Sentences with phrase «fuel carbon taxes»

There are no free passes on fossil fuel carbon taxes although low income wager earners receive a carbon tax rebate.

Not exact matches

On the other hand, if higher fuel taxes work as intended and get drivers to burn less carbon, then those people will find themselves ahead.

In a recently released study, Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice, the IMF calculates what it considers to be the appropriate level of fuel taxes (a carbon tax by any other name) for 156 different countries.

Why also is eco-friendly British Columbia, home of a provincial carbon tax designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels, being such a willing conduit for transporting US coal to Asian markets?

Posted by Jeff Rubin on August 12th, 2014 under SmallerWorldTags: British Columbia, carbon tax, fuel tax, IMF, income taxes • 1 Comment

Whether individuals are better off for this quid pro quo depends on how carbon taxes affect fuel consumption.

The logic behind carbon pricing — most likely either a tax on fossil fuels or a cap - and - trade system that allows companies to sell emission permits back and forth — is powerful.

In Alberta and B.C., GST is applied on top of the carbon tax on direct consumer fossil - fuel purchases, such as gasoline, as well as on products where a business has added some or all of the cost of the carbon tax to the cost of their good or service.

Regardless of whether the fuel source is coal, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or propane the tax doesn't discriminate, levying a $ 30 per tonne charge on emissions from all carbon fuels.

If you don't think people consume too much by way of fossil fuels, then there's no need for a carbon tax.»

Carbon taxes are a lot more complicated to implement and can create perverse incentives for nonparticipating countries to burn more carbon — because fuel prices fall as demand goes down.

Then I tried the economic freedom line: «A carbon tax makes fossil fuels more expensive, so people have an incentive to consume less.

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.

(b) the Vancouver exurbs are places like Chilliwack that don't have a 6c / litre transit tax at the pump, which makes fuel there cheaper than in the metro area, and this discount kind of offsets the carbon tax.

In plain terms, we are choosing to penalize our own energy industry with severe financial measures, when other jurisdictions like the U.S. are slashing taxes and red tape, rejecting carbon taxes, and calling for expanded fossil fuel production due to growing global demand.

While axing a tax on the fuel Albertans produce is popular, much of the energy sector appears reasonably happy a provincial government is doing things to erase Alberta's old image as an environmental laggard; last month, oil sands heavyweights Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. talked up Alberta's new environmental efforts to European investors, and their executives joined Notley on stage when the climate change plan and carbon tax were first announced.

The protestors called upon Cuomo to support 100 % clean energy as soon as possible (Hawkins supports a target date of 2030); a ban on new fracked - gas / fossil - fuel infrastructure; and a state carbon tax.

Hawkins also said for Earth Day that New York should commit to 100 % clean energy by 2030, stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure and enact a carbon tax.

Hawkins supports legislation to require NYS to go to 100 % clean energy (not just electricity) by 2030; a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure (including revoking the CPV permit in Orange County); and a robust carbon tax.

He will also address the upcoming Earth Day holiday, and New York's need for 100 % clean energy by 2030, stopping all new fossil fuel infrastructure, and enacting a carbon tax.

A carbon tax could make the dirtiest fossil fuels unprofitable.

Some, including New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, have suggested that a national carbon tax — an extra cost per amount of fossil fuel burned — would be simpler and more effective than any cap - and - trade system.

The report, Australian Urban and Regional Development Review, suggested a tax of A$ 5 per tonne of emitted carbon, which would increase the selling price of fuel.

The idea is to impose a tax on fuels based on the amount of carbon dioxide they put into the air when burned.

Sanders» campaign is describing him as a dramatically ambitious climate candidate who supports a carbon tax, opposes fracking and promises to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

Fertilizer and distributed power from fuel cells would satisfy important demands in both of those countries, so the economic model of PurGen could make sense there, too — again, assuming that local tax laws recognize the benefits of burying carbon rather than spewing it into the atmosphere.

Rosenthal says that if carbon dioxide emissions become taxed in the future due to continuing concerns about global warming, his solar - driven catalyst for making synthetic fuel will compete even better economically with fossil fuels.

Pearce proposes that a fair carbon tax — to take account of the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels — would be between $ 10 and $ 20 per tonne of carbon.

«My idea of a carbon tax would be to help fund clean fossil fuel research and development, not to fund the government, not to punish fossil fuel generation, not to manipulate fuel choice,» Cramer said.

carbon price floor tax: a tax on fossil fuels used in electricity generation.

An early target of the campaign is European proposals for a carbon tax on fossil fuels, rising to $ 10 per barrel by the end of the decade.

Most fossil fuel people here now love carbon taxes, regulations for they increasingly improve profits, reduce risks or involve subsidies to investors.

This scenario would change if there were a significant tax on carbon emissions, or if an equivalent economic penalty were imposed on fossil - fueled plants through a cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or a requirement that CO2 be sequestered.

Then they compared two ways to stay within that limit: in one, they taxed terrestrial carbon emissions and industrial and fossil fuel emissions all at the same rate.

This 2018 Cadillac CTS - V Sedan is proudly offered by Cadillac of Arlington This Cadillac includes: GAS GUZZLER TAX LPO, ALL - WEATHER MAT PROTECTION PACKAGE Floor Mats ADVANCED SECURITY PACKAGE Security System TRANSMISSION, 8 - SPEED AUTOMATIC (STD) 8 - Speed A / T A / T EMISSIONS, FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS WHEELS, 19» Aluminum Wheels CARBON FIBER PACKAGE Rear Spoiler STEERING WHEEL, SUEDED MICROFIBER RIM AND SHIFT KNOB ENGINE, 6.2 L Supercharged 8 Cylinder Engine Gasoline Fuel PERFORMANCE DATA AND VIDEO RECORDER SEATS, RECARO PERFORMANCE LUXURY PACKAGE Multi-Zone A / C Heated Rear Seat (s) A / C Climate Control Back - Up Camera Rear Bench Seat Rear A / C Pass - Through Rear Seat CALIPERS, RED BREMBO * Note - For third party subscriptions or services, please contact the dealer for more information.

None of which has anything to do with poor people in rural Africa that Gavin wrote about — people who use little or no fossil fuels, and who would therefore not pay any carbon taxes, even if someone were to impose such taxes in rural Africa, which no one has suggested doing.

I do see the prospect of using a targeted carbon cost / tax to raise a big research and demonstration war chest (as I described in «A 2 - Cent Solution to Help Fuel an Energy Quest «-RRB-.

Re # 43, A «collosal political jump forward» would be for the US to strip all subsidies from the fossil fuel industry, and to strip all subsidies from fossil - fuel intensive agricultural industry as well (over $ 35 billion a year), and to deliver those subsidies to solar, wind, and carbon - neutral agricultural industries — as well as instituting a hefty carbon tax on all fossil fuels, and agreeing to strict emissions caps, and mandating energy efficient technology in all areas.

If local solar is indeed cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no need for carbon taxes to make fossil fuels more expensive — market forces will ensure the switch all by themselves.

-- Climate impacts: global temperatures, ice cap melting, ocean currents, ENSO, volcanic impacts, tipping points, severe weather events — Environment impacts: ecosystem changes, disease vectors, coastal flooding, marine ecosystem, agricultural system — Government actions: US political views, world - wide political views, carbon tax / cap - and - trade restrictions, state and city efforts — Reducing GHGs: + electric power systems: fossil fuel use, conservation, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, other + transportation sector: conservation, mass transit, high speed rail, air travel, auto / truck (mileage issues, PHEVs, EVs, biofuels, hydrogen) + architectural structure design: home / office energy use, home / office conservation, passive solar, other

Bradley McKinley: «If local solar is indeed cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no need for carbon taxes to make fossil fuels more expensive — market forces will ensure the switch all by themselves.»

Now that diesel fuel is unusually expensive (hit much harder than gasoline, in % terms since 2002, in either Europe or the US), roads near markets are more crowded, and (hopefully, IMHO) a carbon tax is near, the competitive advantages that are opened by cheap transportation will sour in some cases, but continue in others.

What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change — a cap - and - trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel - economy standards, or research?

Actually, I am becoming optimistic about raising the price of fossil fuels with some sort of carbon tax.

In summary, we should not be advocating carbon taxes, geo - engineering, or rationing of fuel.

But I find it hard to reconcile the group's financial support for Climate Depot with its rhetorical embrace of Richard Smalley's vision of a sustainable energy future — which was premised on an inevitable transition away from carbon - rich fuels and included a modest tax on liquid fuels.

Gates hammered on points reported here for many years: that without a big, and sustained, boost in spending on basic research and development on energy frontiers, the chances of triggering an energy revolution are nil; that while the private sector and venture capital investors are vital for transforming breakthroughs into marketable products or services, they will not invest in the long - haul inquiry that's required to generate game - changing breakthroughs; that a 1 or 2 percent tax on carbon - emitting fuels could generate a large, steady stream of money for invigorating the innovation pipeline; that a declining emissions cap and credit trading system --- if it could survive America's polarized politics --- would have to raise energy costs far beyond what would be politically tenable to generate a similar scale of transformational activity.

However, if some (or many) of these efforts have some smoke - and - mirror aspect to them, or if they become the seemingly easy «solution du jour» and allow us to think that we can avoid larger solutions (fuel efficiency standards; carbon tax, or firm carbon cap combined with a robust and regulated carbon credit trading mechanism; substantial investments in new energy technologies; energy conservation; etc.), their net impact can be more damaging than beneficial.

He also cites problems with a straight tax on carbon content of fuels.

A carbon tax will make fossil fuel prices come closer to covering full cost, incorporating some of those fuels» currently - excluded costs: our dependence on and enrichment of oil - country despots, huge military costs of protecting distant oil operations and transport, health costs from emissions other than CO2, etc., etc., etc.....