From the UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH comes yet another plea for carbon taxes as a way to “limit” our wallets climate change
Carbon levy could limit impact of climate change, study suggests
A consumer tax levy on fossil fuels could provide a means of lowering their use or encouraging the adoption of cleaner alternatives, the research suggests.
Such a system – adopted from a tool devised by the economist Arthur Pigou in the 1920s – could help avert dangerously high global temperatures and sea level rises.
Current economic policies for reducing the use of fossil fuels are unlikely to be as effective, the study finds.
The results emerge ahead of the upcoming COP22 climate change talks in Marrakech, Morocco, at which delegates will seek to enforce targets to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C.
The proposed levy – known as a Pigouvian tax – would offer a way to balance the competing needs of supporting economies while at the same time limiting the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions on the environment.
A key facet of the carbon levy is that all revenue would be recycled directly to households.
The policy would likely encourage the development of green technologies, and reduce consumption. Such a system has been successfully introduced in British Columbia, Canada.
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the study, designed a simple, readily understandable model of climate economics.
They took into account the costs to society of climate change, the costs of adopting new technology, how the climate is likely to respond to change, and future changes in costs.
They found that under existing economic policy conditions, global temperatures are likely to continue to rise strongly this century.
This is the case even when future greenhouse gas emissions are moderated in the most cost-effective way possible, with strategies that seek to optimise reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
The research, published in Anthropocene Review, also show that global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels five months after the Paris Climate Agreement.
Professor Roy Thompson, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who carried out the study, said: “Estimates vary over future costs of climate damage and of potential savings from emission abatements. But what is now evident is that society needs to take much firmer action.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Anthropocene Review — a new pseudoscientific journal dedicated to the end of the earthen blight known as “humans”. With over two years of religious dogma such as “The Anthropo-scene: A Guide for the Perplexed”, this journal acts as an explosive outlet for human expressions of self-flagellation … the likes of which we haven’t seen since the plague years. In fact, the entire journal is dedicated to re-imagining the plague as people along with methods to inoculate the earth from us.
I remain perplexed.
“Professor Roy Thompson, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, who carried out the study, said: “Estimates vary over future costs of climate damage …”
So now it is “climate damage”.
I noticed that too. Politics of language.
It’s almost as if the UNEP’s PR powers that be have been desperately searching for a magic buzz-phrase to replace “global warming” – on which they had relied for years.
But it really wasn’t working too well after Climategate. The latest and greatest from the PR propaganda power machine, that I saw via twitter, is “climate hazards”.
Not to mention that the IPCC is also hitching its wagon to the “sustainable development” jargonaut – albeit many years after now-disgraced Pachauri had declared that it should be done!
Amazing, eh?!
Totally off topic: When I access this website, after about ten seconds the screen skips down to the ads just before the comments. I try to get back to what I was reading, but the screen skips again, often time after time as I am trying to toggle up or down. Am I the only one experiencing this phenomenon? It doesn’t affect other websites.
I believe Anthony commented on/addressed this in a comment yesterday… unfortunately I can’t recall which one!
Could anyone who does recall where kindly cross post his note?
I don’t remember which post it was, but he recommended clearing cookies and browsing history.
..Just clear your search history…
Perhaps a browser issue with WordPress. I use Firefox, and haven’t had any problems
I use Chrome and I have seen it in the past.
Perhaps it is the toggle mechanism. Did you try scrolling?
Notice, they did not say the revenue would be “recycled” to all households. Which means it will end up going to the households of the bureaucrats and the households of their cronies.
The Law of Unintended Consequences has a way of thwarting every effort makes at a ‘social engineering’ project. The utopianists and humanistic idealists are consistently played as fools and useful idiots.
The most common unintended consequence is that resource$ intended for the project get diverted to politicians, their friends, families, and sycophants.
In the words of ‘Deep Throat’ – “Follow the money.”
A Pigouvian transfer through the Clinton Foundation is still a transfer of wealth.
This makes as much sense as raising taxes on food in order to reduce the amount of land used for agriculture.
That’s further down on the “to do” list as are other items post- Paris “agreement”.
Raising taxes on energy has the added benefit of making food more expensive at the same time.
I only wish I was being sarcastic.
Any ‘carbon tax’ is based on fraud. Sue the government.
On net, CO2 is a significant benefit for mankind.
Adding a few tenths of a degree to the temperature is beneficial (Even if the wildest of the spectualtions were to come true and the temperature were to go up 2 to 3C, that would still be beneficial)
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes plants including plants that we eat, grow bigger and faster.
Based on this any Pigouvian tax should be negative.
But we’re saving all the higher latitude countries from being overrun by ice sheets and runaway glaciers. That’s got to be worth something, doesn’t it?
/doublesecretsarc
It’s further on down the wish list for Hillary and the true “toxic” goal of the Party. After all, selling Presidential pardons is a limited revenue stream.
Here is an even more efficient way to tax consumers. Just don’t build or allow adequate pipeline capacity. Done.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-01/world-s-priciest-gas-is-bound-for-one-u-s-region-this-winter
Who gets to decide what is “green” and what is not? Certainly, only government will give itself a monopoly on that determination. Anyone who disagrees, no matter how polite and peaceful they may be, will be dealt with by the full power of government, starting with the SWAT team in full body armour with their MP5’s at the ready. This is so important that environmentalists are willing to send their own grandmothers off to reeducation camps should they deny the “consensus”, of government grant recipients at prestigious universities.
“…what is now evident is that society needs to take much firmer action.”
It’s only “evident” to those who need it to be, in the make-believe world of Climateland™. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it has never been evident that we needed to do anything, let alone take “firmer action”.
Since 93% of GW is in the oceans why are we even debating the 1% atmospheric issue. If the top 10 climate research institutions cannot explain the oceans warming why burn a candle on this foolishNess
“They found that under existing economic policy conditions, global temperatures are likely to continue to rise strongly this century.”
And the opposite is also true – under any conceivable changed economic conditions global temperatures are also just as likely to continue to rise.
Wow, it’s a tool from the 1920’s!! Should we also reject marginalism because it was from the 19th century? And do you know how old calculus, 0, and geometry are? Why, they’re positively ancient!
C’mon, Anthony.
How can they demonstrate that their actions had any effect, one way or another? It’s like the old joke about keeping elephants away by doing (X). “Well, it works, doesn’t it? Do you see any elephants?
Talking of carbon taxes, now that there is none in Australia, our “dirtiest” power station will close as early as March next year.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hazelwood-is-only-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-coal-power-20161101-gsfeif.html
Hazelwood received millions as a direct result of the carbon tax.
Lets hope South Australia sorts it’s “renewables” before the next storm.
For your information Chromebook says this site is trying to download scripts from ‘unauthenticated sources”
Here in the United States, all new taxes and tax increases need to be pared with federal budget cuts as part of the President’s balanced approach to deficit reduction. The President is already years late with the budget cuts that are suppose to go along with the tax hike on the rich and the ACA taxes. What budget cuts are proposed to go along with this new carbon tax?