[Ferretlover]

Hey! I don't have to say, "It could only happen in America!"

Carbon credits gone awry: Coolant companies raise output of harmful gas
Manufacturers cash in on system meant to slow climate change By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW W. LEHREN, The New York Times

RANJIT NAGAR, India — When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.
Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.
But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.
They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year. …
So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. …

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/…]NYTImes[/url]

[seenmostofit]

I saw this same article over at TOD and thought it was absolutely hysterical, another example of what happens when people with not a whit of experience doing something productive in their lives (like UN bureaucrats) subsidize something without realizing what happens when you subsidize something.

[Graeme]

Mid-Level Carbon Price Could Result In 100% Renewable Energy

A carbon price of between $50 and $100 per tonne would make Australia’s coal- and gas-fired electricity less economical than renewable electricity, according to a new study out of the University of New South Wales.

A peer-reviewed paper being published by a research group at the UNSW has found that, by increasing the carbon price to a ‘medium’ level, all fossil-fuelled power stations in Australia’s National Electricity Market could be phased out and replaced economically and reliably with commercially available renewable energy technologies.

To reach their conclusions, UNSW researchers Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and Mark Diesendorf performed thousands of computer simulations using hourly data on electricity demand and matched this with hourly input from solar and wind power for the year 2010.

The simulations compared the optimal economics of a 100 per cent renewable electricity system with that of a hypothetical new replacement conventional system based on the more efficient coal and gas-fired power stations than are in use today in Australia. The researchers used the conservative technology costs projected to 2030 by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.

“We found that the minimum 2030 costs of the reliable renewable energy system were achieved with a large contribution from wind power: from 46 to 59 per cent of annual electricity generation,” said PhD candidate and lead author, Ben Elliston.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Carbon Tax Good For Climate And Economy, Says US Congressional Budget Office

The US Congressional Budget Office has completed its study of impact of carbon tax on the US economy. The CBO was given the tax to assess the impact of carbon tax on fossil fuels on the US economy and the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. In its second report on the subject, the CBO has given elaborate description of what a possible carbon tax regime could look like.

The report seems extremely balanced as it elaborates the findings one step at a time without jumping to conclusions. One of the significant findings of the report is that while the share of US’ greenhouse gas emissions in the world would reduce to 15% from the current levels of 18%, it is important that efforts are made to reduce them. It says that it is important to do so to prevent “potentially catastrophic damage.”
As mentioned in an earlier report, the CBO estimates that a $20 per tonne tax on carbon dioxide emissions would yield revenue of $1.3 trillion over a period of 10 years. The emissions would also reduce by 8% during this period.
The report states that levying a carbon tax would certainly have an impact on the consumer prices which may have a cascading effect on the overall national economic growth. However, this damage can be countered by using the carbon tax revenue to a) reduce the fiscal deficit and b) reduce income tax and other taxes to support businesses and consumers. Thus, a revenue-neutral carbon tax may prove beneficial to the environment as well as the economy.

cleantechnica

[careinke]

All taxes should be consumption taxes, particularly carbon taxes which should increase 10% per year, forever....

[Lore]

The problem with a consumption tax is that it disproportionately affects poorer people. That is unless it was setup as a VAT subject to a sliding rebate dependent on income. Which I would be in favor of only if the revenue were subject to strict rules of appropriation with no special interest pork allowed.

[careinke]

The problem with a consumption tax is that it disproportionately affects poorer people. That is unless it was setup as a VAT subject to a sliding rebate dependent on income. Which I would be in favor of only if the revenue were subject to strict rules of appropriation with no special interest pork allowed.

There are ways to overcome the regressive nature of consumption taxes. The fair tax proposes "prebating" everyone with an amount equivalent to what a person at the poverty line would pay. Presto, the poor are completely untaxed, no need to let the government into your personal finances.

Another option would be direct subsidies to the poor, but they would be subject to income audits. Everyone else is still exempt from government intrusion. Income tax is at best indentured servitude, but actually, I think it is slavery with the IRS as the slave master. Add the political coercion, practiced by the IRS, and I feel it is time for them to go.

[Laromi]

Carbon Tax, Oh what a good idea, we'll make the polluters pay their due, my very word we will, we'll make make enormous inroads into developing a "green" infrastructure, we'll hit these pesky industrialists right where it hurts; right up their chimney stacks, that'll show'em, too-right it will. There will be no impost on the peons, just those nasty industrialists and manufacturers, and any sense of disquiet in the populace then can be smoothed over by adopting, at a later date, a global Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme.

The benefit of this Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme is it will probably only assist in mitigating EU banking woes. The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), also known as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, A.K.A the Kyoto Protocol. According to UBS, (UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company) Investment Research, the EU ETS cost $287 billion through to 2011 and had an "almost zero impact" on the volume of overall emissions in the European Union and the money could have resulted in more than a 40% reduction in emissions if it had been used in a targeted way, e.g., to upgrade power plants [Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.htm] (finance provider; bankster involvement).

Whatever, the Carbon Tax appears to be a precursor for a rather more insidious tax that will only benefit banking systems in the long term an hit the poor old universal householder in the pocket - Again. If not only through running a newly created monetary unit say the carbex, (Carbon (stock) Exchange, similar to Metex for example), then through the increase in service costs; A massive 21% increase in electricity, recently announced by the Australia P.M. and also flow-on end prices to consumer items (such as cars, airline tickets, food etc.). And what if a new beaut green type energy source is found? What of the Carbon Tax then? and Associated Funds. And, to the nub, global warming and cooling has occurred many times over many eons an just because some folk think CO2 is the issue and others think not, pouring money into the banking system in my opinion is like "thingo whatting" into the wind.

[SilentRunning]

A carbon tax seems to be the best solution. It should be brought on gradually over a 5 year period, and advertised well in advance so that people making vehicle and housing choices can make changes well ahead of time.

[Graeme]

Is the solution for climate change in Vancouver?

[Shaved Monkey]

A massive 21% increase in electricity, recently announced by the Australia P.M. and also flow-on end prices to consumer items (such as cars, airline tickets, food etc.). And what if a new beaut green type energy source is found? What of the Carbon Tax then? and Associated Funds.

Current Australian PM is a global warming denier whos main policy is to scrap the carbon tax.
Price of power in Australia has increased mainly because of Gold plating of networks.
Utilities get rebates for poles and wires so they put in heaps of them and pass the costs on to the consumer

A 2012 report by the Productivity Commission found network services, or poles and wires, to be the single most costly component of electricity supply accounting for around 45 per cent of total electricity prices from 2007-2012.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-30/t ... ls/5050348
We have lived under the carbon tax for a few years now I haven't noticed any increase in what I spend.
It was averaged out to cost about $9 a week per person, which everyone was compensated for.
So if you used below average, as I do, with solar panels and solar hot water I actually made a profit after compensation.
Above average users paid more.

[Graeme]

The Most Interesting Climate Policy Debate You Haven't Heard Of

It occurred last June between two groups of conservatives.

On the do-nothing side were well-known climate-science deniers, James Taylor of Heartland and David Kreutzer of Heritage Foundation. On the other side was R Street senior fellow Andrew Moylan along with former 6-term GOP congressman Bob Inglis (SC). Inglis leads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative (E&EI), an organization dedicated to finding a conservative approach to climate change built around a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Here is the interesting part. The debate was in front of a largely conservative audience, and yet:

At the conclusion of the debate, a straw poll was taken and approximately 80% of the audience indicated they favored taxing carbon emissions in return for a dollar-for-dollar tax swap on something else (FICA taxes, corporate income taxes, etc.).

So in an actual debate for conservatives and by conservatives, the winner by far was serious climate action. Here is a video story on the debate, courtesy of the Showtime TV series — tonight’s episode features Taylor and his work with ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) to kill windpower, as well as a story on methane leaks:

theenergycollective

[Graeme]

In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy

A revenue-neutral carbon tax or fee is a proposed policy to address global warming that's become increasingly popular, particularly in the US. It's a simple concept – put a much needed price on carbon pollution, but return all the revenue that's generated to taxpayers (for example with a monthly refund) to offset rising energy costs. This approach appeals to political conservatives, because it's a free market solution that doesn't increase the size of government.

British Columbia (BC) launched a revenue-neutral carbon fee in 2008, with the tax offset through a matching reduction income taxes. So far it's been very successful, decreasing carbon pollution while the BC economy performed just as well as the rest of Canada's. The carbon tax has 64% support among BC voters.

The main source of opposition to carbon pricing is the perception that it will 'kill jobs' or otherwise hurt the economy. However, economic forecasts have rarely been done for a carbon fee in which 100% the revenue is returned to the taxpayers. Under proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation, about two-thirds of taxpayers are projected to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices. It's a net financial gain for most people. This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue-neutral carbon tax system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.

A new study from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) models this type of policy. REMI has been developing regional forecasting and policy analysis models since 1980. In their study (full report here, summary here), REMI modeled the regional and national economic impacts of a revenue-neutral carbon tax starting at a modest $10 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2016, growing steadily by $10 per year each year. They broke the US into nine distinct geographic regions.

skepticalscience

[AgentR11]

A carbon tax that is used to offset equivalent reductions in existing taxes, definitely could work, and could pass.
A carbon tax that is used to cut a check to someone else for doing nothing but breathing will never, EVER pass in the US. Its pointless to model.

I am for a carbon tax, one that makes zero change in gross receipts to the government. It could easily be big enough to properly price behavior.

But using it as a slippery way of cutting checks to the base of the Democrat party is a complete non-starter.

[KaiserJeep]

A carbon tax is simply a way of allowing the government to spend more of a taxpayer's income than the wage earner himself.

Once the repercussions of electrical power and transportation that have doubled in cost are felt, the United States will have been transformed from a wealthy and prosperous nation to one with widespread poverty and hunger.

Understand, we will still be relatively better off than the rest of the world, where people will be starving and perishing in wholesale numbers.

Obama has a plan to throttle down the US Economy and soften the impact of Peak Oil. Now you know what it is.

Can you handle the truth?

[AgentR11]

TRUTH is useless propaganda. TRUTH is used to get people to destroy themselves for no useful, personal gain.

"can", however, is gospel.

What matters is getting appropriate revenue for the government, and having the sources of those revenues properly price the commitments of that nation. Income and death taxes are abominations, they tax what should be encouraged; to subsidize that which should be discouraged.

Swap em. Apply taxes in a way that if it lowers use, it also lowers national obligation. My belief is that a carbon tax is the perfect vehicle, IF AND ONLY IF its revenue is offset by identical reductions in income (inc ss/med), death, and/or gift taxes. Its also easier then, once the bad forms of taxation are gone, to have honest debates about how much tax revenue the government should take in. IF the fairness nerds want to assist lower income groups cover the tiny amount of tax they'd pay under a carbon plan, then you can tweak SNAP or Sec8housing programs. The energy price inc the carbon tax, represents an HONEST cost assessment, not the currently subsidized one. Remove the subsidy provided by income tax, and then adjust a real program (SNAP, et al) to accommodate a real cost (energy).

[joewp]

All a carbon tax would do is allow the rich to use more at the expense of the poor, even with "prebates" or "swaps".

What we really need is rationing. Issue electronic "gas coupons" in the form of a debit card, and each person gets 1.5 liters of gasoline every day, to use, save or sell, with the amount of the ration declining each year.

That would be the only really fair way to power down.

But probably because it's fair, it will never happen I guess.

[careinke]

All a carbon tax would do is allow the rich to use more at the expense of the poor, even with "prebates" or "swaps".

What we really need is rationing. Issue electronic "gas coupons" in the form of a debit card, and each person gets 1.5 liters of gasoline every day, to use, save or sell, with the amount of the ration declining each year.

That would be the only really fair way to power down.

But probably because it's fair, it will never happen I guess.

So under your scheme how rationing help the poor and hinder the rich? The rich will just pay more to buy the unused gas. The poor would also pay more for extra gas? Have you ever been around gas rationing? It's very inconvenient.

[Graeme]

Pricing Carbon: 21st Century Corporate Leadership

The call for a price on carbon is growing louder in the corridors of business and government. Last week, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wrote in The New York Times that climate risks are perhaps the biggest “known unknown” that we face, and he asked “farseeing business leaders” to demand a price on carbon—it’s the quickest, most efficient way to manage these risks.

Paulson was previewing the Risky Business report, which calculated the economic impact of climate change on U.S. businesses’ balance sheets. A few days later, CDP released a report on corporate use of internal carbon pricing.

CDP surveyed executives to find out why leading businesses are already valuing carbon to future-proof their business plans. It is interesting to note that some of the largest U.S. utilities, including American Electric Power and Exelon, price carbon in an effort to avoid stranding large fossil-fuel-fired power plants and to reassure investors. Other less carbon-intensive businesses use internal prices to help achieve corporate sustainability goals—TD Bank aims to go carbon neutral, and Walt Disney Corporation (as well as Microsoft) uses internal pricing to encourage employee innovation while delivering profits. The value of encouraging more sustainable growth like this came through this week in the World Bank Group’s new Adding Up the Benefits report, which calculated the value of climate-smart development in lives, jobs, and economic growth, as well as the climate.

Leadership in the 21st century will be defined by these and other forward-looking businesses that re-define economic growth to focus on people, planet, and profits. They are showing that we can have it both ways; that being green is the only way to keep companies—and our economies—in the black. And perhaps most importantly, they are contributing their voices—and political support—to governments aiming to solve the climate problem.

This leadership is being noticed.

worldbank

[Graeme]

US poll finds 60% back carbon tax - if used for renewables

Most Americans oppose a carbon tax, considered by many economists a cost-effective way to fight climate change, but they are willing to support it if the money is returned to them or used to fund renewable energy, a poll has found.

Only a third, or 34 per cent, say they support taxing fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide when burned, according to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Local, State and Urban Policy and Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion. This general lack of support, which is lowest among Republicans, is consistent with the authors' prior polling.

Yet a different picture emerges when survey participants are asked about three possible uses of the tax revenue. If used to fund programs for renewable power like solar and wind, 60 per cent back the tax overall, including 51 per cent of Republicans, 54 per cent of Independents and 70 per cent of Democrats.

A smaller majority supports a tax if the revenue is returned to them via a rebate check. While 56 per cent overall favor this idea, support ranges from 43 per cent for Republicans to 52 per cent for Independents and 65 per cent for Democrats.

theage