Sentences with phrase «carbon price signal»

In fact, it already does The only thing missing is the crucial carbon price signal ---- the economic reform required for solving the market failure of climate change.

Their main claim is that a carbon price signal could make industries like aluminium production leave Australia causing «carbon leakage», and they therefore should be given free permits.

Emissions trading systems have been intentionally riddled with loopholes to enable companies to postpone cutting emissions as well as mute the carbon price signal that would favor the lower - emitting products or services on the market.

Ultimately, a long - term carbon price signal will be needed to set adequate investment incentives and hence enable a low - carbon energy transition.

It remains to be seen, therefore, what sort of carbon price signal an individual oil sands operation would be exposed to under the Alberta Plan and whether it will be sufficient to drive technological innovation in the sector.

Still at official side - events at COP23 in Bonn, both the German G20 Sherpa Roeller and Environment Minister Hendricks stressed the importance of ending the perverse incentives through subsidizing fossil fuels, and introducing carbon pricing signals to foster the transformative change needed for reaching the Paris goals.

What's more, the impressive growth rates clean energy technologies are experiencing in several European markets are the more the results of generous deployment subsidies than the carbon price signals established by the ETS.

Not exact matches

«Pricing carbon pollution — and investing in solutions — sends a strong signal to Albertans and Canadians that the province is serious about delivering on its Climate Leadership Plan.

Pricing carbon pollution is one of the strongest signals Alberta could send that it is serious about climate action and carbon competitiveness.

Carbon pricing works because it sends a policy signal that directly affects behaviour, rewarding those who make choices that reduce carbon pollution.

Simply — and stringently — price carbon emissions across all sectors of the economy consistent with our obligation under article 4.4 of the UN Paris Agreement to undertake economy - wide absolute emission reductions, and allow the market to react to that unequivocally clear price signal.

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.

Ford said he would support a gas tax or a price on carbon to add some stability to the market that could send better signals to the auto manufacturers.

This price, which essentially transforms the trading scheme into a tax, must be high enough so that it sends a credible signal that emitters must invest in technologies and practices that lower carbon emissions.

They send signals, through increased prices and the awarding of valuable carbon credits, that industrial economies must shake the carbon habit.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) proposed amendments to the program yesterday evening that envision a carbon market through 2050 with increasing allowance prices, sending a signal to businesses that have been waiting to see if they should keep participating in the state's quarterly auctions.

Taxes give clear, long - term price signals that make it easier for firms to make intelligent investments that will cut carbon emissions, whereas the price volatility of cap - and - trade systems impedes wise planning.

The bulk of the economic investment signal is going to come from the cap, and the carbon price that comes from that.

This is why carbon taxes make sense, as they help push everyone along in unison by sending everyone a price signal that's hard to ignore.

But, we need one of these approaches to provide the right market pricing context and thus signals / motivations so that people (companies, the government, individuals, etc.) make investments and other choices within a context that limits and discourages carbon dioxide emissions.

There is an urgent need to scale up financial flows, particularly financial support to developing countries; to create positive incentives for actions; to finance the incremental costs of cleaner and low - carbon technologies; to make more efficient use of funds directed toward climate change; to realize the full potential of appropriate market mechanisms that can provide pricing signals and economic incentives to the private sector; to promote public sector investment; to create enabling environments that promote private investment that is commercially viable; to develop innovative approaches; and to lower costs by creating appropriate incentives for and reducing and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer relevant to both mitigation and adaptation.

The fact that the world's highest per capita emitter and largest coal exporter puts a price on carbon sends a signal internationally.

Permit prices, since they would be more volatile over time than a specified tax trajectory, would mask the critical long - term signal that carbon will always be more expensive next year than it is today; that is, unavoidable volatility in permit prices would raise the economic cost of any climate target by clouding investment decisions with another source of uncertainty.

Without a clear signal that carbon has a price, European power utilities will be charmed by the cheapness of coal, increasingly available thanks to America's embrace of shale gas.

What we need is a price signal for carbon that reflects the damage it is doing to our planet.

This demonstrates that there is significant waste in the treatment of fossil fuels that will disappear when a price signal for wasting the resource is sent to consumers; further, we know there are significant and readily available alternatives for energy to energy derived from burning carbon, and when the price is made clear and fair, the preference for these alternatives is amply illustrated in the Market; from these two effects we see that the Law of Supply and Demand is relevant to the pricing of CO2E, and not monopolistic pricing.

1 This is particularly important at a time when there are no market signals, like a carbon price, to jumpstart domestic action and spur investment in clean energy.

The price bounces around and that adds a little bit of uncertainty, potentially a lot of uncertainty... A tax, on the other hand, sends a very strong price signal that's unambiguous and not clouded with a lot of noise, so that people can actually understand what carbon will cost them and how the price of carbon will increase persistently and predictably over time.

Equally important, the group urges that government catalyze the development of energy alternatives by sending «a strong market signal» through such mechanisms as mandates on utilities to produce more renewable energy or «a price or a cap» on carbon emissions1.

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?

A predictably increasing carbon price would send a clear market signal which will unleash entrepreneurs and investors in the new clean - energy economy.

President Obama has signaled before that he'd be open to carbon pricing as an alternative to EPA regulation.

In a global market, a single disaster like SoCal Gas's wouldn't hit the innocents that hard, but it would send a clear signal to other companies thinking of saving a few bucks on a safety valve or two: with a price on carbon, cheap is expensive.

Provide a price signal strong enough to reduce the need for future regulation of carbon emissions while preserving the EPA's present Clean Air Act regulatory authority.

Carbon prices can give an immediate cost signal to consumers and begin to internalize the effects of carbon pollution.

However, the effectiveness of a given carbon pricing policy will depend on the strength of the price signal, the breadth of the economy it covers, and how well any spending programs or other complementary features solve additional market failures that a price alone does not address.

«A dramatic energy sector transition would require steady, long - term price signals to be economically efficient, to allow timely adoption of low - carbon technologies and to minimise the amount of stranded energy assets.

Indeed, there are practical, real - world reasons for the carbon tax to start below the SCC — to allow households and businesses at least a little time to adjust to higher fossil fuel costs — but to soon rise to meet or even exceed the SCC, in order to counterbalance institutional barriers that prevent societies from responding to price signals fully and instantly.

Any tax that makes fossil fuels more expensive is technically a carbon tax, sending a price signal to consumers and business to use less.

The carbon price sends a signal to manage carbon and make technology investments while the rebating lowers the overall cost impact.

A new report commissioned by The Climate Institute says Australia's carbon pollution will continue to soar without price signals to make companies take responsibility for their emissions.

By reporting potential emissions, a company would acknowledge its contribution to the carbon budget and implicitly show that it is preparing to respond to policies and market signals for a low - carbon future, such as a price on carbon pollution.

And with energy prices set to rise for a range of reasons, a carbon price would be lost in there and have no «market signal».

Once proper carbon, rapid - response and future scarcity price signals are applied, hydro is likely to be a more lucrative form of load balancing power than natural gas, even though both will prosper through premium pricing over the medium term.

The third need is for reformed markets to allow proper price signals to be created for investment in the most cost - effective, low emission energy sources, instead of allowing some industries — like LNG — to exclude inconvenient costs (like carbon pollution and environmental degradation from investment calculations.

Fourth, although carbon pricing is not sufficient on its own (because of other market failures that reduce the impact of price signals — more about this below), it is a necessary component of a sensible climate policy, because of factors 1 through 3, above.

Believing that a carbon price — any carbon price — would work as a quasi-mystical «price signal» on the market, ushering in a world of solar farms and electric cars, they stiffed Chu.

In my view, a predictable, broad - based price on carbon that takes into account climate impacts in an appropriate way fits the bill for getting markets to function appropriately and sends the right signals to producers, consumers, and innovators.

As part of our commitment to the creation of a more efficient economy that better tracks externalities, the Ven has particular advantages for everyone, including an embedded carbon signal and forward price stability.

Can we, should we, really rely on «taxes plus praying the innovative power of the market takes those price signals and makes us a carbon - free infrastructure?»