Sentences with phrase «carbon price revenue»

Over 50 per cent of carbon price revenue will be spent on households.

Not exact matches

The deal she hammered out with most of the provinces late last year urges them to enact carbon pricing, but promises that even if Ottawa has to step in to impose a tax, they'll get to keep the revenues.

Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna have long insisted Ottawa would collect no revenue from the carbon price the federal government is requiring the provinces and territories impose by 2018.

If NERA had assumed a more productive use of revenue from the carbon price, and had not assumed a considerable slowdown in clean energy innovation (see point # 3 below), economic outcomes could improve further.

Opinion: Most provincial and federal climate plans use carbon pricing as a revenue tool to fund government programs that subsidize inefficient carbon reduction strategies

- Revenues collected from Alberta manufacturers through carbon pricing must be re-invested in helping businesses offset the cost of purchasing new machinery and equipment.

While the NDP has signalled that they will only raise the price of carbon once mandated to by the federal government, the platform is unclear as to whether the current revenue neutrality of the carbon tax will be maintained.

$ 8 billion) over first ten years for deficit reductionObeys PAYGO; Starting in 2026, 25 % of auction revenues for deficit reductionFuels and TransportationIncrease biofuels to 60 million gallons by 2030, low - carbon fuel standard of 10 % by 2010, 1 million plug» in hybrid cars by 2025, raise fuel economy standards, smart growth funding, end oil subsidies, promote natural gas drilling, enhanced oil recoverySmart growth funding, plug - in hybrids, raise fuel economy standards $ 7 billion a year for smart growth funding, plug - in hybrids, natural gas vehicles, raise fuel economy standards; offshore drilling with revenue sharing and oil spill veto, natural gas fracking disclosureCost ContainmentInternational offsetsOffset pool, banking and borrowing flexibility, soft price collar using permit reserve auction at $ 28 per ton going to 60 % above three - year - average market price» Hard» price collar between $ 12 and $ 25 per ton, floor increases at 3 % + CPI, ceiling at 5 % + CPI, plus permit reserve auction, offsets like W - MClean Air Act And StatesNot discussedOnly polluters above 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, regional cap and trade suspended until 2017, EPA to set stationary source performance standards in 2016, some Clean Air Act provisions excludedOnly polluters above 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, regional cap and trade pre-empted, establishes coal - fired plant performance standards, some Clean Air Act provisions excludedInternational CompetitivenessTax incentives for domestic auto industryFree allowances for trade - exposed industries, 2020 carbon tariff on importsCarbon tariff on importsReferences: Barack Obama, 2007; Barack Obama, 8/3/08; Pew Center, 6/26/09; leaked drafts of American Power Act, 5/11/10.

Cons: The major problem with geologic sequestration right now is economics: unless geologic sequestration is coupled with EOR, there aren't many sources of revenue associated with the process (especially when carbon prices remain so low and uncertain).

This means it covers the direct cost of low - carbon subsidies, energy efficiency and carbon taxes, as well as indirect costs due to strengthening grids, backing up intermittent renewables, compensating conventional generation for lost revenue through the capacity market and savings due to the merit - order effect, which pushes down wholesale electricity prices.

The advantage of subsidy reform are significant and varied: appropriate energy prices would reduce global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21 % and fuel - related air pollution deaths by 55 %, while simultaneously boosting extra revenue of 4 % of global GDP and increasing social welfare by 2.2 % of global GDP.

Putting a price on carbon and rebatting the revenues to consumers to compensate for higher prices is the right idea and does give the right incentives.

It's a simple concept — put a much needed price on carbon pollution, but return all the revenue that's generated to taxpayers (for example with a monthly refund) to offset rising energy costs.

This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue - neutral carbon tax system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.

Under proposed revenue - neutral carbon tax legislation, about two - thirds of taxpayers are projected to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices.

«This unsurpassed level of direct carbon revenue sharing is made possible by the combination of Plan Vivo's 60 percent community revenue - sharing requirement, the premium price of $ 9 per tonne COTAP pays projects, and our modest and transparent margin of 9.1 percent.

Regardless of the mechanism chosen, any carbon pricing system implemented should be Revenue Neutral so that the government does not become dependent on the revenue from the fee, tax or trade cRevenue Neutral so that the government does not become dependent on the revenue from the fee, tax or trade crevenue from the fee, tax or trade credits.

If you really want to put AGW fans to the test, do what I do occasionally and ask them to consider a world where the only source of revenue is from carbon taxing (ie the maxm theoretical price effect for any given level of revenue) It really sets the hares running but inevitably they conclude it would be far too drastic for most tastes.

Actual «long - run carbon price» (LRCP): A country's average carbon price, counting all revenues and emissions from day 1 of the treaty.

S.R.E.A.: the carbon cycle's waste recycling service is demonstrably Scarce, Rivalrous, Excludable and Administrable, therefore it ought be privatized and traded on the Market with the price set by the Law of Supply and Demand, and the revenues returned to the owners — everyone who draws breath — per capita.

It would also be possible to design a carbon - revenue - credit trading system that allows one country to pay another country for setting a higher price than required.

I - 732, on the ballot on November 8, would be the first revenue - neutral price on carbon in the United States.

In the 2016 elections, the passage of a number of revenue initiatives connected to direct investment in things people want could be a bellwether for carbon price - and - invest policies.

Similarly, support for carbon pricing is likely to be much stronger if a large share of the revenue is invested in communities in desirable ways.

Their goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote transition to a green energy economy through a revenue neutral «carbon fee and dividend» approach to pricing carbon pollution from fossil fuels.

So - called «revenue - neutral» carbon pricing — whereby the proceeds are used to fund tax cuts — has long been a cherished hobbyhorse of free - market economists and the odd Republican who favors climate action.

The carbon prices already in place were worth about $ 50 billion in 2016, and international action coordinated by the Paris Accord could generate a new stream of revenue in participating nations in future years.

Why blame environmental, EJ and climate activists for pressing to spend carbon revenue in ways that are popular and enhance the effect of its price signal?

To make up for the missed revenue from the taxes and fire prevention fees, as well as to pay for offsets to counteract additional allowances put on the market if the carbon price hits its upper bound, money will be taken from the cap - and - trade program's revenue, effectively decreasing the amount of discretionary funds remaining for local environmental investments and other greenhouse gas reduction projects.

To the extent the a country is concerned with its poor and with the popularity of its carbon pricing policy, revenues can simply be refunded on a per - capital basis (as is done with about $ 1,500 / person / year of oil pipeline revenues in Alaska).

A price on carbon will create an economic incentive to reduce emissions from the electricity, heating, and transportation sectors, and will also create a revenue stream that can be used to fund programs needed to implement the Clean Energy DC Plan.

Recently, California's Senate President introduced legislation to significantly increase its carbon price while rebating the majority of the revenues back to residents in the form of a quarterly dividend.

With the falling carbon prices and very little revenue from CDM shares to fund Adaptation Fund activities, Green Climate Fund, seems to be the only ray of hope for Adaptation Fund to reach its full potential to «reduce vulnerability and increase adaptive capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change».

«A properly designed revenue - neutral price on carbon will improve economic efficiency, promote better environmental outcomes than existing policy and allow market forces to determine the course to a lower - carbon future.»

Right now, the D.C. City Council is considering introducing a price on carbon that would significantly drive down carbon dioxide emissions in our city — while giving revenue directly back to District residents.

«The elegance of a revenue - neutral carbon price is that the economy may devise solutions that aren't initially apparent.»

To achieve this, The Nature Conservancy is investing $ 3 million to help chart a viable path forward: helping unite a coalition behind a winning statewide climate policy — via the Legislature or a ballot initiative — that puts a price on carbon in order to reduce carbon emissions, support clean energy, help industries in transition, and generate revenue which can be used to reduce the fire risk, flooding and drought.

And of course my favorite non-BRICS, as it has a very USA - like economy in miniature (except a stable, growing economy and well - managed low - corporate - tax haven that uses direct democracy to decide tax issues) with a carbon cycle pricing scheme that could become a model for a made - in - America policy that puts revenues from carbon - emission - pricing in the pockets of the owners of the carbon cycle — the citizens, directly, British Columbia.

The Commission's report also states that well - designed carbon pricing can be an efficient way of generating revenue.

What the paper actually did was compare carbon tax revenue to total tax revenue and consider what that might imply about practical limitations to how countries can price carbon.

RAC is calling on the government to invest more in rail infrastructure and technology to reduce fuel emissions, and recommends that revenues collected from carbon pricing programs be directed to rail, similar to what the Quebec government has done with its Green Fund.

It differs from how I would do it, as does the British Columbia Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (successful and growing in popularity for 4 years now), the Australian Pricing Mechanism, or any of the Cap & Trade schemes or various carbon taxes that return nothing to the owners of the carbon cycle.

The most efficient carbon price is almost certainly a pure carbon emissions tax applied on all emissions in the economy, with revenue recycled through reductions in the most distortionary taxes in the economy — the so - called double dividend.

When a price is put on carbon emissions, it creates a revenue stream.

Fiscal instruments (carbon taxes or similar) are the most effective policies for reflecting environmental costs in energy prices and promoting development of cleaner technologies, while also providing a valuable source of revenue (including, not least, for lowering other tax burdens).

Our carbon dividend strategy has four interrelated elements that account for its strength: a gradually rising and revenue - neutral carbon tax; carbon dividend payments made equally to all Americans, to be funded using all the carbon - tax revenue; rollback of costly command - and - control regulations that were implemented because the environmental costs of carbon fuels have not been incorporated into their price; and border adjustment to ensure a level playing field and U.S. competitiveness.

A $ 5 - per - ton fee could raise revenue for core city priorities related to climate mitigation, while lightly nudging energy markets in the right direction and demonstrating that carbon pricing is popular.

A revenue - neutral carbon - tax would directly raise the price of carbon - based energy, imposing the greatest cost on those firms and forms of energy that produce the most emissions.

Pricing carbon and turning over the revenues of its sales at prices set by the Law of Supply and Demand would give individual consumers more power over governments and special interests than at any time since Hamurabi.

In Washington, these diametrically opposed pressures have taken the form of revenue - neutral versus revenue - positive carbon prices — but the same tension has the potential to bedevil virtually any climate policy discussion.