Sentences with phrase «of carbon pricing schemes»

David Newman of the World Biogas Association argues the global march of carbon pricing schemes will have big implications for the waste industry and beyond

A source said even though the details of the carbon price scheme were still unknown, the campaign was in a stage of «advanced development».

It will focus on «the adverse impact of the carbon pricing scheme on the competitiveness of Australia's export and import - competing industries».

Not exact matches

A year later, at the end of 2017, McKenna clarified that provinces have until the end of the year to introduce carbon - pricing schemes, whether they be carbon taxes or cap - and - trade regimes.

Finally, CME noted that carbon pricing schemes need to be designed in such a way so as not to merely transfer GHG emissions out of the province (or country).

«The campaign would be broad - based but also target particular regions where the vulnerability to the impact of the proposed carbon pricing scheme is high,» the document says.

As well as a general message designed to reinforce negative perceptions of the scheme, the campaign will also home in on regions where the carbon price will supposedly have a greater impact.

We are instead pressing ahead unilaterally with terrible policies: draining the budgets of families and businesses with excessive green taxes; picking losers by giving the most generous subsidies to the most expensive sources of low carbon energy; and recreating the volatility of the housing market with an emissions trading scheme where the supply of allowances is fixed, so fluctuations in demand lead to wild swings in the price.

Initial allowances to emit emissions were overly generous, making the market price of carbon too low and the scheme ineffective.

But the failure of nations to craft a new global pact has caused demand for the CO2 offsets generated under the U.N.'s carbon markets to dry up, sending prices crashing and nearly bankrupting many of the companies that invested in the schemes.

A trading scheme should be a big part of this process for the obvious reason that you need a price for carbon dioxide, given that this is an externality [uncosted in normal markets].

The move to «ax the tax» — as Prime Minister Tony Abbott is fond of saying — makes Australia the first country in the world to abolish a functioning carbon pricing scheme.

The expansion of the pellets - to - carbon - credit scheme has the feel of an energy rush akin to what happened in Pennsylvania in the early days of the hydraulic fracturing boom and the destructive palm oil push that affected food prices.

Because energy prices affect every single America, everyone has a stake in the issue of whether the government imposes additional restrictions on fossil - fuel use, including carbon pricing schemes such as those proposed by PRG.

While the price to implement carbon sequestering farming techniques are already in line with current carbon pricing schemes (at cost around $ 10 / ton of carbon sequestered), further development could bring these prices down even further.

It waxes positively about the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, while failing to note that any further extensions have been indefinitely delayed and the local price on carbon emissions is currently well south of $ 10.

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.

Rudd's now planning to delay the scheme's introduction for a year to 1 July 2011 and set a nominal carbon price of $ 10 a tonne with an unlimited number of permits until 1 July 2012, so there will be NO effective action for another three years.

Alongside the politics of the carbon tax, a floor price, a linking to Europe or whether a direct investment scheme would be better than a market - based scheme, the bottom line surely must be whether any carbon emissions actually are being saved.

The government claims that the carbon pricing scheme has been ineffective, although CO2emissions fell by 0.8 % in the first calendar year of its operation − the largest fall in 24 years.

But a review of studies regarding carbon pricing schemes from around the world by economist Tom Tietenberg concludes that «they typically find that the cost savings from shifting to [taxes or cap - and - trade] are considerable, but less than would have been achieved if the final outcome had been fully cost effective.»

And the work of the few who do, is biased by their ideological beliefs — e.g., advocating irrational policies to justify mandating and subsidising renewable energy and imposing carbon pricing schemes.

The survey indicates pervasive uncertainty about the future of Australia's carbon pricing scheme, but also a strong expectation that carbon pricing will be a feature of Australia's economic policy framework in the medium to long term.

The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions.

Even if these improvements are sped up by a concerted reinvestment in technology education, R&D, deployment assistance, etc. there's no way they're going to start bending the curve for 10 - 20 years.The advantage to carbon pricing schemes is that they can be brought into effect much quicker than the development / deployment cycle of advanced technology.

Both the provinces of coastal British Columbia and oil - sands - rich Alberta have implemented some version of a carbon tax or a hybrid carbon pricing scheme.

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.

It's just a matter of which carbon pricing scheme we use to capture them — either the carbon tax, or a California - led regional cap and trade system that B.C. is still considering joining.

The main argument for a carbon tax rather than a trading scheme is that, if there is a lot of uncertainty about the cost of reducing emissions, and not much uncertainty about the damage caused by climate change, a fixed price for emissions (that is, a tax) will get closer to the optimal outcome than a fixed quantity.

The price of carbon credits has also fallen, while plans to introduce national trading schemes, particularly in the US and Australia, remain uncertain.

According to a new report published on World Bank Group on carbon pricing, by 2015, the number of implemented or planned carbon pricing schemes around the world has almost doubled since 2012.

Each of the schemes is slightly different, with the carbon price fluctuating between ¥ 20 ($ 3) and ¥ 80 ($ 13).

It differs from how I would do it, as does the British Columbia Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (successful and growing in popularity for 4 years now), the Australian Pricing Mechanism, or any of the Cap & Trade schemes or various carbon taxes that return nothing to the owners of the carbon cycle.

That is helpful in explaining the challenges / futility of a sensible carbon pricing scheme.

That framing costs as a foregone - gain increased the amount people were prepared to reduce emissions is noteworthy because public messages about climate policy impacts typically frame the costs of reducing emissions as a loss [13]-- a pattern confirmed by our analysis of newspaper communications regarding the future costs of Australia's carbon pricing scheme.

77 percent of the 111 countries covered by RISE do not have carbon pricing and monitoring schemes in place or require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

The analysis was part of a multigroup effort to apply sophisticated modeling tools to assess the impacts of various proposed carbon - pricing schemes.

On January 29, 2014, we searched Factiva — an online research tool for accessing content from different sources (viz. newspapers, journals, and magazines)-- for newspaper articles containing statements regarding the future costs of Australia's carbon pricing scheme — commonly referred to as the «carbon tax».

I focus on the probability that carbon pricing schemes will succeed rather than debating the various estimates of the projected costs and benefits; the latter are extensively debated in the literature.

Thus carbon pricing schemes end up as a mish mash of exemptions, deductions and other escape clauses.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said emissions decreased one per cent in the six months to December 2012 — the period since the introduction of the carbon price — for the major sectors covered by the scheme — electricity, other stationary energy, fugitives, industrial process emissions and waste.

It is in this context that the recent reform of the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU - ETS)-- and in particular the introduction of the new mechanism for modulating supply, known as the Market Stability Reserve (MSR)-- is so interesting: it has thrust the issue of carbon pricing back into the headlines, not least owing to the 200 % increase in EU carbon prices since May last year.

Carbon pricing regulation is on the rise with China's emissions trading scheme (ETS) likely is to be most disruptive to demand patterns of commodities — Chile introduced carbon pricing this year with Canada and South Africa coming on stream in 2018.

Looking forward, things to watch include: the impact of economic recovery on commodity prices and agricultural expansion for food and biofuels production; large - scale land acquisition by foreign nations and corporations in tropical countries; climate negotiations and the REDD mechanism, including controversies over land rights, «offsetting», forest definitions, and sustainable forest management; the emergence of payments for ecosystem services beyond REDD; the cap - and - trade versus carbon tax schemes; efforts to address the demand side of deforestation — notably consumption; emerging certification systems for agricultural and forestry products (i.e. RSPO, Aliança da Terra, FSC, etc); and Brazil's progress in meeting its deforestation reduction targets.

Additionally capping the maximum price of carbon credits will not allow the scheme to effectively find the market price for carbon and promote innovation.

This is an argument in favour of emissions trading schemes with a price floor, or a carbon tax.

All lines except «Copenhagen» and «0.5 Copen Partic» assume the whole world implements a carbon price in unison in 2010, and the pricing scheme covers 100 % of human - caused GHG emissions.

Certainly the basic implementation of the cap and trade carbon pricing scheme.

I've been following discussions of solar energy on - and - off for quite a while, and it has always seemed as if it would be quite a long time, even assuming an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax, before solar photovoltaics could be a cost - competitive source of electricity without special support such as capital subsidies or feed - in tariffs set above market prices.

We... we're... it's part of our emissions trading scheme, which means there is a price on err carbon emissions from aviation from the first... for the first time.