Sentences with phrase «less on a carbon tax»

«Optimal policy,» they found, «relies less on a carbon tax, and even more so on a direct encouragement of clean energy technologies.»

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.

Impact on oil and gas production: compared to a carbon tax, Alberta's policy offers emitters less of an incentive to reduce production in order to cut GHGs, notes Leach: «assuming that the facility reduced production by 10 percent, and that emissions decreased proportionately (a simplifying assumption), the facility's emissions intensity would not change, so its carbon liability per barrel of oil produced would also remain constant.»

If the NDP government is serious in their promise to meet the target, they will have to rely on more expensive regulatory policies to make up for the less stringent than recommended carbon tax.

Study into carbon tax on high - emissions food finds people would be more likely to eat less meat if they had to pay more for it

Carbon taxes like those suggested in the «Stern Report» to the UK Government, about $ 100 / metric tonne of carbon dioxide (equivalent to 88 US cents / gallon of gasoline and so on throughout the system) would accelerate whatever technology, economic forces, and lifestyle decisions might choose as paths towards a less carbon intensive lifestyle.

A revenue - neutral carbon tax is also beloved by economists, since it involves raising taxes on something our society wants less of — pollution — and using the money to lower taxes on the productive economic activities we want more of, such as paid work.

Inglis touts a carbon tax as a classic win - win - win because it makes the nation less reliant on oil imports from enemies, creates homegrown clean technology jobs and cleans up air sullied with pollutants from burning fossil fuels.

HERE is a poll by the IGM of their Economic Experts Panel on a carbon tax; the question posed was: «A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon - dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as «corporate average fuel economy» requirements for automobiles».

We were happy to see the piece quote Republican Senator Joe Fain as supportive of a B.C. style carbon tax and wanting to see tax reform folded into the conversation, but we were less enthused that the Alliance still, after many years of work on this, «hasn't yet settled on a carbon price» in their initiative draft.

carbon tax a levy exacted by a government on the use of carbon - containing fuels for the purpose of influencing human behavior (specifically economic behavior) to use less fossil fuels

«As to our advocacy around a carbon tax — I would not support putting a carbon tax in place today because I think we still have a lot of gains to be made through technology and other less intrusive policies on the economy which are showing results,» he said in a speech before The City Club of Cleveland.

There is some real interest in this approach, mainly from academics, and there is also what I would characterize as «strategic interest,» principally from those who recognize that once the focus is on carbon taxes rather than other instruments, political debates will inevitably result in less ambitious targets or, in fact, no policy at all.

For people on the right, a carbon tax yields a double benefit: The affluent get a tax cut and gas becomes so expensive that a lot of annoying less - affluent people can't afford to drive, and cease to clutter up the roads with their proletarian Chevies and Fords.

Since Australia exports a lot of embodied carbon, the tax on final consumption would raise a lot less revenue, and cause a much smaller economic shock.

Research suggests that the most significant effect of a carbon tax on electricity generation technology would be less use of coal and greater use of natural gas.

We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs).

Yet much of the policy discussion is focused on implementing carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, with an often - unstated expectation that the technologies exist to achieve decarbonisation, or will emerge more or less spontaneously.

Impacts of carbon taxes on poor families can be lessened by: 1) progressive tax - shifting as just described; 2) pro-rata distribution of the carbon tax revenues to every U.S. resident (also described above); and / or 3) to the extent necessary, funding programs designed to help poorer households use less energy driving and at home.

Shifting the tax burden to pollution and pollution - generating activities will create powerful incentives to use less energy and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere while simultaneously promoting tax equity and minimizing the impact of the carbon tax on those with lower incomes.

As the cost of the tax trickles down, companies along the various supply chains will be faced with a choice: pass the tax on and risk losing business (least likely); eat the cost and lower profits (possible); or reduce costs by producing the product with less carbon - based energy (most likely).

In an April 1, 2012 column in The New York Times, Prof. Richard H. Thaler of the U-Chicago Booth School of Business aptly summed up the near - unanimity among economists that carbon taxing is the optimal way to reduce CO2 emissions: «Consider a recent poll of a panel of economists conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where I teach... [Forty - one] economists in [a poll conducted by the] University of Chicago... were asked whether they agreed with this statement: «A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon - dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as «corporate average fuel economy» requirements for automobiles.»

Australia has a carbon tax, essentially a tax on production and consumption of electricity, that cost business and consumers $ 6 billion for less than 0.1 % emissions reduction since its introduction.

Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions.

I can limit flood damage and improve health very simply: But I need lower cost energy (you don't want that), lower cost steel and transportation (you are working very hard to make both more expensive), more proper and safe rules and less excessive regulation (you want more regulation and more fees and more interferences from very propagandized zealots against work), lower costs for electricity, water and fuel (you seek more taxes and rules on all) no government corruption (The carbon taxes you want go ONLY to the corrupt third world dictators and NGO profit - seekers who are selling their ENRON - inspired carbon credits, none do anything for the people of each country forced into squalor and death.)

The way to «spend less money on electricity and gasoline» is sure as hell not to slap a direct or indirect carbon tax on motor fuels or fossil fuel generated electrical power.

A whole good idea would be to make a payroll - tax holiday the first step in an orderly transition to scrapping the payroll tax altogether and replacing the lost revenue with a package of levies on things that, unlike jobs, we want less rather than more of — things like pollution, carbon emissions, oil imports, inefficient use of energy and natural resources, and excessive consumption.

The world needs a carbon tax, and an international mechanism to see that it falls on the citizens of each country more or less equally.

If spending on carbon schemes isn't necessary, then the money should be returned to the tax payer in the form of less tax.

The idea is simple: Reduce taxes on something you want (incomes) and raise taxes on something you'd like to see less of (carbon pollution).