Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on October 8, 2018

Bookmark and Share

A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax To Fight Global Warming?

A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax To Fight Global Warming? thumbnail
  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation were adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but still no walk in the park.

California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.

“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius]-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.

In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”

But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.

The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C-consistent cost-effective pathways.”

Daily Caller

71 Comments on "A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax To Fight Global Warming?"

  1. Davy on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:15 am 

    “And the beat goes on…”

    You mean the neutering goes on. Yout two have to watch the nonsense or you are made to look like a fool. I know it hurts but it is good for you.

  2. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:24 am 

    DerHund, YOU live in a country where the rule of law is meaningless. Want refs? If you don’t have millions you go to jail for anything the government wants to charge you with. If you have billions you steal millions and walk away free.

    Example: Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Mafia. Their whole family should be in jail if you have laws that are enforced. At least half of the DC mafia should be in jail if there is a rule of law.

    You live under the delusion that you have freedoms. You don’t. You have to prove your innocence in the courts today. They no longer have to prove that you are guilty.

    That said. Your ref is a US government sponsored propaganda machine. Nothing more. Nothing less. The last article I read in the news here was a bit over 4,000 total last week.

    Maybe you should ask why the US can kill millions of children and call it “collateral damage”? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Ukraine, and on and on. Why doesn’t that organization go after the US? Because it is US controlled like many other NGOs around the world trying to overthrow governments and stir up chaos. Well it is coming to the US. Enjoy.

  3. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:27 am 

    Davy, the only fool here is you. But you refuse to see it. Typical hypocrite American. Soon to see that payback is a bitch. Go tend your goats. lol

  4. Davy on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:34 am 

    Sure billy, then why are you so upset? I think you made a really bad decision to move to where you are at and now struggling to paint the picture it was the right move. There are consequences for bad decisions and your judgement is ahead. I remember one comment you made that you family is sick and tired of your anti-American doom messages. I would be too if I was them. You are a broken record of hate and resentment. Your type of personality crashes and burns with no family or friends. Your days are short. Go down to your polluted beach and drink a beer.

  5. Anontarded1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:44 am 

    aswang (pbuh, swt) please listen to dertard (pbuh, swt).

    der you finally untarded yourself with my help. congrats brother, peace be upon you.

  6. DerHundistLos on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:53 am 


    Are you Theedrich’s bitch? Let the man answer for himself. He really does not need an ally to help him decide where to place his country of residence.

    “Theedrich on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 1:41 am
    Excellent post, Mak. Here in Yankeeland

    What does this prove? It was an obviously subtle means for him to hint that he’s an American in response to my questions. Strange way to answer a question. It’s not a nuanced inquiry in need of subterfuge.

    Still waiting for a direct answer from the SOURCE (in other words, not you Clogged). All you can do is make feeble arguments why he should be an American. Go find something useful to do.

    Enough time wasted so go ahead and make a closing stupid remark.

  7. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 5:55 am 

    DerHund, in reply to that last paragraph, which is not factual, just bullshit,

    HIV is #40 on the list of top death causing disease in the US. It doesn’t even show up on the top 50 Filipino diseases.

    Hepatitis (Liver cancer) US is #26 on the list with 24,500 deaths last year. The Ps – #29 with about 8,000 deaths. That is about equal percentages by population.

    Check out the 2017 stats here:

    If everything is great in America, why is there ~43,000+ suicides per year? The “shithole” Philippines had only 3,400 or ~34 per 100 million people vs US at ~14,000 per 100 million people? Over four hundred times as many.

    Your delusion of US superiority is very misplaced.

  8. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 6:00 am 

    Oops! Bad math!

    “US at ~14,000 per 100 million people? Over four hundred times as many.”

    Should be:

    “…vs US at ~145 per 100 million people? Over four times as many.”

  9. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 6:04 am 

    Davy is full of shit as usual. Putting words in other peoples mouths and trying to tell them how they feel. Such arrogance? And stupidity! And, ALWAYS wrong.

    Go tend you goats. You probably see them as Black Angus in your delusional mind. LMAO

  10. Davy on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 6:15 am 

    billy, you are likely jealous that you can’t farm nor have a farm. I am pretty good at keeping track of what people say around here and in a comment with MM AKA the MOB, you said your family didn’t want to hear your doom porn anymore. LOL, now you are lying about it. LIAR

  11. Cloggie on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 6:21 am 

    @Hound – I don’t have to prove that I am anybody’s “bitch” as I am the one here with the most outspoken opinions on energy, history and geopolitics, long before Theedrich or Antius.

    “What does this prove? It was an obviously subtle means for him to hint that he’s an American in response to my questions…. Still waiting for a direct answer from the SOURCE (in other words, not you Clogged).“

    Huh? You just got your answer from the source, brought to your attention by me. This is all (sufficient) proof you are going to get. Why don’t you admit you were wrong. Thank God you have me around to explain things to you.

    Regarding “allies” or “buddies”…. count me out, completely uninterested, not with anybody. I obviously have overlap with people here… like with makati and Greg about the true nature of empire, with Theedrich and Antius about the JQ and disgust with mass immigration, with Theedrich, Greg and DerHund about that Germany was set up for war, and I am rather alone in promoting EU 100% renewable energy policies and I am certainly alone in promoting Gaullist c.q. Turbo-Huntington identitarian geopolitics, post-empire.

  12. Richard Guenette on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 12:28 pm 

    Davy is ignorant and rude. Ignore him.

  13. GIGO on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 1:26 pm 

    The Daily Caller.. founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson..

    Stopped reading after that.

  14. Cloggie on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 2:13 pm 

    Attention span thingy?

  15. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 6:46 pm 

    Cloggie, not sure about Germany being set up for WW1, but it definitely was set up for WW2, as was Japan. After that, the US “wars of choice” were all just a means to sell weapons. The MIC was addicted to that easy money.

    The continental US has not been threatened by a foreign country for over 200 years. All of its war are for profit or to maintain power. Now its time is over.

  16. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 7:00 pm 

    Davy, I have partnership in a farm and know how to farm it. I’ve worked on sheep farms, driven huge diesel tractors plowing and harrowing large fields, and grew up in farm country helping my school friends with their farm chores. Again, you ASSUME to know all about me when you know nothing.

    Have YOU mucked out a horse stable after a winter’s use? I have. The shit was four inches deep and smelly, but it was useful for fertilizer, unlike your bullshit.

    You are a typical stalker, Davy. I doubt anyone else here cares what I do everyday or exactly where I live. You try to pin it down, but are lead astray by my remarks, which are deliberately misleading.

    I have a large family. True some do not want to be told they are living in a dying country. Their loss. But some are active prepers and see reality. I post items for their use and education. I don’t lie. That way I do not have to try to remember what I said to whom.

    Again, you are delusional. Get help.

  17. Cloggie on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 10:35 pm 

    “Cloggie, not sure about Germany being set up for WW1, but it definitely was set up for WW2, as was Japan.”

    WW2: agreement as of 1934 between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that Germany needed to be destroyed and Europe colonized.

    WW1: Germany was set up for war by Britain, that had bought France and Russia into its anti-German coalition with Alsace-Lorraine and Bosporus respectively.

    “On the night of 30-31st of July, 1914, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, the German Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily:”

    ‘Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us… In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact… The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’

    The good Kaiser was entirely correct.

    But now the tide is turning. Two Anglo centuries are enough. Trump and Brexit could not have come at a more opportune moment. The new frontlines are in a process of formation: Eurasia vs Anglosphere.

    – Trump is withdrawing from Empire
    – Continental European unity is growing
    – Russia wants to become European
    – China is to replace the US as the new #1
    – White nationalism is growing in the US, potentially leading to a split
    – Britain is leaving the EU while failing to blow it up from within and Scotland wants to remain

    Adding this all up and you can verify that the “Five Eyes” are going to lose their position of geopolitical preeminence.

  18. Cloggie on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 11:08 pm 

    Brexit drama turning ever more chaotic:

    May keeps pushing Chequers that the EU has clearly rejected.

    Cons remain split on Brexit course:

    Northern Ireland DUP is very pro-Brexit. May’s cliffhanger government is relying on 10 DUP seats:

    EU is threatening UK with total blockade in case of no-deal Brexit:

    (My impression is that the EU has quietly decided on a hard Brexit, because they have all the cards.

    If the British are trapped on their island because planes are grounded and goods piling up… guess what Scotland is going to do: leave the UK without an independence referendum:

    It could very well be that the EU is speculating on this scenario.

  19. Cloggie on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 11:30 pm 

    Yesterday was a good day for the American left:

    Taylor Swift: “Nazi Barbie no more”. She never was to begin with, but in the US it suffices to refuse to say who you vote for to raise suspicisions you could be a Trump supporter. Now this airhead Swift caved in and came out of the closet stating she is part of the showbizz libtard world after all by backing Democrats.

    (((Sarah Silvermann))), the funny face of the US deep state, immediately understood the yuge importance of this event:

    Tomorrow an interview will be aired with Melania Trump, where she will ventilate details about her marriage with Trump and his infidelity:

    She will probably not break with him, but expect subtle revenge regardless. Also expect Sarah Silvermann to sit on the edge of her chair, enjoying every second.

  20. makati1 on Wed, 10th Oct 2018 11:35 pm 

    Cloggie, I see what you point out about WW1 as correct. I had not put the pieces together, but your reason is logical. I do know that England did not like that Germany was building a navy that could compete with them.

    Sounds like today’s US trying to keep down any country that can compete in any area. The US cannot win the battle because it is already losing. Russia and China both have better military systems and, yes, more sound economies.

    The fact that Russia and China are in the US MSM “news” with so many negative articles proves it. If they were weak opponents, they would be ignored. It’s entertaining to watch the slow destruction of America and Trump rampaging around the world helping the process.

    Americans don’t understand that TPTB are not patriotic to any country or any one money system. They are working towards equalizing the total population of the planet at a low level they can control. Whether you and I live long enough to see a One World Government remains to be seen, but the possibility is that we will. Or at least a One World Currency in the next 5-10 years.

  21. Sissyfuss on Thu, 11th Oct 2018 8:43 am 

    Mak, multinational corporations are only loyal to their bottom line, irregardless of the destruction they cause to to both countries and their environments. They are a power structure outside of regional laws and jurisdictions. As far as paying for their sins they are untouchable. And they will only get more venal and psychopathic as the bottleneck is entered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *