Sentences with phrase «cost on carbon pollution»

Not exact matches

Pretty well every economist you talk to will agree: If you want to reduce pollution, carbon or otherwise, the most cost - effective way to do so is with a price on the emissions of that which you seek to reduce.

Specifically, the tax on power generation includes a fixed cost of $ 5 per ton of carbon dioxide, plus a variable tax based on the pollution and environmental damage to the community where the plant is located.

The underlying motivation varies from buyer to buyer and usually involves one or more of these objectives: diminishing the demand for foreign oil, potentially releasing less pollution and carbon, saving money on cost per mile, driving solo in carpool lanes and / or irritating friends and strangers with an air of superiority.

Economists and policy makers used the metric to place a dollar cost on the economic impact of planet - warming carbon dioxide pollution: about $ 36 per ton.

An intelligent and fast - acting program for moving toward the best energy sources will have to involve equitable costs for carbon emissions and fair limits on greenhouse gas emissions; a level economic and legal playing field for all energy sources, purveyors, and users; and an open marketplace in which pollution level, safety, siting, and price will select the mix of sources.

This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost - effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy - wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050.

Our analysis shows that energy efficiency is the biggest part of that least - cost solution, and as a result there is no need to rely more heavily on natural gas than would be the case in the absence of the carbon pollution standards we propose.

Underscoring that maintaining carbon - intensive modes of production established in 19th - century Europe will incur enormous social and economic cost in the medium and long term, whereas shifting to a carbon - neutral future based on green technology and low - carbon energy creates wealth, jobs, new economic opportunities and local cobenefits in terms of health and reduced pollution,

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.

They will emerge from the program as energized and skilled communicators and advocates with the knowledge, tools and drive to educate diverse communities on the costs of carbon pollution and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

On the other hand, a carbon tax helps expand the clean - energy economy while cutting pollution - related costs paid by everyone.

The target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost - effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy - wide reductions on the order of 80 % by 2050.

A [carbon] tax, by imposing a cost on every single ton of pollutant, constantly engages the polluter with the task of reducing her pollution tax bill.

This Pollyanna view of fossil fuel alternatives and efficiency, which makes going green seem cheap and easy — little more than the cost of «a postage stamp a day» — has provided the justification for green - policy advocacy that has overwhelmingly focused on pollution regulations and carbon pricing while ignoring serious investment in energy research and development.

These benefits are a result of RGGI's market - based, cap - and - invest approach, which sets an annually declining limit on carbon pollution while enabling the power sector to achieve the reductions flexibly at least cost.

Instead of discouraging productive effort, initiative and investment as other tax burdens do, a tax on carbon pollution raises the cost of harmful activity and thereby encourages efficiency and renewable energy.

The sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by burning carbon fuels — including harm caused by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said during a news conference on Monday that «the high costs of climate inaction» are affecting American children and families today and it is important to limit carbon pollution.

Most modern lobbyists do not deny the irrefutable science indicating that our planet is warming, but instead deny the need for viable solutions — such as a cost on industrial carbon pollution, energy efficiency, clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels — as demonstrated by the science.

Putting an appropriate price on carbon pollution will force the coal industry and the coal - fired electric utility industry to internalize the cost of that pollution, which they are now allowed to foist off on everyone else.

Higher water temperatures and changes in extremes, including floods and droughts, are projected to affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution — from sediments, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, pathogens, pesticides and salt, as well as thermal pollution, with possible negative impacts on ecosystems, human health, and water system reliability and operating costs (high confidence).

In «Make a carbon tax part of reform effort» (Concord Monitor, 9/19/11), Holtz - Eakin argues for comprehensive tax reform to include a carbon tax so that more of the «true cost of burning a fossil fuel... in the form of air pollution, a negative impact on human health, harm to the environment or climate change [is a] component in economic decisions [such as] include whether to invest in a coal - fired power plant or a wind farm.»

After the training, trainees emerged as energized and skilled communicators with the knowledge, tools, and drive to take action, educating diverse global communities on the costs of carbon pollution and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

Economists on the left and right agree that putting a fee on carbon pollution is the most cost - effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.