I’m not sure why we need one in the first place. There has been no statistically significant warming in almost 18 years. More importantly, there’s no hard scientific proof that the Modern Warm Period, or even the brief increase in global temperatures that occured from around 1980 to 1996, was the result of CO2. Anyhow
How high would a carbon tax really have to be to rein in climate change?
Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson published an opinion piece in the New York Times a week ago calling for a tax on carbon — and the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions is suddenly back in the news.
But do current economic models place a realistic price tag on carbon? A new paper from the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute says “No.â€
Professors Nicholas Stern and Simon Dietz contend that current models grossly underestimate the actual risks and costs of global warming. If we want to have the market rein in carbon pollution, say Stern and Dietz, we need to place a much higher price on carbon pollution.
Why do we really need one? If Believers would just give up all use of fossil fuels and make their own lives “carbon neutral”, that’d go far to solving the issue. Let’s skip to the final conclusion
Specifically, instead of considering $20 or $30 per metric ton an optimal level, that figure will need to be in the triple digits.
“The only question,†Komanoff concludes, “is: How fast do we get to triple digits, and how high up above $100 dollars per ton do we take it?â€
And where would all that money go? The Government, of course! And this economy destroying tax would somehow magically stop hotcoldwetdry.
at 20$ a ton or 10 cents a pound gas would go up 60 cents a gallon !! That would be as high as it reached under Bush !! Unthinkable !!
“There has been no statistically significant warming in almost 18 years.” — Isn’t that denying that it’s warming? I thought you were only arguing about the cause??
“More importantly, there’s no hard scientific proof that the Modern Warm Period, or even the brief increase in global temperatures that occured (sic) from around 1980 to 1996, was the result of CO2.” — It would be more surprising if the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere hadn’t warmed from the 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
What is your hypothesis (or any Denier’s) for why the Earth has warmed so much the past century? Scientists who study such things hypothesized that the warming results from CO2 added to atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Since then, the evidence has been overwhelming in support of their hypothesis. There exists now a scientific consensus that our burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm.
“What is your hypothesis for why the earth has warmed so much the past century? Oh, now it’s the past century, is it? Trying to keep some warming that really isn’t yours? Most hoaxers don’t start counting till about 1940 or so-are the rules changing again? But here-what is your evidence that this warming that’s stopped is any different from any other warming, seeing as you have no comparable data for other 100 year periods?
J is an idiot. how does increasing taxes reduce the average temp of the globe in a universe of stars and galaxies?
And why should the poor people be driven to even more serfdom just because of your guilty conscious?
yeah, except J still doesn’t read the article. The person in the article wants triple digit taxes on carbon. One wonders when they idiots like J will realize that we are already being charged for breathing – Mandatory ObamaCare?? a tax on being a citizen who has a job. alive.
A carbon tax, or a market-based carbon cap and trade system will decrease the burning of fossil fuels, decreasing CO2 emissions, slowing global warming. Adding this true cost to carbon based energy sources will also make clean energy sources more competitive. We citizens will have to pay for our ignorance in allowing the burning of fossil fuels without taking into account the burdens of global warming. Policies can be enacted to lessen the burden on the poor – rebates, pre-bates etc.
Policies can be enacted to lessen the burden on the poor – rebates, pre-bates etc
And there it is. The poor will be JUST fine. We can just give them the extra money to pay their extremely high, falsely inflated energy bills. And who pays for this?? Us middle class people who wouldn’t qualify for these ‘rebates’ but are still hit with the higher costs.
Just another scheme to crush the middle class. The left says they want to help and build the middle class but every policy they propose or enact has done nothing but hurt the middle class.
Nighthawk,
Yes, it’s a shame we didn’t address this threat earlier. The concept that dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere would warm the Earth has been understood for over a century. It’s what economists call a “negative externality” of the enterprise and should have been part of the overall cost of using fossil fuels. This would have eased our transition to cleaner energy sources.
But relax, your purse is safe, as we’re making little progress. The political opposition to action is well-organized and well-financed. The enormity of the threat is down the road and we will always have more immediate threats to deal with.
Before about 2008 the argument was between the Dem/lib proposals for a carbon tax and the Rep/con proposals for a market-based carbon cap and trade program. Reasonable people agreed on the long term goal (remember the 2008 PSAs with Pelosi and Gingrich? Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton?). But when the Republicans lurched to the far-right all chances for a reasonable approach to the threat of global warming were lost. A 2013 Pew Poll showed that 25% of Tea Party Republicans think that global warming is occurring. 61% of non-Tea Party Republicans think that the Earth is warming. Two-thirds of Americans think that global warming is occurring and over 90% of climate scientists think humans are causing the Earth to warm.
We’ve already seen global warming stopped without a carbon tax.
BTW, are you doing your part, Jeff, by giving up your own fossil fuels usage? Or do you expect Other People to pay the price for your beliefs?
1) putting a price on carbon pollution can actually create jobs and increase GDP if done properly. Such a plan must be completely revenue-neutral in that None of the revenues are kept by the government. All revenue must be fully rebated to the citizens through rebates or or through income tax reduction. Isn’t it better to tax pollution (a bad thing) rather than to tax profits and income (good things)?
2) Detailed economic modeling shows that this plan for a gradually rising revenue neutral carbon fee and rebate is available here.
3) consider this: Freedom does not give you the right to pollute my air and water, any more than it gives you the right to dump garbage on my land. So if you truly believe in liberty and freedom, you would not support and encourage pollution of the common resource of air and water. Your liberty ends where mine begins.
“Jay” ? another personality emerging from our resident troll?
Freedom also doesn’t give you the right to take what doesn’t belong to you. You also can’t tax people because of behavior (despite recent court rulings).
No one pollutes just to pollute someone else’s water or air. And, how does taxing pollution help stop pollution? Never has. We still have it.
Taxing pollution and giving it to the “people”? Interesting. so, it goes like this?
1) tax pollution that increases prices of goods so people pay more for goods, but get that rebated in reduced taxes. ??? how does that stop pollution?
2) tax pollution so business owners pay more but then they get that back in reduced taxes and still pass along the cost of the taxes to the consumers. ??? how does that stop pollution?
3) tax pollution because that will stop pollution from polluting. ??? eh?
4) And of course, “give the money back to the people”… right. As if the gov’t ever believed that monies gained from taxes was ever the peoples. What makes you think they’ll give up that money?
what the hell you smokin boy?!?! water is also not a common resource. And, how does taxing pollution clean up the global “air”?
To start off, Jay, “carbon pollution” is a wholly unscientific phrase. We are talking about CO2, which is not a pollutant, but a trace gas necessary for life on earth.
This is what we’re fighting against, GB. Lunatics who have no clear knowledge of science, economics, nor reality.