Saving Our Planet: The Need for a Carbon Tax

Anyone bring up ocean acidification yet? Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the ocean to become acidic. Yeah, coral reefs are dying off in mass quantity. We're all cool with that? Do you think things will get better if we just ignore the problem? Or maybe just pass it down to the next generation to deal with? Anyone have a better idea than the carbon tax to make carbon emissions less popular? I'm cool if you don't like the tax idea, but don't act like we don't have a problem. Come up with something better, but don't bash it and then run away from the real problems we have.

I think there is a better way.

We should forget the carbon and look at the polluters causing the most damage.

That would be petroleum and coal.

Petroleum----not only is causing an extreme amount of environmental damage but it is also causing enormous economic damage from sending $$$ overseas to import a raw material that we are only going to burn----and often to import it from people who want to kill us. Besides creating a trade deficit of nearly $700-800 Billion per year, it is also creating an enormous federal deficit by the need to fund three to four wars in an effort to secure supplies and shipping---Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. It is also costing an immense amount to provide response and clean up to spills.

We should place an import duty on crude oil and finished petroleum products to pay for all these expenses.

Coal strip mining destroys the earth, the water sheds and its use destroys the quality of the air. We should stop the mining of coal on public lands. And we should place an export duty on coal shipped out of the country. Why should the public pay taxes to support profits for a few private companies that are destroying our land?

Most of the points I was going to bring to the table were already made so I'll just say this. Mitigation through taxation will not stop global warming. Its a pipe dream pure and simple.

I still think there would be a benefit to the system though. So long as it does not allow Big Buisness to weasel it's way out of paying its due and most importantly as long as the money gathered through such a tax would go directly toward research and development of green technology. Then again given how corrupt and one sided our tax system is I wouldn't place that much faith in a big money organization that doled R&D grants.

All in all good luck with that.

http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#what

Perhaps there are those who automatically dismiss this because they aren't sure exactly how it works or automatically assume something because of the word "tax.". A revenue neutral carbon tax would incentivize transitioning to renewable energy rsources while lowering the tax burden for employers and/or also providing rebates for consumers. In other words, taxing what we burn and not what we earn. Unfortunately, we can't seem to depend on corporations to just make transitions to renewable energy on their own because it is the healthy thing to do for our planet. Nor does it seem that the market is fair in pricing indirect costs into dirty energy sources in order to bring renewable energy sources into parity to spur growth. Therefore, I think that the ire should be focused on them and not those looking for the most effective way with the least impact on consumers to find a way to decrease the emissions that are exacerbating climate change. Either that or we can just keep allowing polluters to get away with what they are doing to the detriment of our environment which will wind up costing us billions, or wait until gas hits 7 dollars plus a gallon. Either way, there will be a price to pay, and personally, I think the sustainability of this planet as much as we can salvage is worth it. I would rather it be focused on those who are truly exacerbating this crisis, and at the same time providing programs whereby those who actually work to bring down emissions and actually do the right thing get credit for it. It isn't the be all end all solution, but if it so opposed, then what are we to do? Nothing? Sorry, but in regards to the crisis we face nothing is simply not an option.

excerpt:

"No Tax Increase? How?

A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the public, with, perhaps, a very small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.

Two primary return approaches are being discussed. One would rebate the revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) equal “dividends” to all U.S. residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. Just such a program has operated in Alaska for three decades, providing residents with annual dividends from the state’s North Slope oil revenues.

In the other method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This “tax-shift” approach, while less direct than the dividend method, would also ensure that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral and could offer other benefits. For example, reducing payroll taxes could stimulate employment.

Each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the costs of various goods and services.

Revenue-neutrality not only protects the poor (see next section), it’s also politically savvy since it blunts the “No New Taxes” demand that has held sway in American politics for over a generation. Returning the carbon tax revenues to the public would also make it easier to raise the tax level over time, a point made nicely by McGill University professor Christopher Ragan in a 2008 Montreal Gazette op-ed."

Anyone with half a brain, even a Terry schiavo, would realize that a Global carbon tax is the correct and must plausible solution to our global warming and revenue problems.

Pollution is terrible, but a carbon tax is no solution. What does that do except harm countries with industrial sectors that are still developing, and allow richer corporations to keep polluting? What will it do except make the individual's life more expensive while offering no real viable alternatives? It offers no solutions and simply turns pollution into a pay-to-play scheme. And what are the chances of those taxes doing anything other than being swallowed into our bloated government and disappearing?

It seems like no-one likes the word tax. But sin taxes can be effective things. Since consumption is affected by price, C02 emission taxes would raise the price of things that are carbon intensive. This would encourage both adoption of more carbon friendly forms of energy sources, ways of transportation, housing design, etc but also encourage investment into newer technologies.

With a tax and rebate, in which the rebate is distributed equally it is not only effectively raises the prices of goods that are C02 intensive, it does not increase the size of the government, because the profits are rebated back equally across the population. Say you choose to consume in a green way and only consume enough carbon intensive products to pay two hundred dollars in taxes. On the other hand your neigbhor chooses to drive a larger vehicle, and take regular flights ect and pays a couple thousand dollars in embedded carbon taxes and the average Canadian or American for instance consumes in a way to pay a thousand dollars in taxes, you get the same rebate at the end of the year of a thousand dollars.

This is not to suggest that this will solve the problem in itself. Changing our energy habits requires effective governance. Changing from horses to rail, or from rail to interstate, or when the canal system opened up all required effective government intervention because it requires a huge scale of investment and a longer period of investment than the private sector is often willing to risk. But the carbon tax needs to be part of a larger response to climate change. This does bring up the issue of reforming our government, which to me involves finding ways of keeping the government from being controlled by particular interests, which means for me reforming the way government campaigns are financed and subsequently government programs are controlled by their financiers.

Carbon tax = bullshit. Why does humanity continually insist on running in circles.

How will taxeing the people or anyone save the planet ?
solution is simple and too late for it anyway
stop useing fossil fuels stop useing petrol cars
plant mass algae in sea to replace what we destroyed
stop chopping trees down which shade planet
stop blowing toxic fumes into ozone layer

all these things are impossible pandoras box is open with the discovery of nukes its all over ;(

He's absolutely right that we need to do something about Global Warming immediately, it's likely already too late!

That being said, I don't agree with the carbon tax. What would it accomplish? It may encourage innovation in the form of seeking out clean or alternative energy sources, but with the state our country is in, I'm sure what's more likely to happen is a corrupt bureaucracy dominated by lobbyists picking and choosing how harshly they regulate based on bribes or other bullshit.

We need to look to the private sector or, if we look to the public sector, we should look to be making investments into green infrastructure, because that's what MATTERS.

It's not clear whether we can stop Global Warming at this point, but we can certainly ween off fossil fuels. That's in everyone's best interests.

Sadly, it appears most of the private sector and most of the public is as deluded about the state of energy as they are about the state of the climate.

"Hansen's idea is that 100 per cent of the revenue collected from a carbon tax is returned in equal amounts to citizens, which means that those with lower carbon footprints are likely to be better off."

Don't take the money in the first place. People arent' that stupid We can see past the lofty allegations that this is for the betterman of man and recognize it for what it is, just another effort at redistribution of wealth. Another government effort in manipulating the economy and social engineering. And to think we put Bernie Madoff in jail for scamming people.

This is nothing but a scam. Its one way to be able to get money from every country in the world, and if they dont pay I think they will get hit with sanctions

A similar idea was used to fight acid rain.
"The program has cut sulfur dioxide emissions in half since 1990, and has done it more cheaply than anyone thought possible. The program has also saved lives... The Economist called the sulfur dioxide trading program 'the greatest green success story' of the 1990s."
~How To Cool The Planet, Jeff Goodell, 2010

Hilarious... absolutely hilarious.
Taxing or restricting CO2 emissions will have absolutely zero effect on the climate. And Hansen? One of the biggest fraudsters in the climate-data manipulation team... and people take what he says seriously? Amazing!!!

tax the rich, feed the poor

Stop the real polluters...big oil and multi-national corporations. Oh but wait it's all our fault right? Bullshit. We are already taxed to death. Tax breaks for the elite and the serfs can be bled to death.

It's VERY difficult to implement something like this in a partial plutocracy like the USA:
The wealthy are the ones who primarily control much of the power. Their power is based on wealth. Losing wealth means losing power. And the fossil energy industry is a large part of what drives that wealth.

Others are simply submerged in the idea of plutocracy and can't see past it:
They see it as right that wealth controls power so they shouldn't be taxed. Or they think that any taxes going to a government automatically end up in the pockets of the wealthy because they associate them with power.

See the long-term planning of these eugenicist, eco-fascist, quackademic, Ponzi-scheming scum. They have all these institutes and meetings and global foundations raking in billions of dollars, but they can't beat the big, bad oil companies who are run and owned by the same people who run the UN.

Its about robbing the people blind and funding a world government. 1984, Brave New World...the whole 9 yards. The only way to save the environment and humanity is to expose AGW Theory as intellectual fraud and fight the New World Order til death.

Nobody is buying this crap anymore!

A carbon tax is the solution to solving environmental problems? No, this idea is from a phony environmental movement, that is using global warming as the horse to pull their cart of global taxation.

We have run out of time, I was for a carbon tax to be used as an incentive to get people moving in the right direction, to renewables. But because our Corporate overlords fought so hard to put out false information, I believe now is the time to call it a environmental tax on those that have had the chance to do something and chose to ignore it and incite stupidity. Our planets tipping point has come and gone now we must prepare to move entire city's off coast lines and abandon those at sea level. The projects are mind boggling at this point and this may be the biggest part of any apollo infrastructure project. Taxing the hell out of these people will provide the necessary funds needed for the mass projects to get us ready for was is now inevitable. How many more Katrina's will it take for man to wake up and get ready to fix what he has screwed up?

The phony corporate environmental movement has always been about getting Westerners saddled with this horrible tax rather than actually saving or even helping the environment.

Everything up until now has been propaganda, so I'm glad to see that the phony corporate environmental movement is coming right out in the open with their true agenda.

I'n the paragraph it says that we need to react beforeWE lose control of our climate. You people are fucking nuts if you think that you control anything but your own life. This myth is done, you guys need to find a new obsession.

This is surely the most effective, quickest and moral solution in decreasing CO2 emissions that will not penalize consumers as has been the propaganda spewed by those interests that are trying to stop accountability for their own selfish reasons. It will hold polluters accountable, bring rebates back to consumers and be a way to transition industry and business to a more sustainble economy and environment. It is working in other countries and has actually increased revenues, jobs and enhanced quality of life. It is also not tied to market mechanisms that unfairly give advantage to the very corporations polluting while penalizing consumers and indigenous/ poor people globally through one sided REDD and other CDM mechanisms that will not be effective if those investing in forests can get away with that while continuing to be allowed to spew out ghgs unchecked. As cap and trade falls by the wayside it appears corporations are thinking they are now off the hook so to speak. The climate crisis we face is a moral challenge to us as well as an economic and environmental one. It is unconscienable that we can see what we are doing and yet do nothting to hold those responsible accountable for it.

Into who's pocket are these taxes going to flow? That's what I don't understand.

The benefit of Hansen's suggestion is that the increase in prices is returned to us in a rebate. Those who burn more carbon pay more in carbon taxes and the rebate is returned equally to everyone. With a cap and trade not only is there no incentive to go below the cap (to continue to cut carbon emissions), but it acts as a tax, as consumers will pay higher prices for goods, but will not receive the rebate back.

Increased prices through carbon taxes will lead to increased cost for carbon dioxide emissions fuelling innovation in more sustainable energy sources.

The other positive benefit in my mind of carbon taxes is that it will make local goods with less energy inbedded in travel more affordable. Many conservatives and members of the tea party are critical of globalization. In fact only 36% of Americans see Economic Globalization as a good thing.

Most people recognize the simple economic truth that when you open up competition to those making a fraction of Americans income, those with poorer environmental conditions, with longer work weak, with less vacatian time, labor laws, etc you will cause downward pressure on all these positive things. Lower production costs will have some affect on prices, but overall we are far more productive than 30 years ago and inflation adjusted wages really aren't moving for the bottom 80% of the population. This is not to suggest that no trade should happen, but a tax on carbon (which will effectively act as a tax on things traveling from further distances) will limit trade to where there is an overwhelming advantage to it.

As a rich country less globalization will allow us as a country to focus on things that should become larger priorities. Economic stability, quality of work, work hours, vacation time, community, hobbies, equality, sustainability, etc...