WTO rulTax; Hsu suggests that a carbon tax should similarly be supportable under WTO rultax should similarly be supportable under WTO rules.

He also restated his belief in imposing a carbon tax on oil consumption, the cost of which would be offset by reducing payroll taxes (see Al Gore Backs Carbon Tatax on oil consumption, the cost of which would be offset by reducing payroll taxes (see Al Gore Backs Carbon TaxTax).

Like many economists, Knittel supports a carbon tax to make fossil fuels more expensive and less attractive for consumption.

(b) Against a comparable carbon tax (ie a federal or another states» carbon tax) already paid on the consumption of the same energy consumed in Washington State

This is a consumption - based carbon tax, which excludes exports, and taxes the embodied carbon content inherent in energy consumed within the State.

Looking forward, things to watch include: the impact of economic recovery on commodity prices and agricultural expansion for food and biofuels production; large - scale land acquisition by foreign nations and corporations in tropical countries; climate negotiations and the REDD mechanism, including controversies over land rights, «offsetting», forest definitions, and sustainable forest management; the emergence of payments for ecosystem services beyond REDD; the cap - and - trade versus carbon tax schemes; efforts to address the demand side of deforestation — notably consumption; emerging certification systems for agricultural and forestry products (i.e. RSPO, Aliança da Terra, FSC, etc); and Brazil's progress in meeting its deforestation reduction targets.

In fact, modelling by Access Economics (PDF) suggests that the loss of income under a consumption - based carbon tax would be about half that from a production - based tax or ETS

Since Australia exports a lot of embodied carbon, the tax on final consumption would raise a lot less revenue, and cause a much smaller economic shock.

Oakland should aim for a comprehensive carbon tax based on CO2 emissions or energy content that includes gasoline, oil, natural gas, and fossil fuel - fired electricity consumption by residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

So yes, the gas tax on a substance that contains carbon, but because of the linkage to road spending it's not clear how that tax actually affects gas consumption trends.

A carbon tax is the best way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and should be applied elsewhere across the board.

The point of the carbon tax is to internalize the actual costs of carbon consumption in prices on the street.

Australia has a carbon tax, essentially a tax on production and consumption of electricity, that cost business and consumers $ 6 billion for less than 0.1 % emissions reduction since its introduction.

Most «skeptics» have concluded, based on the available data, that the cost of «going to war» against CAGW (with carbon taxes, carbon rationing, top - down forced reductions in fossil fuel consumption, etc.) would be far greater than any «benefit» that might result, and would thus be «skeptical» of entering such a «war».

As the authors suggest, their finding runs counter to conventional economic thinking that consumption taxes (including carbon taxes) are necessarily regressive when revenue treatment is ignored.

It's true that consumption taxes, a category including carbon taxes, are «regressive» — they take a larger share of income from low - income households — but that's true only when the use of the tax revenues is ignored.

A whole good idea would be to make a payroll - tax holiday the first step in an orderly transition to scrapping the payroll tax altogether and replacing the lost revenue with a package of levies on things that, unlike jobs, we want less rather than more of — things like pollution, carbon emissions, oil imports, inefficient use of energy and natural resources, and excessive consumption.

(07/13/2012) Former Secretary of State George Shultz is calling for a carbon tax to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption, according to an interview released today by Stanford University.

A gradually increasing carbon tax or cap - and - trade system (already in place in some nations) would spur innovation while reducing fossil fuel consumption and promoting the use of renewables.