Sentences with phrase «for carbon pricing policies»

These equity concerns include: the regressive impact of potential energy price increases on low - income households; the potential for carbon pricing policies to allow some fossil fuel - fired power plants or refineries to continue to operate and emit air and water pollutants in neighborhoods already burdened by pollution; and the economic hardship to workers and communities dependent on fossil fuel industries for livelihoods or for their tax base as we transition away from these resources.

Not exact matches

With the exception of implicit prices on carbon on some emissions in Sweden, Japan, and Germany (see this recent OECD report for details), no carbon pricing policy in place today comes close to that type of stringency.

Or think of the price the Canadian economy is expected to pay for the damage wreaked by climate change after years of oil industry lobbyists opposing serious carbon reduction policies.

Some say implementing carbon pricing now will hurt the Canadian economy by making it harder for Canada to compete with the United States, which has no such policy.

That's why we produced How To Adopt a Winning Carbon Price: Top 10 Takeaways From the Architects of British Columbia's Carbon Tax — a new compendium of insider tips for policy makers who may be considering a carbon pricing program.

I notice that TAU's two official reasons are: 1) insufficient market for CO2, and 2) lack of a high enough policy - driven carbon price.

VICTORIA — Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, made the following statement in response to the federal government's 2018 budget: «Today's budget announced support for implementing key pieces of the government's climate change and clean growth plan, including putting a price on carbon pollution and extending tax support for clean energy.

Canada's coming national price on carbon adds further fuel to the debate, as some will be looking for Canadian industries affected by the carbon price to get protections, maybe even in the form of a carbon tax applied at the border on goods coming from places in the U.S. where there is no such policy.

The game changing election of Donald Trump to President of the United States and the competitiveness implications for Canadian carbon pricing policies should be at the top of the agenda when First Ministers meet in December.

Exhibit A is a price on carbon, a foundational policy that rewards clean innovation and curbs demand for fossil fuels.

In case anyone didn't notice, the context for climate policy and carbon pricing in Canada has just changed dramatically.

The decisions the current Government takes on transport to tackle the dual challenges of climate change and rising oil prices could have significant repercussions for many years to come... Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government to: «Change direction on transport policy - and aim to rapidly move towards a low - carbon transport system... Vehicle Excise Duty must be changed to make road tax on gas - guzzlers more expensive - and cheaper for greener cars...»

A call for more research, less coal and a carbon price The report offers 10 policy recommendations to curb the morbidity and mortality stemming from climate change.

For example, Paul is against putting a price on carbon emissions, something that climate policy experts and more than a few multinational companies are nearly unanimous in supporting.

«An effective carbon price coupled with technology and operational improvements will be key to unlocking the huge potential for pollution - free shipping,» said Kelsey Perlman, international transport policy officer for Carbon Market Watch.

With deep relationships in key policy centres and commercial arenas, IETA is the collective voice for the full range of businesses involved in carbon pricing - all around the world.

It is important that the sequencing of policy steps for achieving the emissions target build from obvious win - wins to more difficult steps such as establishing a shadow price for carbon.

For many years, there has been a great deal of discussion about carbon - pricing — whether carbon taxes or cap - and - trade — as an essential part of a meaningful national climate policy.

Cheaper and better clean energy technologies are not a substitute for pricing, regulatory, public procurement or other policies that will be necessary to make a full transition from fossil fuel based technologies to low carbon technologies.

The best recent representation of Sachs's views is the paper he and others co-authored with James E. Hansen, the longtime NASA climate scientist who now has a climate policy position at Columbia, in which they build on Hansen's longstanding call for a rising price on carbon.

The fact that this country is putting a carbon price and complementary policies in place, at a level not below that of the EU, is remarkable and ought to be a sign of encouragement for other countries.

In the wake of Australia's move to add a price to carbon dioxide emissions — which is particularly notable considering the country is one of the world's big exporters of coal (and related CO2 emissions)-- I sent a query to some Australian analysts of climate and energy policy to see if this holds lessons for the United States.

An auctioned cap or a tax with 100 % return of the proceeds to the people is the most practical policy for several reasons: (a) it would begin real carbon reductions quickly; (b) it would be an honest and transparent way of treating the American people; (c) it would attract the broadest attainable political coalition across party lines; (d) it would be administratively simple for both the government and the private sector (with the tax or auctioned permits collected at the first point of sale or import of the carbon - containing fuel); (e) it would be a non-regressive way of introducing the carbon price into the economy; and (f) it would avoid a fiasco such as the special interest feeding frenzy that surrounded the recently failed Boxer - Lieberman - Warner bill in Congress.

And even if other carbon pricing systems do take off, a complementary «pre-pay» policy could prove beneficial for stimulating early commercial demand for carbon removal solutions.

At a plausible GHG emissions price of $ 50 / t CO2eq under a future US carbon mitigation policy, such co-production systems competing as power suppliers would be able to provide low - GHG - emitting synthetic fuels at the same unit cost as for coal synfuels characterized by ten times the GHG emission rate that are produced in plants having three times the synfuel output capacity and requiring twice the total capital investment.

«For example, adopting best - in - Canada policies on renewable energy, staged phase - out of coal power and pricing carbon pollution in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be three times more effective in reducing carbon pollution than current policies.

May 26: «Evolving carbon prices in an uncertain world: the case for cooperation but not too much» by Alan Lee, Climate Change Policy Analyst.

Every few years, New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity surveys economists who have expertise on climate change, and it always finds overwhelming support for putting a price on carbon to drive down emissions — support that ideologues on the right routinely dismiss, usually on unfounded «economic» grounds.

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.

One reason for the low carbon price in the EU ETS is that many European countries have other climate policies (carbon floor prices, feed - in tariffs to support renewables, energy efficiency policies, transport policies, etc) which are taking the load off the ETS.

In the face of uncertainty about future policies to address climate change, companies are using internal carbon pricing in their strategic planning to manage regulatory risk and explore future scenarios for potential investments.

In an op - ed which appeared on July 27th in The Boston Globe (click here for link to the original op - ed), Richard Schmalensee and I commented on this unfortunate outcome of U.S. political debates and described the irony that the attack on cap - and - trade — and carbon - pricing, more broadly — has been led by conservatives, who should take pride as the creators of these cost - effective policy innovations in three Republican administrations.

There is evidence that the Midwest is steadily decarbonizing its electricity generation through a combination of new state - level policies (for example, energy efficiency and renewable energy standards) and will continue to do so in response to low natural gas prices, falling prices for renewable electricity (for example, wind and solar), greater market demand for lower - carbon energy from consumers, and new EPA regulations governing new power plants.

Ultimately, the U.S. needs a long - term clean energy policy that create a long - term market for renewable energy, encourages and supports the integration of renewable energy, puts a price on carbon emissions, and increases funding for research and development.

But it is dangerous to believe that a carbon price, or any single market - based policy, will do the work for us, rendering other efforts superfluous or unnecessary.

These principles were adopted by American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), BCL, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP), Corporate Climate Alliance (CCA), and Partnership for Responsible Growth (PRG) as a values - based way to understand key issues of carbon pricing, as well as a starting point for comparing specific policy propPolicy (BICEP), Corporate Climate Alliance (CCA), and Partnership for Responsible Growth (PRG) as a values - based way to understand key issues of carbon pricing, as well as a starting point for comparing specific policy proppolicy proposals:

How do those who argue for «values» as a primary input to policy analysis justify the cost of values judgements that cause government to waste huge amounts of public money funding irrational policies — such as carbon pricing and incentives for renewable energy?

And worse still they continually argue for irrational policies — like government imposed carbon pricing schemes and very high cost renewable energy while blocking nuclear power development.

24 October 2017 Every few years, New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity surveys economists who have expertise on climate change, and it always finds overwhelming support for putting a price on carbon to drive down emissions — support that ideologues on the right routinely dismiss, usually on unfounded «economic» grounds.

Blue Moon Fund grant for «To support global climate change mitigation by continuing to develop an unconventional oils index to quantify and ultimately index the carbon potential of different oils, to inform policy decisions including differentiated carbon pricing, regulatory refo»

For instance, a market - based policy like a price on carbon might encourage consumers to buy more fuel - efficient cars, but it will fall well short of revolutionizing global energy infrastructure and technologies.

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.

Jim Dipeso, Policy Director of Republicans for the Environment, endorses this approach, saying that it «makes use of market principles, by prodding the market to tell the truth about the costs of carbon — based energy through prices.

The Commission's report, released today in Berlin, concluded that a carbon price of $ 40 - $ 80 per ton of CO2 equivalent by 2020, rising to $ 50 - $ 100 per ton by 2030, when combined with supportive policies, would allow for achievement of the Paris goal.

This paper sets out: - a definition of the social cost of carbon, hitherto used in UK government appraisals to reflect the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions; - the rationale for adopting a shadow price of carbon (SPC) for use in policy and investment appraisals across UK government; and the factors which the SPC reflects which the social cost of carbon (SCC) does not; - our approach to setting the appropriate level for the shadow price of carbon (SPC), now and in the future; and - how the SPC should be used in policy advice, and why it differs from other carbon price and cost concepts.

Beyond 2030, regional carbon prices increase, including for countries that previously had no climate policies, and progressively converge at a speed that depends on their per capita income; on average, the world GHG intensity over 2030 - 2050 decreases at the same rate as for 2020 - 2030.

The Energy Foundation's Climate Program seeks to build support for effective policies that would put a price on carbon and help...

Obama: I have always been in favor of an «all of the above» climate policy, including a carbon price with cap and trade, crippling EPA regulatory restrictions on the coal plus oil and gas industries, fewer incentives for exploratory drilling, no further drilling on government lands, no Keystone pipeline, more taxes on the rich, etc..

But for the core of climate policy — which is carbon pricing — the simplest, cleanest, and best way to avoid unnecessary costs and unnecessary actions is for existing state systems to become part of the federal system.

My push is certainly more practical in that it looks for a way to modify the existing policy to get a credible price on every or, to be fair, most tons of carbon emissions to get the incentives aligned for innovation and the elimination of low - value uses of carbon.