Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade?
The debate over a cleaner energy future is focusing increasingly on how best to reduce carbon emissions. Key tenets of the debate are whether to impose a carbon tax, and if so on whom? Or enable a system setting limits for carbon emissions that would reward parties that emit below their “baseline” to earn saleable credits. Parties that emit over their baseline would have to purchase these credits to comply.
Bill Moller said,
September 20, 2006 @ 10:43 am
I believe unless prodded, industry will move only incrementally to reduce CO2 emissions. We may have already passed the tipping point on climate change yet the government merely pays lipservice to the crisis. Instead, the government needs to take a leadership role and rally the public and industry to the need for national sacrifice for the common global good while also pointing out the myriad benefits from renewable energy (economic, environmental, national security and more).
I applaud Al Gore for his bold proposal to replace the payroll tax with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions including gasoline. The governments of Europe have shown us that the tax redistribution can change public and industry behavior for the better.
weepah said,
December 15, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Al Gore: inventor of the internet, human intereset for the Love Story, illegal financier of the Chinese Communists, loser of most elections, and now harbringer of the worst psuedo-science plaquing our deteriorating society today.
Perhaps there’s a demostrable link between those who find Al Gore science the leading edge of our society, and the demonstrable decline of our society into another dark age.
Taxes cause - not solve - problems.
I suppose we should look to the fine work of the IRS as the model for solving our planet’s environmental issues?
Marston Schultz said,
December 31, 2006 @ 4:32 am
I like a carbon tax. Polluters should pay for polluting, not a very complex concept.
Businesses have refused to take responsibility for their polluting ways. We should have a tax credit for those who reduce their polution. One could pay for the other.
Jeremy Russ said,
January 11, 2007 @ 1:38 am
The CO2 tax idea is brilliant. The power companies producing CO2 can let the extra cost of the tax filter down to the customer and then clean renewable sources of power will have an edge over the CO2 spewing conventional power plants. Of course there should also be a heavy tax on nuclear waste production. All fueling stations can work the CO2 tax into the airplane, diesel, and gasoline fuels sold to businesses the public and government. Anyone who starts a forest fire can be fined for the estimated CO2 sent into the atmosphere. I think the tax money should go to education about global warming and incentives for solutions to global warming.
The tax money can be used to solve the problem.
Dean said,
March 10, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
I think that a carbon tax is a great idea. Add it to everything that adds carbon to the air that isnt natural…… What happened in 05 when the hurricanes hit and gas prices went sky high…… everyone wanted a hybrid or smaller car. Add a carbon tax ontop of a gas tax. If you pay 5 dollars a gallon for gas you will think twice before buying your H2, Escalade, Navigator or Hemi car. $200 a week for gas will make people want more fuel efficent cars and soon enough EV’s. Use the extra dollar a gallon to give credits to people using hybrids and an even bigger credit to people who have full EV’s and people who use alternative energy for their homes.
Even though the right wing will be more about tax breaks for the poor poor oil and coal industry, we should be thinking farther down the road to our future and childrens future. If the oil companies were smart they would invest their billions in wind and solar and thermo energy now when its on the ground floor.
John De Valk said,
April 14, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Truth be known we are putting young men and women in harms way so we can utilize clean energy products that were shelved when cheaper petroluem based products were introduced 100 years ago.
Erich J. Knight said,
April 27, 2007 @ 10:42 am
After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology
can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.
Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.
The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;
Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030
by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf
The organization 25×25 (see 25x’25 - Home) released it’s (first-ever, 55-page )”Action Plan” ; see http://www.25×25.org/storage/25×25/d…ActionPlan.pdf
On page 31, as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: “The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration.”
and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: “Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems.”
I feel 25×25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.
There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture , I forgot the % that is waste, but when you add all the other cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG, the balanced number is around 24 Billion tons. So we have plenty of bio-mass.
Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.
If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I’ve been drafted to administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of G. I. T. , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who’s back round I don’t know have joined.
bill358@gmail smith said,
May 2, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
As a Statistician I brought a government lab study to the attention of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to cut off the California and federal Solar Hot Water and Wind tax credits 55%-85+% in 1985 as they had shown the net energy loss with sheet materials of design over the life of the products (I intend to do nanotechnology-I have tapped four) surface finishes solving materials problems in the outdoor environment, etc. The taxes extension period was ended promptly and now I have freely consulted 1000+ meetings regarding military conversion of key bases and intend to manufacture.
Patrick said,
May 8, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
“The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash”
We are far from getting the carbon cycle properly handled by IPCC climate projections. In their quest to show large amounts of global warming, they elide or bias certain effects.
Consider that (1) seas have 100 times the amount of CO2 as the atmosphere, and (2) mankind’s 7 gigatonnes of emissions is a fraction of the 100 gigatonne natural CO2 cycle per annum, and (3) carbon cycle today is absorbing 50% of our emissions (implying that a mere 50% reduction could possibly end incremental CO2 increases, (4) CO2 atmospheric increases have not responded to increased man-made generation, (5) CO2 ‘fertilization effect’ has been demonstrated, wherein increased uptake of CO2 from plants can be expected, but which is under-modelled by the IPCC.
If IPCC admitted the reality of the carbon absorbtion in the seas and soil at the magnitude that is really happening, and the increased rates when CO2 ppm increases, it would debunk the claim of a ‘runaway’ effect and debunk perhaps the mantra that global warming as a whole is a crisis.
laura reed said,
June 12, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
It’s unfortuanate that a government has to step in and tax those who refuse to be considerate and responsible with their emissions; however money does talk to many businesses and individuals. Perhaps this will be an incentive which speaks to ones pocket instead of conscience, providing a step in a positive direction. Something has to be done right now which curbs emissions, many solutions must be tried as well as carbon taxes, and lifestyle changes must be implemented in a large scale to make a significant difference. Businesses and organizations that do take the neccesary steps to decrease their emissions should be supported, while those who do not should be withheld support and socially discredited. Conscience consumerism is just as important as a means of “checks and balances” as government action and taxation.
G.K.Patel said,
June 14, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Carbon tax is good idea to prevent Global Warming & cut down CO2 level
to 360 PPM. Everybody can pay while using C(Carbon in any form) as fuel.
State budget/federal budget can be balanced or total & only tax can be
generated for $4 Tr daolars.
James Handley said,
June 14, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Check out Carbon Tax Center at www.carbontax.org for lots of good info on the many advantages of carbon taxes.
Anyone want to help me make a video to explain carbon taxes? Seems like Gore and Laurie David’s film got people’s attention. Now we need a short feature on economic incentives.
The best analogy I have come up with: Cap and Trade would be like bicycling in traffic– fuel prices would fluctuate. When they’re rising people get the signal to start conserving and switching to renewables. But when they’re falling, they slack off. So a lot of momentum is wasted. A gradually-increasing carbon tax would be like cycling on the bike trail. The signal is prices go up and keep going up. Like shifting through your gears and getting into high gear as soon as possible. It gets us there faster. And a revenue stream is a big plus. Cap and trade would just enrich the brokers.
susan said,
June 16, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Could you please explain to me how a carbon tax (as with an increased tax on gasoline) would not be regressive, i.e. hurt those with limited incomes more than those with higher incomes.). How could this inequality be elimiated?
Jim Pierobon said,
June 28, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Properly structured, a carbon tax might only be regressive on fossil-fueled energy and those who chose produce it and consume it. The arguments being made by many experts and journalists, including the editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times, is focused on changing how we think about energy. Rather than contemplate a simple-minded impact on business and household budgets, think about carbon emissions as a discernable and preventable cost that emitters and consumers need to pay for. When they realize how many clean alternatives there are, consumption patterns and public opinion will foster the move to cleaner sources of energy.
Any claimed ‘inequality’ could be addressed by exceptions, but that opens a can of worms many parties will bid to take advantage of. One of the beauties of a carbon tax is it monetizes a serious burden on our environment and human health and lets the marketplace and consumers decide how to deal with it.
Full disclosure: I’m the communications director at ACORE, but also a former Chief Energy Writer at the Houston Chronicle.)
Pierobon said,
July 12, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Two climate change bills are off to the races to garner enough support in the U.S. Senate. One is by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA); the other is led by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Arlen Specter, (R-PA)
The Lieberman - Warner effort aims to create an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that would provide a lot of flexibility to the marketplace to meet a level of emission reductions that are, what they term, “environmentally credible.” The Bingaman - Specter proposal also focuses on an economy-wide system, and is modeled after the U.S. acid rain program.
Nonexistacon said,
July 13, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
“Properly structured, a carbon tax might only be regressive on fossil-fueled energy and those who chose produce it and consume it.”
So this tax would only be regressive on people using gasoline to get to work, and natural gas or electricity to heat and light their homes. Of course, those wealthy enough to replace their furnace and car every year would pay less than those who can’t.
Phi Tran said,
July 19, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Home owner/business who install renewable device with excess energy to upload to the grid should get credit. This will encourage them to do more and save more. Or, at least give the credit to the utility company who actual purchase that power to encourage them to give the “owner” fair, better price.
As far now; I don’t see any such plan to encourage consumer to generate the power more then what they use. The Net Metering system is only for what they actually use.
The “unavoided price” system for the excess is only to penalize them if they try to generate more then their usage Invest more and return next to nothing. This also discourage those who can do more then they need. as well as the waste of national resources.
Hope this helps.
Phi - Neo-aerodynamic.com
Jim Pierobon said,
July 20, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change lays out a case for cap and trade on EandE.tv July 16. She lauds cap and trade’s ability to provide “certainty” on the environmental outcome. She argues against a carbon tax because of the environmental uncertainties and there are a host of complex questions that will have to be answered. And this says nothing about the political viability of any new tax. Claussen wants a “flexible” cap and trade. See the entire segment at: http://www.eenews.net/tv/video_guide/646
Pierobon said,
July 23, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Bush administration staffers are weighing a range of approaches to capping carbon emissions, The Wall Street Journal’s John D. McKinnon reports today. While the President’s thinking “continues to evolve . . . a person familiar with the situation” said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has signaled openness to the idea of some type of cap. Is this possible ‘leak’ a sign of more ideas to come and/or unsettled waters to be tested? See page A8 of the print edition if you don’t subscribe online.
antoniopietrangeli said,
February 1, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I believe that the governments should strongly invest in the development of the sustainable energy market. It would also benefit the economy since incomes would go to western countries companies instead of going to the gulf countries. I believe this not only since I work in the field as a hydropower engineer ( http://www.pietrangeli.it/hydropower.htm ) but also because we have seen thousands of jobs lost in the sector when the oil prices were extremely low. Finally we are recovering some of the jobs lost after many years of deep crisis. Antonio Pietrangeli