@david_jordan_728
David Jordan
105 w
Google carbon tax and you will see sponsored ads from ExxonMobil and BP extolling them as their solution to the climate crisis. But why? They know that any form of gas taxes are extremely unpopular politically and have no chance of getting approval in many countries, including the United States. So they are playing a cynical game of pretending to support something that they really don't because they believe it will take some of the political pressure off them. Furthermore if enacted fossil fuel companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers and continue business as usual. Either way, fossil fuel companies continue business as usual. Every truly independent published study about the reduction of emissions from countries that have adopted CFD or other forms of carbon taxes have shown that any reduction in GHGs have been very small. British Columbia passed CFD in 2008. According to the province's website their emissions have risen, and new fossil fuel infrastructure being built. In short, carbon taxes are backed by the fossil fuel interests, do not reduce emissions and do nothing to limit consumption from the wealthy who are mostly responsible for the climate crisis. CCL are liars and grifters with no respect for the science which is calling for immediate reduction in GHG emissions.
96 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
David Jordan
137 w
The recent draft IPCC report is clear that immediate and substantial reductions in fossil fuel use is needed to preserve even a 50/50 chance of staying somewhere between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius global warming. From a policy perspective that will require world governments to implement radical policies, including: 1. Court mandated takeover of all fossil fuel companies with their assets transferred to a trustee with fiduciary responsibility to the IPCC. We can no longer afford for our future to be jeopardized by profit seeking corporate criminals. This move means that reserves will be managed and allocated based on carbon budgets. 2. Rationing systems ensure that basic energy and transportation needs are provided for to assure economic justice. This means that fossil fuels cannot be used for private jets, yachts and extra homes. This means, for example, that cruise ships are out of business until they can figure out a sustainable alternative. 3. The seizure of assets can be used to fund transitions to sustainable energy transportation and agricultural systems along with a hefty tax on billionaires. There is no way that so called "free market capitalism" addresses this problem. It's literally antithetical to the capitalist credo of constant growth, as we need degrowth and a shift away from consumer capitalism to a human and environmental centric system. We must embrace the necessary even when difficult and reject easy fixes and greenwashing, for example carbon taxes. 4.
85 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
David Jordan
142 w
Carbon Fee and Dividend is immoral Carbon taxes give the ability to continue killing the planet to those who are able to pay the price, namely the rich. The rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves in the horrific societal collapse which has already started. It's a continuation of the domination of the rich over the planet and the rest of us. It's the privilege of the rich and powerful to continue business as usual while the rest of us and the planet pays the ultimate price. This is morally reprehensible, and incredibly stupid. Recently the Guardian published this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/29/carbon-emissions-americans-social-cost Understanding the impact of co2 emissions is critical to properly framing policy solutions. If the average emissions of 3 US citizens kills one person each year, then why should we permit unlimited use by the wealthy knowing that we are literally giving them license to kill? That's exactly what a carbon tax does. Now consider that the average wealthy person creates 10-20 times more emissions than the average American. Do the math: the average wealthy American is responsible for the death of about 5 humans per year. If that isn't horrible enough, even that number doesn't account for long term impacts. This is why the carbon tax is morally reprehensible despite the pretty window dressing and eco friendly PR spouted by proponents like CCL. The best analogy I can use is African wildlife safaris where elephants rhinos lions and other wildlife can be slaughtered for a fee, which of course goes to a fund that will purportedly preserve said wildlife. Sound like a scam, just like carbon taxes/CFD. Of course, the implementation of a carbon tax will continue business as usual, which is why fossil fuel industry giants like ExxonMobil support it. That should tell you something.
80 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
142 w
The less carbon you use, the less you pay in tax. That’s a good incentive to cut personal carbon emissions, how is this immoral? The more immoral part of this emitting a surplus of carbon?
•
•
•
142 w
No! Putting a high tax on carbon is essential to speed up the transition. According to 28 Nobel Laureate: “A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary.” If you believe in science you should read this: https://www.econstatement.org/ I want fast change in the world and this is a good way of doing it where most people will be winners. Yes the rich that pollute will pay. I Don’t have any problem with that. Regarding support by Exxon it is no real support; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/30/exxonmobil-lobbyists-oil-giant-carbon-tax-pr-ploy (unfortunately, otherwise we have probably seen carbon tax and dividend implemented worldwide)
•
142 w
I agree, a carbon tax will be instrumental to shift to clean energy.
David Jordan
142 w
Why Carbon Taxes Are A Bad Idea Claim: putting a price on carbon will hasten a transition to renewable energy Reality: We have run out of time to do a market-driven transition from fossil fuels, even if it did everything carbon tax proponents claims it will do as opposed to what has historically happened with CFD. Various schemes such as cap and trade and CFD have been tried and failed. The reality of British Columbia, which as many of you know just experienced a shocking 121 degree event, shattering previous heat records by a wide margin, with multiple environmental disasters. They implemented CFD in 2008, yet they are still building new fossil fuel infrastructure, and GHG emissions have increased. The second lie here is that the “free market” will solve the problem, when in fact the free market created the problem. The most insidious aspect of this lie is that it shifts attention away from what science is clearly telling us, which is that we must drastically reduce emissions ASAP to keep worst case scenarios of 5-6 degrees from happening. Claim: We can work within the system to achieve a bi-partisan solution to the climate crisis. Reality: Republicans today are anti-science, anti-democracy and anti-reason. Most run their campaigns on opposing everything and anything the “radical left” proposes. Want evidence? Despite numerous concessions to water down the latest climate bill, there’s still not ONE Republican senator who backs it. At this point, only mass civil disobedience gives us a chance to achieve the radical reforms necessary to prevent an uninhabitable earth. Claim: The dividend means that lower and middle class individuals will be shielded from the financial impact. Reality: The price of energy is built into virtually everything. So when the price of everything goes up, which it must to adjust to the tax, the people who can least afford these price increases will suffer the greatest economic impact, whether it be transportation, food, or other essentials. This goes counter to the Paris Agreement, which says that climate justice means that the poor, who already suffer disproportionally from the climate catastrophe, should not also suffer the burden of economic costs. Since the richest 10% of Americans are responsible for 50% of emissions, this tax scheme will create severe economic hardship for most, while still allowing the richest to continue heating their 2nd and 3rd homes, and fuel their private jets and yachts. Also, how do you justify a tax while claiming “that you will get it all back”? If that’s true, why take it away in the first place? Claim: A transition to renewable energy will spare us from environmental disaster. Reality: The climate crisis is a symptom of a bigger issue that CCL ignores: Our wasteful consumer culture and unchecked capitalism that encourages environmental destruction in the pursuit of profit. This practice has brought about planned obsolescence, disposable plastics, and fast fashion, all of which have contributed to emissions and wholesale environmental destruction. Also, the transition to renewables comes at a huge cost. Biomass, which some consider “renewable” is wholesale destruction of forest ecosystems so that the wood can be burned for energy. Mark Jacobsen’s proposal to build out wind farms in CA would despoil an area 4 times the size of Yosemite. Rick has talked about the environmental costs of solar panels. The bottom line is that without major structural changes, there is no chance that a transition to renewable energy will save us. Claim: The most significant thing we can do to curb the climate catastrophe is put a price on carbon. Reality: According to the overwhelming scientific consensus, the most significant thing we must do is to drastically reduce our emissions, something CFD will not do based on historical evidence, at least not without raising the price of carbon to a level where ordinary people will suffer catastrophic economic consequences. We can and should eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies immediately, stop granting new permits for fracking, off shore oil drilling, fossil fuel infrastructure like Enbridge’s line 3 in MN, etc. Above all we need a rationing system that ensures everyone will get enough energy to meet basic needs, while mothballing yachts, private jets, fossil fuel to extra homes, etc. Claim: We can stop climate catastrophe if we just implement good policies (i.e. CFD) Reality: Warming over 2 degrees Centigrade is baked in now, regardless how much we curb future emissions. Because carbon tax proponents by and large have not acknowledged this fact, it makes it much easier to con people into thinking we have time for the “free market” and CFD to magically change reality, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Why are carbon tax proponents bright green lies important? Isn’t everyone entitled to their own opinion, regardless of how well it fits with reality? The bright green lies of the carbon tax proponents are based on misconceptions, positions that don’t align with current science, and a culture that wants to preserve our unsustainable lifestyle at any expense. The lies are horribly impactful because they have undermined opposition to industrial expansion and gangster capitalism. The bright green lies are incredibly harmful because they lead us in the wrong direction, they lead us astray. They prevent us from actually getting to the root of the issues and talking about real solutions. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
•
142 w
Carbon prices are also needed. The eu-ets is working fine. China has started to expand its carbon market.
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
•
105 w
I quite disagree too. Carbon taxes (and pricing in general) have been seen and proven by economists as being one of the best tools to reduce GHG emissions and help mitigation measures be implemented (because cheaper). A study by Best, Burke, and Jotzo (« Carbon Pricing Efficacy: Cross-Country Evidence ») concludes that countries that have implemented carbon pricing have an average growth rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion that is 2 percent points lower than in other countries. In another study (« Energy mix persistence and the effect of carbon pricing » in 2020), they show that carbon pricing also allows for a shift in national energy mixes toward lower-emission energy sources. But yes, carbon taxes do not work all the time (the EU ETS is a great example), but this is mostly due to a low carbon price and high price volatility in the emission markets. But I believe that carbon tax shouldn't be the only tool to use to mitigate climate change, but it is a necessary one
•
•
•
105 w
I’m afraid I have to disagree. If fossil energy is expensive and Green energy is cheap, people Will buy Green. Today it is the opposite. Some oil companies advocate for carbon tax publicly, but they have been caught paying for lobbying secretly against it. Most countries that have implemented carbon tax have not done it in a good way. CCL is advocating a scientifically proven method. I support their solution. The price needs to be high enough. It is not a silver bullet, but it will help the transition a lot. Read more about the scientific support for this: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/