Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel fee»

Not exact matches

Christy Clark, and her «Liberals», like the BC Chamber of Commerce, have been, and continue to be shills for the fossil fuel industry, for which they are paid handsomely in political donations, and / or «membership fees», and whatever other benefits come to them.

If the carbon fee had begun in 1995, we calculate that global emissions would have needed to decline 2.1 % / year to limit cumulative fossil fuel emissions to 500 GtC.

The suggestion of a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies with all revenues distributed to the public on a per capita basis [237] has received at least limited support [238].

The most fundamental implication is the need for an across - the - board rising fee on fossil fuel emissions in order to allow true free market competition from non-fossil energy sources.

The fee for unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands and gas from hydrofracking, should include carbon released in mining and refining processes, e.g., methane leakage in hydrofracking [245]--[249].

The investment seeks to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the total return performance of the S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Free Index.

In the video, Hansen doesn't discuss his preferred mechanism for propelling a shift away from fossil fuels — a rising fee on carbon - containing fuels that is fully returned to citizens.

For example, an «energy security fee» of $ 3.50 per barrel of imported oil would raise approximately $ 15 billion annually; reduced fossil fuel subsidies as proposed by the administration could generate upwards of $ 35 billion over ten years; a utilities electricity fee could raise at least $ 2 billion annually, as included in the Kerry - Lieberman American Power Act; and royalties on new offshore continental shelf drilling could raise more than $ 100 billion over twenty years.

I find it interesting that a particular organization might be indicted for supposedly being funded by the fossil fuel industry when so many organizations and studies fueling the global warming alarmism are funded by governments and not suprisingly endorse MORE government (in the form of regulations, regulatory agencies, taxes, fees, etc...) as a supposed «solution» to the problem.

A carbon fee + dividend scheme such as suggested by James Hansen would not only go a long way to «curb massively the fossil fuel use», but it would also have the added beneficial effects of slightly redistributing income, improving public health, stimulating the economy and greatly accelerating the inevitable transition to renewable energy.

It shows that a fully rebated fee of $ 49 / ton CO2e on the production of fossil fuels would provide the lowest 10 % on the income scale a 9 % net raise on per - person after tax income.

«GDP goes up because the fee and dividend provides a boost to consumer spending, reducing demand for fossil fuels does not have a significant impact on American employment and reduces energy imports from abroad, and the border adjustment means American firms are on a level playing field when it comes to competing on the world market.»

A steadily rising fee on the production of fossil fuels based on the carbon emissions that will be released when they are burned will raise the price of fossil fuels, not all energy options.

However, I want it to be clear that, although I - 732 is the closest proposed law to a simple honest carbon fee and dividend, a good example for other states and nations of a nearly revenue - neutral rising carbon fee, the national fee - and - dividend should be simpler, with 100 % of the money collected from the fossil fuel industry distributed uniformly to the public.

The straightforward carbon fee and dividend, with no funds for the government and no give - aways to the fossil fuel industry, is the half - way point between the Boxer - Sanders bill from 2016 and this new concoction by Baker, Schultz & co..

Benefits of the carbon fee - and - dividend (in which an across - the - board rising carbon fee is collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port — of - entry, with 100 % of the money given to the public, an equal amount to each citizen) include the following:

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.

(1) Economic studies show this to be, by far, the fastest way to phase down fossil fuel emissions, much superior to cap - and - trade or regulations on emissions, but fee - and - dividend can be applied effectively on top of any existing efforts to reduce emissions.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

The idea, proposed by Hansen, is simple: a fee on carbon emissions collected from fossil - fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to legal residents on a per capita basis.

He also explains his idea of putting a fee on carbon with dividend back to the people in order to cut back our dependence on fossil fuels.

The most straightforward form of carbon pricing is a carbon tax, which, in its simplest version, imposes a fee on every ton of carbon that enters the economy («upstream,» on fossil fuel producers and importers, as opposed to «downstream,» on fossil fuel consumers).

People would pay a tax or a fee on either the carbon they emit or the fossil fuels they purchase to incentivize lower usage as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The coalition has been urging the Council to introduce a more ambitious and timely carbon «fee - and - rebate» policy, which would put a fee on fossil fuel energy and re-invest the revenue into the D.C. community with rebates to residents and strategic investments in clean energy solutions.

Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that money.

The proposal requires fossil fuel companies doing business in the District to pay a fee for every ton of carbon dioxide they put into the atmosphere.

Companies that buy and sell fossil fuels in our city would pay a steadily rising fee on each ton of heat - trapping pollution they cause.

Carbon fee - and - dividend would start with a fee on fossil fuels similar to a carbon tax.

Both S. 1821 and H. 1726 would charge fees on fossil fuels when they enter the state, creating incentives to use less of them.

c. Only workable solution: rising across — the — board flat fee on carbon, collected from fossil companies at point where fossil fuel enters domestic market (domestic mine or port of entry).

By year 10 the fee collected from fossil fuel companies would be over $ 500 billion per year, providing $ 2 — 3,000 per legal adult resident of the country.

We can at that time know what was and was not a benefit of «cheap» fossil fuels by seeing what benefits people choose freely to give up and what benefits they choose freely to replace them with in an economy with the same net budget (as the government doesn't take a penny of the fees and the buyers get all the dividends).

And a concern of removing fossil fuel subsidies — particularly in the current political climate of worries about oil imports — is that this can work against so - called «energy security» (some have therefore suggested the addition of an «oil import fee»).

Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the producers of fossil fuels, can be an effective way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

Why not take the revenue from the fee created to tax fossil fuels and use that money to invest in green businesses and entrepreneurs?

The fee for unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands and gas from hydrofracking, should include carbon released in mining and refining processes, e.g., methane leakage in hydrofracking [245]--[249].

How can a carbon fee and dividend program continue to pay higher dividends to households in the future when the projection is that fossil fuel usage will decrease?

Writing in Harper's Magazine in 1995, former Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan called Lindzen a «hood ornament» for the fossil fuels industry, alleging that the scientist once received $ 2,500 a day in consulting fees from oil and gas companies.

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $ 10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from «fossil - fuel types» in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since.

In this system, a fee is attached to fossil fuel products based on their associated carbon emissions, and 100 percent of the revenue is returned to the citizens.

The transformation of our fossil fuels - based energy system to reliance on energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable fuels won't happen fast enough without carbon fees or taxes sending the appropriate persistent and rising price signals into every corner of the economy and every aspect of life.

Economists from left to right have advocated achieving this by putting a rising fee or tax on fossil fuels.

All the income collected from the fees on fossil fuel production would be returned in equal per capita amounts to all legal residents to compensate for rising energy costs.

If carbon fee & dividend were implemented in the USA, the increasing the price of fossil fuels and their products would have the effect of reducing their use, compared to fossil - fuel - independent energy sources and products.

With a carbon fee - and - rebate policy called the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act of D.C., companies that buy and sell fossil fuels in the District would pay a steadily - rising fee on each ton of heat - trapping pollution they cause.

The rising fee will be charged to the roughly 1,140 fossil fuel producers via a simple line item on their monthly / quarterly estimated tax filings, and the rising dividends will be distributed equally to every citizen regardless of how much carbon they consume.

It charges a slowly rising fee on fossil fuel producers at the entry point to our economy (coal mine, gas / oil well or import terminal) but then returns 100 percent of the fee (less administrative costs) back to all consumers equally via a monthly dividend check.

Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages.

We know that the fossil fuel producers will pass along the rising fee to consumers through the markets, but those increased costs will be offset by the dividend.

The fee is collected at the mine or port of entry — no fossil fuel escapes the fee.