The economic case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax has never been stronger.
A federal carbon tax would have impacts across the economy: revenues, energy price impact, emissions, impacts on low-income and middle-class households, impacts on the national economy, regional impacts. There are seven proposed federal carbon tax bills in the U.S. Congress, and they share similarities. The following linked study examines one of the proposed carbon tax bills. [energypolicy.columbia.edu]

@AnonySchmoose We're a long way away from implementing a Carbon tax; and that still gives polluters a way to "pay for their sins"...

I say let's find a better way.

Alternative energy is growing rapidly. EV's are growing rapidly. Soon gas will be prohibitively cheap....it won't profit the oil companies to mine it.

How soon?

The portable phone revolution took 10-15 years. The computer revolution too 10-15 years. I give EV's and wind-generators another 5-10 years before they really become dominant in our society.

Then we just won't need a carbon tax.

[energy.gov]

@Robecology Cars aren't the only industry spewing CO2. I think I read how much greenhouse gas comes from cars, and it's not the largest percentage. There are other industries' gases, so you have to get those gases out of the picture too. I don't think EV's can have any connection to eliminating gases from those other industries.

@AnonySchmoose Indeed; you're right;

"The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation."

[epa.gov]

But I still see the industry changing simply because powering homes, business, including agri-business will soon be easier, cheaper and wiser using wind, hydro (running water) and solar (both P.V. and direct solar (greenhouses, hot water heaters) instead of mining, shipping, and burning fuels.

Again; I give it 10 years to see a significant change; but I honestly doubt the Carbon tax will ever work.

Don't get me wrong; I'm for doing something. I constantly post about the FF subsidies being larger than Alt/energy subsidies, the absurdly low fuel taxes in Russia and the U.S. etc. But I don't see anyone "buying in" to the carbon tax....and even if they do they are, as I said, "paying for prolonging their sins".

Even my hero, Elon Musk, has supported the Carbon tax - a few years ago. His view has since changed.

Watch;

@Robecology I do agree that the fossil fuel subsidies need to end. If we're going to subsidize anything, it should be on renewables and associated tech and companies.

I think a better approach to some kind of carbon tax/fee scheme is simply to make fossil fuel producers actually remove as much carbon from the biosphere as their products pump into it. But it should be permanent removal in geologic timescales, not just something like planting trees. I prefer an approach that actually addresses the problem, not some indirect method that might or might not do what's intended.

@bingst As I said, above; Carbon taxes won't work. Even Musk, who was for them in the 2015 presentation, above - has since changed his mind. He, like many alternative energy producers - see little willingness in the politics of fossil fuel mining/producing nations; their pockets are well-stuffed with pro-fossil fuel businesses (I call them the FFC...the Fossil Fuel consortium). Note which nations, in the chart below, have the lowest taxes on fuels. They want to squeeze every penny out of the ignorant fossil fuel using public.

@Robecology Enjoyed Elon Musk's video explanation of the CO2 cycle and how carbon tax would work. I visited some Senator's and Representatives offices last month, and in one office the skepticism about getting a carbon tax bill was strong on account of the extreme political atmosphere. I wonder if that is why Elon Musk gave up on any carbon tax bill. What do you know about his reason?

@Robecology You may be interested to check out this simulation and the group which designed it, which is backed by thousands of scientific, economic, population, agricultural, etc. calculations. This is a sixteen minute video which will give you the gist about the combination of many kinds of changes that would be needed to keep global temperature rise below 2.0 degrees C, and ideally at or below 1.5 degrees C. If you wish to see the thousands of calculations underlying the simulation tool, you can register on the En-ROADS website at this link and go into the training and see all the levers that affect climate change as well as the calculation and graphs that illustrate their effects. It takes a few minutes for the video to upload and completely appear. [register.gotowebinar.com]

@AnonySchmoose Thanks! the video started immediately ( Ihave a 2016 MacBookAir - not sure of the specs). I'm watching it now. A bit wordy, a bit too technical for me.

...and from what I gather it's a "what if" "then" - graphic program for the future.

I'm confident that we as a society - even the collective "we" as a world - are over a hump. Wind energy is growing fast. Tesla stock is rising quickly - and they already opened a Gigafactory In China, and they're working on one in Germany. I don't see subsidies and taxes as a solution; I see human trends.

Humans are getting smarter, E.V.;s are growing...Wind power is growing, Solar is growing, and environmental awareness is growing. The fossil fuel consortium is trending downward. I'm an optimist.

I think we'll fix this.

@Robecology
I'm not pushing for taxes and subsidies ... that is not a silver bullet ... that is only one aspect of leverage against the global greenhouse, and it needs to be combined with many other levers to achieve the desired effect. I'm only doing my small part. Maybe you know about it ... the links I shared are designed by MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative, so the levers that interest you are also part of their initiative.

@AnonySchmoose Thanks for sharing.

The economic case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax has never been stronger.
A federal carbon tax would have impacts across the economy: revenues, energy price impact, emissions, impacts on low-income and middle-class households, impacts on the national economy, regional impacts. There are seven proposed federal carbon tax bills in the U.S. Congress, and they share similarities. The following linked study examines one of the proposed carbon tax bills. [energypolicy.columbia.edu]

@AnonySchmoose Nice try, young lady.

But as I replied above - politicians in America and most industrial nations are too well "lobbied" by the FFC...the fossil fuel consortium. Notice this; The proposal with the most cosponsors, totaling 64 Democrats and 1 Republican as of the end of September 2019, is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA.

64 democrats and 1 Republican

No chance of that bill passing.

We need profit incentives.

Tesla stock (TSLA) just went above 400. Alternative energy stocks are rising while Fossil fuel and I.C.E.car maker stocks are not. The end is in sight.

Taxing these people will never be approved...and will never work.

You may be interested to check out this simulation and the group which designed it, which is backed by thousands of scientific, economic, population, agricultural, etc. calculations. This is a sixteen minute video which will give you the gist about the combination of many kinds of changes that would be needed to keep global temperature rise below 2.0 degrees C, and ideally at or below 1.5 degrees C. If you wish to see the thousands of calculations underlying the simulation tool, you can register on the En-ROADS website at this link and go into the training and see all the levers that affect climate change as well as the calculation and graphs that illustrate their effects. It takes a few minutes for the video to upload and completely appear. [register.gotowebinar.com]