Talk:Carbon tax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inconsistent

This article says that NZ had plans in 2005 of being the first country to introduce a (national) carbon tax, in 2005. It then reveals that several countries introduced (seemingly national, as far as the article suggests) carbon taxes in the 1990s. This is inconsistent. Clarification? Metamagician3000 09:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was intended with the original wording, but since the NZ tax was canned, and it's covered in greater detail later in the article, I've removed the reference to it in the introduction.-gadfium 02:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the impartiality of the section discussing the negative effects of a carbon tax-perhaps it should be labeled as such? To me, it appears that it is trying to sell a position on the issue rather than remaining impartial.Light Dragon 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flat Tax

The article states that "any flat tax is regressive," which I am pretty sure is false. The author may have been thinking of a fixed tax, which is a one-time lump-sum tax, as opposed to a flat tax, which is a constant percentage tax.

In a regressive tax, the tax rate decreases as the amount of taxable activity increases. An example of a regressive carbon tax would be $10-per-ton of carbon on pollution up to 100 tons, and a $5-per-ton rate for anything above 100 tons. Another example of a (fixed tax) regressive tax would be if all polluters, no matter how large or small, had to pay $200. This is not the case in the context of a flat carbon tax, where individuals or companies would be taxed at a constant rate, say $10 for every ton of carbon produced, no matter how much they polluted.

There is a big difference between a fixed tax and a flat tax. A fixed tax creates an incentive not to pollute in the first place, but no incentive to stop polluting once you have started. A flat tax creates a constant incentive to pollute at a lower rate than you would without the tax.

The author's original point of redistributing money from the rich to the poor still holds in either case, as the rich will on average cause more pollution than the poor, who could be reimbursed if the government saw fit. 64.0.136.140 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I've removed it.Larklight (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A tax is regressive if (qualification caveat blah) a poor person pays a larger percent of their income/wealth on the tax than a rich person. A flat tax on carbon isn't necessarily a flat tax on income, since the poor (in a given advanced economy at any rate) tend to spend a larger share of their income on energy than the rich. At least that's the argument, which is reasonable, though I'm not an expert in this area.

A rough web search found little that I could download for free (Metcalf and others have NBER working papers which I'm not willing to pay for right now). But I'm left with the strong impression that the state-of-the-field is that a simple flat carbon tax is regressive. I did turn up this for free: [1]See p.11 sec 3.1.

So, it's not at all a far-out argument. There was recently an edit about this reverted. I think the substance of the edit made sense, but wasn't sourced and looked to be cut-and-paste from a web page, so it should stay out of the article until something better is done.Cretog8 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Debatepedia external link acceptable?

Not clear if this is an appropriate link. Although the web pages is useful in comparing the pros and cons of a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a link to a site that fails our guidelines. I have removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The link (third footnote) "2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers" does not work

Oneredsock 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)one red sock

The calculations

The calculations presented here are all in Imperial system. Could we please also have the calculations for mks (metres, kilogtrams, seconds) standard international notation? John D. Croft (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Those calculations are quite interesting and look to be a good "back of envelope" theoretical approach. However, it doesn't show any evidence that this is an actual model being considered anywhere, or if it is just someone soapboxing their own ideas. For that reason I have added an 'OR' tag until it can be properly referenced. Ephebi (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Language

This article repeatedly refers to a carbon tax as a "direct tax" in the introductory paragraphs, when in fact it is an "indirect tax". This is clarified further into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Breathing Tax

The carbon tax is essentially a tax on our breathing. After all we exhale carbon dioxide. Plants breathe carbon dioxide and provide us with valuable oxygen. Carbon dioxide is a crucial component of life. This should not be considered an indirect tax as people cannot avoid using fossil fuels, electricity, natural gas or coal (which is often burned to generate electricity). If such a tax is ever implemented in the United States, the revenue should be used for planting more trees, or perhaps researching cleaner alternative energy. 64.72.180.94 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article on the Carbon cycle. All carbon is not equal, the CO2 released from fossil fuels is carbon that has been outside of the carbon cycle for millions of years, where as what you breathe out, comes from the atmosphere (with some brief interplays as food), and gets returned to it. Please also see WP:TALK as to why such discussions as this, shouldn't be on the talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More Sources please

The article does not cite any sources of congressional bills on the subject. Most of the claims of global warming have been disproven. So far, global warming is only a conspiracy theory, a political agenda, or both. There are not enough verifiable facts to support the theory that the air we exhale (CO2), is a gas that should be taxed. This article should be treated as a political agenda, such as the "flat tax" agenda commented above, and should be cited as such. We need more facts, and sources. JonTheSavage (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is not for debating the merits of global warming theory (which has a lot of evidence behind it, by the way). Facts and sources to support the theory of global warming should primarily be added to the main global warming articles, not here, because to add them to this article would just duplicate content in the encyclopedia.—greenrd (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would comment that there are millions of tons of CO2 that plankton in our oceans release every day. Are the plankton going to be taxed? Perhaps there should be a reference to an oceanography section, as well as a Global cooling reference. JonTheSavage (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the plankton are not going to be taxed, because they do not have any money. The aim of a carbon tax is to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions. Obviously, if you wanted to reduce non-anthropogenic carbon emissions you'd have to use a different technique.—greenrd (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The plankton should get a tax refund they absorb CO2 when I went to school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.47.157 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Bills and Specifics

There should be some links to congressional bills on this issue with the exact, and precise wording of said bills. Since we are made partly of Carbon, and exhale CO2, then the wording implies that it is a tax on breathing, and our genetic makeup. "Carbon tax" is not sufficient. It should be a more specific name specifying what it is taxing. CO2 is not taxable, but the page should describe the specifics of what type of molecular structure is being taxed, not just "CO2". This article is too broad, and should be narrowed to be specific as to its meaning. This is the point I am trying to get across. Without specifics, it implies that it is a tax on air, which legally cannot be taxed, even by an act of congress. JonTheSavage (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Revenue Neutrality

I would love to see more information in this article about different forms of revenue neutral carbon taxes--explained nicely by the Carbon Tax Center (http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase) and in this cute post (http://globalpublicmedia.com/joe_average_and_jane_median). Thoughts? CommuteByCycle (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Carbon tax at point of Consumption

There is no mention in this Wiki of schemes based on the idea of taxing the net carbon dioxide produced as the result of producing any particular product for example a car. It has been suggested in the Age newspaper (Melbourne Australia) that such a tax could be levied in much the same way as "GST" or "VAT" operate and that would solve many of the problems that appear with current schemes that are operating. A Google of the name "Geoff Carmody" will lead you to some links that explain how the scheme would work. PR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.97.216 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision of several sections

I've written down some of the recent changes I've made to this article. I've found the article contains a number of unsourced statements that are potentially misleading:

The UK has unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime.

The UK does not have a carbon tax. The climate change levy is an energy tax. The EU ETS and UK ETS set a price for carbon, but are not carbon taxes.

Unlike other approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the revenue from the tax is returned by reducing other taxes. Alternatively, it may be used to fund environmental projects.

Unsourced, biased and misleading. Taxes can be just as complex and opaque as cap-and-trade.

In an October, 2006, report entitled the Stern Review by then HM Treasury official and former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, he states that climate change could affect growth which could be cut by one-fifth unless drastic action is taken.[...]

According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s.[...]

In the U.S., according to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%. [...]

I've deleted the paragraphs above. I don't see the purpose in having them in the article. The impacts of climate change are covered in the article the economics of global warming. The link between tax level and impacts is not made in the above paragraphs.

Also, a carbon tax does not disadvantage new or growing companies relative to more established companies as occurs when companies are given more carbon credits if they polluted more in the past. [...]

This and the subsequent list is misleading. Firstly, some of the claims, e.g., greater transparency of carbon taxes, are not necessarily true. Secondly, some of the criticisms apply only to caps where permits are grandfathered. Enescot (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I also had concerns about these sorts of statements, but didn't have the confidence to correct the problem.—greenrd (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tax calculation section redo

I have redone the entire section. Since the whole thing was just a bunch of calculations for different fuels, I put it all in a table. Instead of an arbitrary value for SCC, I used the average peer reviewed value. For what it is worth, that is the best estimate. I used the numbers per BTUs from EIA for the electricity tax estimate. Only arithmetic calculations and conversions are made, and that isn't OR, so I've removed the banner. The clean up banner too, since thing are nice and tidy now. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead changes

The lead starts:

Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as CO2 when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content...

Enescot and I have two different finishes to this paragraph:

If carbon dioxide emissions are not released into the atmosphere on combustion of fossil fuels, e.g., carbon capture and storage, then a carbon tax will not apply. Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of low-carbon technologies, such as renewables, compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels.

Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of energy sources that don't burn fossil fuels.

I think that carbon capture and storage doensn't belong in the lead. Isn't this an experimental technique that is impractical now and will need research and development yet to be done to be feasable, if it ever is?

I also prefer the simpler final sentence, at least I think "low-carbon technologies" is jargony, and innacurate as it says that there are significant CO₂ emissions from the other sources. They are zero, essentially. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

I question the opening "Scientific consensus holds that anthropogenic greenhouse gase emissions are the primary cause of global warming.". There is only consensus amongst a closely nit and politically agreed group of scientists who have merely "declared" consensus as a means to silence debate. This is endorsed by politicians who will benefit from the taxation it enables them to implement.

A more thinking/skeptical article should avoid declaring consensus, and simply stick to discussion of carbon taxes as a proposed method for curbing/controlling industrial activity as it relates to C02 generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.61.116 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These scientists reached the same conclusion by independent examinations of the scientific evidence. Why would you think otherwise? I am not sure if you have thought through the scientific evidence. Many, many scientific groups have concluded this, not one has concluded the opposite. There is clearly consensus. Look at the source provided, there are 18 important scientific groups listed. And how thousands of scientists in many different fields in many different countries are "closely knit" or "politically agreed" makes no sense to me. Also, how will these politicians benefit-- implementing taxes doesn't make anyone popular.

The article, obviously, needs to say why we need a carbon tax. We don't need to reduce CO₂ levels just for fun, you know. Diderot's dreams (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Where are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.193 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section is a bit short, surely there are more criticisms then that for Carbon taxes? --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are theories that a Carbon tax would be used to fund the New World Order. 11 Nov 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.50.56 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Name calling asside, why is there no disucssion of economic impacts of carbon taxation?

What a shame to wikipedia! It is absolutely clear that this article was edited by persons who will get benefits from carbon tax. CO2 is not a pollution! There is much more criticism than it is in the article.--24.43.71.37 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Background for an addition to 'Carbon tax compared to cap and trade'? (Where should it go?)

Paying for carbon capture in the fuel price

There is a problem at the heart of cap and trade, how to allocate the permits to emit or the revenue from auctioning them. It is clear from the response of oil and coal price to minor excess demand just before the boom turned to crunch that people are prepared to pay almost anything to sustain their energy consumption. The rights to emit will be worth trillions of dollars and sustainable worldwide agreement on who is entitled to sell them will therefore be extremely difficult.

There is another way that all nations could find attractive and easier to agree to without protracted negotiation.

Fossil fuel producers and importers would contract for the capture and sequestration of a quantity of carbon dioxide equal to a proportion of that produced from the fuel they supply. The proportion would start at a few percent and build up. This would increase fuel price gradually, encouraging energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars etc. It would also provide full, immediate funding for carbon capture and storage. Carbon tax or cap and trade schemes on the other hand only provide sufficient funding for carbon capture when tax rate or permit price has reached a high level, which may be too late.

Energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars etc. are only ways of filling the energy gap that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will create and mankind has been effectively filling energy gaps for centuries without the aid of agreed national or global strategies, taxes or caps. Carbon capture is different. It is a way of stopping pollution and will always add cost. You can legislate to stop pollution (which is economically inefficient) or you can use market forces by giving credit in a cap and trade system, credit against a carbon tax or by paying directly in fuel prices as above. If carbon capture is driven in any of these ways all the other things will happen too.

The contract might permit capture to be delayed for a year if the quantity captured were increased by 10%, and for another year for another 10% etc. This would not only help with plant problems, but would also allow contracts to be placed today, providing a huge incentive to get carbon capture and storage up and running as soon as possible. It is not lack of know-how that is holding back carbon capture but the lack of an incentive to apply it widely, except as a demonstration of the technology.

To contain global warming carbon emissions from power generation, cement manufacture etc. must soon be stopped and electricity must be substituted for fuel use in many domestic, industrial and transport applications. Taxing carbon, capping emissions or contracting for carbon capture when fuel is produced could all provide the economic incentive, but unless the world joins in they will not solve the problem.

Contracting for carbon capture is certain to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to whatever annual target is set (if the contracts are honoured) and is relatively easy for everyone to agree to because:

· It will appeal to rapidly growing and mature countries alike. There are no national caps to restrict relative growth.

· It will allow all industries in all countries to compete on a level playing field. There are no carbon tax or emission cost differentials.

· Because there is only one number to agree, the global annual target, extensive international negotiations will be unnecessary. There will be no national targets to haggle over and perhaps never meet. There will be no issue about who gets the revenue from a carbon tax or what the rate should be or who gets free allowances (or the revenue from an auction) with cap and trade.

· Enforcement is straightforward and does not rely on the co-operation of every country. The contracts would be traded and recorded centrally, mostly placed and paid for by the international energy companies. If countries were uncooperative and used their own fuel internally without contracting for carbon capture, a central monitoring organisation could impose an increased capture proportion on imports or exports of fuel for that country to compensate.

Put simply, carbon capture and storage could typically cost 50 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide emission avoided, refer http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/docs/2009/CCSA%20International%20Manifesto.pdf . This is equivalent to $32/barrel of oil and the contract would only be for a proportion of that. This is modest compared to price changes over the last few years.

The major complication is that it is only practical to capture carbon dioxide from large point sources like power stations. Forcing 75% capture on the global market through this scheme would drive fuel price up and electricity price down until people switched from fuel to electricity for many industrial, domestic and transport applications. Once nearly all power stations etc. had captured their emissions there would be an incentive to build new power plants simply to create more carbon dioxide to capture and to dump the electricity they generated onto the market at a low price. Fossil fuel power generation with carbon capture would collect payment for all the captured carbon but only pay back 75% in its fuel price, giving it an unfair advantage over nuclear and renewables. It would be perverse to tax carbon capture while trying to encourage it, but as the endgame approached national governments could tax away the 25% of the capture contract price that was not being paid in the fuel price. The revenue could then be paid out per kilowatt-hour to subsidise power from all clean generators.

Eventually the proportion of carbon to be captured could be defined, based on fossil fuel production at the time, such that global emissions were contained at the level that the oceans absorb annually. That is about 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon per year (25% of current emissions) refer Geoengineering the Climate, Science, Governance and Uncertainty, September 2009, published by The Roayal Society. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would then stop rising, assuming zero net contribution from deforestation and other land based sources and sinks.Jem Cooper (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is original research, isn't it? If so, it should not go on Wikipedia.—greenrd (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't know it wasn't allowedJem Cooper (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hansen

The paragraph may represent Hansen's views, but many of the statements are not — even by interpretation — in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've cut it - i spot-checked the article, and while these may be Hansen's views, they aren't supported by the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hansen carbon tax plan as alterntive to cap and trade reinserted with four references including to his detailed letter to President Obama. This carbon tax plan is a notable alternative to cap and trade and should be mentioned here. The references support the text.121.127.207.75 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The new version still has too much detail, still written as if Hansen's interpretation of the administration and the results of his tax were accurate (that was my patch last time before KDP deleted the paragraph again as not being in the source), mostly not supported by the references ("biosequestration" seems to be your interpretation of "carbon trap", and the details of accounting for children is not in any of the references nor relevant, among others problems). Please work on a draft paragraph outside the articles themselves, until a version which is correct and relevant can be obtained.

Arthur Rubin is doing his best to ensure Hansen's notable views never appear on wikipedia during this critical period (see his edit war with me on the Kyoto Protocol). Below is a revised version of the para with an additional reference from Nature Reports Climate Change
James Hansen has argued in an open letter to President Obama that policies to cap carbon emissions and trade permits for them (see cap and trade) will only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow 'business-as-usual' for the chief carbon-emitting industries. He advocates phasing out coal-fired power stations and imposing a progressive carbon tax at source on those who mine or trade carbon as oil, gas or coal. Hansen's proposal, widely covered in the international media (including Nature Reports Climate Change), is that this carbon tax will be collected through existing taxation bureaucracy to provide a potential 100% dividend deposited monthly into the bank accounts of individual members of society (not governments) (equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family)) at a level inversely proportional to their carbon footprint.Refs:
James Bone. Climate scientist James Hansen hopes summit will fail. Timesonline December 3, 2009. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece accessed 10 Dec 2009.
James Randerson Nasa climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama. The Guardian, Friday 2 January 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen accessed 10 Dec 2009
James Hansen. Letter to Obama http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf accessed 10 Dec 2009.
James Hansen. Tell Barack Obama the Truth. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf accessed 1o Dec 2009.
Keith Kloor. The Eye of the Strom. Nature Reports Climate Change 26 Nov 2009 ttp://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.124.html accessed 11 Dec 2009.121.127.207.75 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the {{dead link}} allegation. timeonline seems to be blocking me, rather than my blocking it. It now works through an anonimizer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't prove that his statement isn't supported by his book. However, I doubt it, as you kept adding additional sources which didn't even help support the statements made. It's still not appropriate for any articles other than carbon tax and possibly cap and trade, not biosequestration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hansen in letter to President Obama: "A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend."203.129.61.83 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the para the last sentence of which an editor is currently obstructively reverting. Please justify your reversions here before doing again James Hansen has argued in a recent book (Storms of My Grandchildren) and in an open letter to President Obama, that policies to cap carbon emissions and trade permits for them (see cap and trade) will only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow 'business-as-usual' for the chief carbon-emitting industries. He advocates phasing out coal-fired power stations and imposing a progressive carbon tax at source on those who mine carbon as oil, gas or coal, with a 100% dividend. This dividend, in Hansen's carbon tax plan would be returned to citizens in equal shares the actual return varying according to the size of their carbon footprint: those with a low carbon footprint, for example, would get a higher proportion of the dividend203.129.61.83 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

James Hansen's comments and "leading" support for taxes

I've deleted James Hansen's comments on cap-and-trade and moved his views on taxes into the section on support for carbon taxes. I did this because Hansen is not an expert in the comparison of taxes and caps, whereas the other sources referred to – Newbery, the Carbon Trust, and Smith – do have expertise in this area.

If you wanted to criticise the way caps are implemented, it should be done so in a more objective fashion than the Hansen source does (e.g., Neuhoff has commented on the possible inefficiencies of allocating permits). The existing article does suggest this by stating that auctioning has advantages over grandfathering.

In the interests of neutrality, there is also the counter-argument (see the Carbon Trust source) over the difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of a tax. I would prefer that these sorts of debates are left out since they don't add much to the content of the existing section. The existing revision does mention the problem of taxes excluding certain sectors.

Since the sources I've used all accept the strength of argument in favour of a stable carbon price, I've added the following sentence (source: Carbon Trust, 2009):

"A large body of the economics literature states that because of the uncertainty over the costs of reducing carbon emissions, carbon taxes should be preferred over carbon trading."

I've reinserted Hansen's criticism of cap and trade which formed the backdrop for his carbon tax plan. It is notable-coverage in international media, open letter to President Obama, Book referring to it. Claim you have to be an economist to be sufficiently expert to comaper cap and trade to about carbon taxes for wikipedia has to be erroneous. Have noted Hansen's comments in support section.203.129.61.83 (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You're absolutely right about not needing to be an economist to comment on carbon taxes. So I'm wrong on that point, but I've come up with some other criticisms.

James Hansen has argued in a recent book (Storms of My Grandchildren) and in an open letter to President Obama, that policies to cap carbon emissions and trade permits for them (see cap and trade) will only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow 'business-as-usual' for the chief carbon-emitting industries.

If possible, I would like to know why Hansen thinks a cap system would make money for hedge funds. Why does Hansen think a cap system would allow business-as-usual for polluting industries?

[Hansen] advocates phasing out and protesting against coal-fired power stations that do not have onsite biosequestration [...]

I don't see what this has to do with taxes versus caps. Enescot (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Leading" support for taxes

I've removed the word 'leading' from the sentence below:

"A number of leading scientists, economists, environmentalists, opinion leaders, and business leaders from across the political spectrum support a carbon tax."

"Leading" is a subjective assessment. The full paragraph explains who the advocates of a tax are, and in my opinion, it should be up to the reader to decide whether they are "leading" scientists etc or not.

In the earlier section on implementation, I've added tags on sentences that aren't clearly attributable.Enescot (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of intro and "Carbon dioxide: global warming contributor"

I wasn't happy with the previous revision of these sections. The previous revision for the intro is below:

Carbon dioxide is considered to be a heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, and the purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment by penalizing emissions of carbon dioxide, which may cause global warming. Some environmental taxes include other greenhouse gases; the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as CO₂ when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content. If carbon dioxide emissions are not released into the atmosphere on combustion of fossil fuels, e.g., carbon capture and storage, then a carbon tax will not apply. Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of low-carbon technologies, such as renewables, compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels.

I'll go through my reasons for revision below:

Carbon dioxide is considered to be a heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, and the purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment by penalizing emissions of carbon dioxide, which may cause global warming.

Carbon dioxide is not "considered to be" a GHG, it is a GHG (Staudt et al, 2008; US NRC, 2001). Saying that it "may cause global warming" is too vague. What should be said is what the scientific consensus is in this area, as well as the level of confidence the scientific community has in this position. Fortunately, this is addressed in the section following the introduction to the article - "Carbon dioxide: global warming contributor".

[...] the purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment [...]

This may be one of motivations that governments have in introducing a carbon tax, but they may have other motivations as well. What is not unambiguous, however, is that a carbon tax might help to reduce GHG emissions. As such, I've added this sentence to the "Carbon dioxide: global warming contributor" section:

Carbon taxes are one of the policies available to governments to reduce GHG emissions.

Just because there are some other motivations for implementing a carbon tax (only one I can think of), why should we omit the primary one? We are certain that protecting the environment is a motivation if not the only possible one. Shouldn't we say something? Neither the intro nor the article now states the purpose of a carbon tax, a main point. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My new revision for the intro moves the scientific justification for emissions reduction out of the intro and into the "Carbon dioxide: global warming contributor" section. The previous revision for this section is below:

Scientific consensus holds that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of global warming. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas and as such it is considered an air pollutant. Worldwide, 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced by human activity annually. Two governmental mechanisms are being considered or implemented to reduce this amount: environmental taxes (of which the carbon tax is one) and capping emissions.

Problems with this revision:

Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas [...]

What does "major" mean? I've changed this to:

The physical effect of CO₂ can be measured as a change in the Earth-atmosphere system's energy balance – the radiative forcing of CO₂

The article on radiative forcing describes what the quantitative physical effect of CO2 is.

By major it was meant that it is one of the largest anthropomorphic effects on global warming. It is described as "the most important anthropomorphic greenhouse gas" in a large, highly peer reviewed scientific report by the IPPC. I have readded the information it to the article with the source, but as "the most important" rather than major. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide is [...] considered [to be] an air pollutant

By whom? I've deleted this sentence.

By the European Union, for example[2], and the United States,for another (Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)). I've readded the information with sources. Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Two governmental mechanisms are being considered or implemented to reduce this amount: environmental taxes (of which the carbon tax is one) and capping emissions.

I'm not sure what a "governmental mechanism" is. If market mechanisms (or instruments) are being referred to, then I suppose you can divide this into price, quantity, or hybrid instruments. I don't think that these distinctions need to be mentioned here, so I've deleted the sentence. Enescot (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What is meant is that governments are the entities who are implementing carbon taxes and many emission trading schemes. It is a description of who rather than how. And who would be implementing these plans is a central point. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted United Nations and restructured caps v taxes

I deleted the section on the United Nations "interest" over carbon taxes. This was inaccurate, misleading, and a distortion of the cited source. I've restructured the section on caps v taxes. Much of the information I've extracted from the carbon tax "support" section, which I've put higher up in the article. I've also added an importance and factual accuracy tags to the section on supporters of carbon taxes over caps.

Deleted United Nations

The previous revision contained this:

The United Nations has had interest in a global carbon tax . They have shown interest in this for several years.

The reference provided did not support this statement, so I've deleted the above paragraph from the article.

It certainly didn't. That shouldn't be in the article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Restructure of and tags for caps and taxes

The previous revision was poorly structured: supporters of taxes over caps were included in the section on carbon tax support, but Hansen was included in the section on caps v taxes. This made no sense. I've therefore grouped all the supporters of taxes over caps into one sub-section of the caps v taxes section.

I've also added an importance tag to the section. In my opinion, simply listing supporters of taxes over caps is not interesting. The purpose of the article should be to explain why some might choose to support taxes or caps over the other. The choice of supporters of taxes appears to be arbitrary, and biased towards U.S. opinions. To state the obvious point, global warming affects all countries, and not just the U.S..

I am also not satisfied over the factual accuracy of the section. Hansen's view that caps will be of no benefit is misleading and vague. In my view, its inclusion would be justified if it was explained how caps are ineffective, which hasn't been done.

I also added a bit on the additionality problem of carbon taxes. I did this to indirectly address the ridiculous assertion of the ExxonMobil chief that taxes are "more transparent" than caps. Again, this is utter nonsense, and in my opinion, has no justification being in this article. Enescot (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear and unsupported statement

The article states "As Carbon dioxide levels increase, global average temperatures on earth may increase within an 800 year time-frame." The statement is false when the word "within" is used. The statement could read "As Carbon dioxide levels increase, global average temperatures on earth may increase for an 800 year time-frame" and that would be correct. There is a linear relationship between the rise in CO2 and the rise in global temperature--- there is no "800 year time frame" involved except perhaps regarding how long the additional CO2 exists in the atmosphere before it is sequestered. Also, the statement provides no citation. Overall I think the sentence should be deleted. -- Desertphile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.21 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit to section on "implementation"

I've restructured the section on implementation of carbon taxes. Some of this section has had citation needed tags in place for some time. Since no one's provided the necessary citations, I've deleted some parts of this section.

I've written up new bits in this section and added a few tags. I don't like the way the section on Sweden is written. It closely follows the source material, which is a newspaper article. However, this section of the article read like a newspaper article, and I don't like that.

The stuff on "not affecting" economic growth is rather dubious. I don't think that it is sufficient to refer to a newspaper article to support this statement. To know how the tax has affected economic growth requires proper economic analysis. It is not a case of seeing GDP going up and emissions coming down. The proper question to ask is what would have happened to GDP without the tax? Enescot (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of carbon tax

I've rewritten the definition of the carbon tax based on Hoeller and Wallin (1991). As Fisher et al (1996) pointed out, a tax on emissions is not the same as a tax based on carbon content. The previous revision implied that they were the same, which is not correct. Enescot (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote the Fisher source please? (I don't have access to it) Thanks. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most research has focussed on the carbon content of primary fossil fuels as the most important practicable base for a tax on GHG emissions (1). A carbon tax is not however, a perfect proxy for a tax on CO₂ emissions. For example, a carbon tax on fossil fuels provides an incentive to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, but not to reduce CO₂ emissions by such a means as capture (fixation) and disposal of the emissions at source [...]. There may also be, due to leakage or incomplete combustion, emissions of other carbon compounds that differ from CO₂ in their greenhouse effects (notably methane). In addition, to be consistent, accounting would need to apply to domestic emissions resulting from the processing of fuels from one energy form to another (as in electricity generation)."

Comparison to Cap-and-Trade

The cap-and-trade comparison is written in such a way as to indicate the superiority of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade. What is not expressed is why cap-and-trade has gained more political traction. In the United States, a cap-and-trade bill was actually based by the House of Representatives whereas a carbon tax is substantially farther from realization. It is clear that this is caused not by a scientific preference of cap-and-trade but merely because it does not have the actual word "tax" in it. Citations are obviously needed for all of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.245.169 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) - cited references:

• Pearce 1991
• Boero, G., R. Clarke, and L.A. Winters, 1991: The Macroeconomic Consequences of Controlling Greenhouse Gases: A Survey. Environmental Economics Research Series. Department of the Environment, London.
• Jorgenson and Wilcoxen 1992
• Reperto et al 1992
• Dower and Zimmerman 1992
• OECD 1992a
• OECD (1993). International Economic Instruments and Climate Change. OECD: Paris.
• Jones, B P and P Tobler, 1993, "Policy measures to achieve greenhouse targets", ABARE Outlook 93, Canberra 2-4 February 1993.
• Pillet, G, Hediger, W, Kypreos, S, Corbaz, C (1993), The Economics of Global Warming, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
• Boyd et al 1994

Enescot (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

China

I've removed the section on China. One source was a blog, which is not a reliable resource. Other information was presented in the section, based on reliable sources, on general Chinese energy policy (China's energy intensity target). No explicit mention was made of how China's energy policy relates to a Chinese carbon tax. The information on Chinese energy policy was therefore not directly relevant to this article. Enescot (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Calculation

Hi there: Just wondering where you came up with the new calculations for carbon taxes. I did the previous calculations and I'm pretty sure they're correct, e.g., the EIA reports 10.28kg CO2 per gallon. There's 1000kg in a metric tonne, so that's 0.01028 tonnes CO2 per gallon. At $12 per tonne CO2 that works out to $0.12336 per gallon, so your edit (changing it to $0.028) is not correct. Agreed?

FYI, I'm very new to wikipedia, so I don't know what the proper etiquette is about undoing changes, but I'm pretty sure that the original numbers were better than the changes you made.

Regards, yoram Yorambauman (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good spot! I saw that the original numbers were wrong for the metric prices (off by a factor of 12 or so); and it seems that I then accidentally put in my new metric values with gallons as measurement... I fixed it. -- Marcika (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. You also noted that the table needed a lot more work. If you suggest things I'm happy to work on them. My own thought was that it would be better to have the table list tax rates for a carbon tax of $10/tonne rather than the current $12/tonne because then it would be easier to convert to other units. Also maybe have two tables, one for short tons and one for metric tonnes? (Then it would be possible to separate out the gallons versus liters, yes?) Other ideas? Yorambauman (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should mix and match metric and US units -- it is probably most helpful as it is... (Totally separate metric/imperial tables might work, though.) What I thought about when I wrote "work needed" is

1. to fill in the gaps, so that one can compare oil to gas and coal in terms of BTUs or kWh;
2. have a look at the tax/kWh calculation for coal, as I suspect it assumes 100% efficient power plants;
3. maybe have some sort of comparison in terms of "miles driven" (which is kind of complicated because you need to estimate fuel efficiencies and power plant/power conversion efficiencies for "coal-driven" electric vehicles). -- Marcika (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Partisan bias in section on Australia

Someone keeps clogging the "Australia" section with minutiae about Australian domestic politics which clearly doesn't need to be here, and which is written in a tone of obvious partisan bias. The worst aspect is the assertion that "various media polls in Australia have reflected strong opposition to the tax". This refers to wholly unscientific self-selected polls conducted by media outlets of pronounced conservative viewpoints. A US equivalent would be a phone-in poll conducted on Glenn Beck's show. Absurdly, one of these has opposition to the government's policy at 99 per cent. *When* a real opinion poll is conducted on this issue, it will quite be reasonable to include it - and I personally have little doubt that it will be unfavourable to the government. For the time being, can anything be done to prevent the relevant contributor from screwing up the page like this? I'm not entirely au fait with Wikipedia's procedures in these matters. William Bowe (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You are doing the right things. I am also watching the page and will also revert any non-NPOV edits. I was thinking that the "Australia" section could be reduced to just the first paragraph. Mrfebruary (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the right section to post this. A bit of balance and some more references are probably in order. As it stands it sounds like the CDT (Carbon Dioxide Tax) is generally popular. While it notes that Abbot has called for an election over the issue it doesn't say that he's committed to repealing CDT, assuming Green-Labor don't maintain control of the senate (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/abbott-tackled-on-how-he-would-repeal-law/story-fn99tjf2-1226093404319)

While the Say Yes demonstration provides a link and notes said organised events were held in most major cities, there are no references to support the assertions about the antiCDT demonstrations. A quick Google for proof found (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-3000-rally-against-carbon-tax-outside-parliament-house/story-e6freuy9-1226026717154) but there should be better articles.

Oh, might be worthwhile updating the carbon pricing section too. The scheduled price, official rises, and real estimates. 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.79 (talk)

Biased introduction

I've revised the intro to correct bias. Previous revision:

[…] Accordingly, a carbon tax artificially increases the competitiveness of non-carbon technologies compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels, thus, it is claimed, helping to protect the environment while raising revenues.

The sentence is not sourced and is biased. The repeated words “artifically” are meaningless – all taxes are “artificial”, digging up fossil fuels from the ground is also “artificial”. The word “claimed” is not appropriate – there is a broad scientific consensus on the potential impacts of climate change. My new revision corrects these problems:

National science academies and the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have pointed to the potential impacts of human-induced climate change. Carbon taxes are one of the policy measures that can be used in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. A number of countries have implemented carbon taxes or energy taxes related to carbon content.

Carbon taxes offer a potentially cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigouvian tax. They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full (social) costs of their actions. Carbon taxes are regressive, in that they disproportionately affect low-income groups. The regressive nature of carbon taxes can be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.

The first sentence objectively conveys the current scientific understanding of climate change. The later sentences briefly outline the economics of carbon taxes. Enescot (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter sentnce does not alleviate bias at all.

A pigouvian tax is meant to bring a market to norms. This tax is a levee designed to impede free market over consumption with the intent to reduce consumption.

Carbon taxes offer a potentially cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a levee intended to increase costs so as to promote reduced consumption and to drive markets towards using lower carbon alternatives. They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full long term (social) costs of their actions. The style of tax may or may not be universal across all people and businesses hoboturkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.108.85 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought a levee was something that mitigated floods. I favour Enescot's contribution over that of 122.107.108.85. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. Nice work. By the way, Levee and levy have the same root - from the French lever, "to raise". bobrayner (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Norway - other sources suggest emissions rose by 15% between 1991 and 2008, not 43%

A Wall Street Journal article from 2008 that is devoted (in detail) to Norway's experiences with the carbon tax says that the rise in emissions between 1991 and 2008 was 15%, not 43%. Unfortunately most online sources tend to either quote the WSJ article or the New York Times article from which the 43% figure is quoted, which doesn't help in trying to determine which of the two sources is correct. My money would be on the WSJ article being correct based it concentrating specifically on Norway, whereas the NY Times article is less detailed and compares many countries, but that's just a guess on my part. Perhaps until this rather important detail is confirmed, it would be safer for the article to note Norway experienced 'significant increase' in C02 emissions without stating the percentage? - Zzrbiker (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

edit - I've found a second reasonably credible source for the 15% figure, being a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the NREL being part of the US Dept of Energy, and this report quotes a 2005 report by the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment which puts the figure at 9% for 1991-2003. I think it'd be a fair call to change the article to note a 15% increase with these sources to back it up. - Zzrbiker (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Add from Portal:Current events/2011 July 10 ?

• The Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard announces the details of a plan to introduce a carbon tax. (Sydney Morning Herald) 99.181.131.237 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

NB http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2044996/ultimate-guide-south-koreas-cap-trade-scheme The ultimate guide to South Korea's cap-and-trade scheme Tom Young takes the microscope to the latest proposals for Asia's first emissions trading scheme 20 Apr 2011 Mrfebruary (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

11-10-10 intro revision by Enescot

I've rewritten the intro again. I did this to better explain some topics and to remove what I view as bias:

However, there is substantial opposition to such taxes in most countries of the world, especially those countries which rely mostly on coal for generation of low cost electricity, and which are among the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide. They include the USA, China and Russia among many others. Some governments currently subsidise carbon-based hydrocarbon fuels; the subsidies total about $557 billion per year.[9][10]

The article should maintain a neutral-point-of-view as to the use of carbon taxes. The above is unsourced and implicitly analytical by commenting on specific countries and policies, i.e., fossil fuel subsidies. These issues are dealt with in the economics of climate change mitigation article. Enescot (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

nicely done. The introduction is now much better written.Mrfebruary (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Carbon pricing in Australia

There is a main article on this (Carbon pricing in Australia). We shouldn't repeat it here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Subsidies

"...carbon tax is difficult to establish due to effect that other policies have on emissions, e.g., subsidies"

My understanding is that there are over $550 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually worldwide.[3] Perhaps this should be developed further? Paum89 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Australia's Carbon Tax

There is suggestion here that Australia's Carbon Tax is actually an Emissions Trading Scheme with a "fixed price" and that "permits can be traded" at the fixed price. Unfortunately these claims have no referencing because they are in fact patently false.

Firstly the difference between an ETS(Cap-and-Trade) and a Carbon Tax are explained clearly and concisely here on the Guardian Newspaper(who I think we agree hold no bias to Australia's Labor Party): Carbon-tax-cap-and-trade

"A carbon tax imposes a tax on each unit of greenhouse gas emissions and gives firms (and households, depending on the scope) an incentive to reduce pollution whenever doing so would cost less than paying the tax. As such, the quantity of pollution reduced depends on the chosen level of the tax. The tax is set by assessing the cost or damage associated with each unit of pollution and the costs associated with controlling that pollution. Getting the tax level right is key: too low and firms and households are likely to opt for paying the tax and continuing to pollute, over and above what is optimal for society. Too high and the costs will rise higher than necessary to reduce emissions, impacting on profits, jobs and end consumers.

By contrast, a cap-and-trade system sets a maximum level of pollution, a cap, and distributes emissions permits among firms that produce emissions. Companies must have a permit to cover each unit of pollution they produce, and they can obtain these permits either through an initial allocation or auction, or through trading with other firms. Since some firms inevitably find it easier or cheaper to reduce pollution than others, trading takes place. Whilst the maximum pollution quantity is set in advance, the trading price of permits fluctuates, becoming more expensive when demand is high relative to supply (for example when the economy is growing) and cheaper when demand is lower (for example in a recession). A price on pollution is therefore created as a result of setting a ceiling on the overall quantity of emissions."

Now does Australia's Carbon Tax set at $23 a Ton meet the qualification of a Cap-N-Trade system, lets go through them, according to this article by CPA: Governments-climate-change-plan.pdf

Page 3: Under the Carbon Tax: - A fixed price scheme (carbon tax) will operate from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2015. IMPORTANT: - any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically surrendered to the scheme regulator in the year of purchase and cannot be traded or banked for future use -freely allocated permits may be traded in the year they are issued, however they must be surrendered in the year they were issued (in other words, they cannot be banked). Holders of such freely allocated permits will be able to sell them back to the Government. The price will be generally equal to the fixed price of permits for that year. -if a liable entity does not surrender the correct amount of permits, they will have to make good that shortfall through purchasing the remaining permits at a charge equal to 1.3 times the price they would have otherwise paid for those permits.

ETS: -unlimited banking of permits will be allowed in the ETS -unless freely allocated, permits will be allocated by auction. There will be advanced auctions of future permits before 1 July 2015. -no permits from the carbon tax can be carried over to the ETS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: -the Government will set annual caps on emissions on the ETS. In the 2014 Budget, theGovernment will set out the caps for the first five years of the ETS with the caps extended each year after the scheme commences. Some businesses will want to know these scheme caps well before May 2014 and they will want an indication of caps well beyond the initial five years as they will be making investment decisions on assets with effective lives of 10, 20 or even 40 years.

Clear... Concise... Difference between the Carbon Tax and ETS System. The Carbon Tax sets a direct price on Carbon Emissions with no cap on emissions and companies buy permits at the set price to emit as much as they want. This is in stark difference to an ETS which sets a Cap on the level of emissions and then auctions off the Carbon Credits for companies to compete for and sell between each other. While there is indeed trading allowed between emitters under the Carbon Tax, because the credits are redeemable for the same amount they were sold for ($23 a Ton) back to the government they have no auctionable value and can not be banked for future years.

The Australian section as well as the linked "Carbon Pricing in Australia" wiki now need major reworking with bias taken out.Crocodile2009 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You've opened similar lines of argument along POV lines on the Australian article. You have not got the response you want there. So now you open the discussion here? --Merbabu (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, I've detailed specifically why an ETS and Carbon Tax are different here with references. Where are the references that the Carbon Tax is "just like an ETS"... I couldn't find it on either this article nor the other. Does the Carbon Tax have a Capped level like an ETS? Does the Carbon Tax have auctioned permits like an ETS? Does the Carbon Tax allow companies to bank and carry carbon credits into future years like an ETS? Does the government selling unlimited carbon credits at $23 a ton and willing to buy unlimited carbon credits back at $23 a ton make this a market based system like an ETS? Where is the references, where are sources? There is a claim that the Carbon Tax is just like an ETS but with a fixed price, yet not a single reference to back this up, i've just provided evidence that says that claim is patently untrue.Crocodile2009 (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to agree with Connolley, but I cannot. The present "Australian Carbon Pricing Scheme Carbon Pricing in Australia" is a carbon tax, and will convert to an ETS after June 2015. However, Crocodile's edits to this article seem to be removing the Australian scheme from this article. I thought that was fixed in that article, but the error seems to have propagated to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. What should be left from the text Crocodile is removing is already in the next paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Uniform wording

Every other countries Carbon Tax is listed as such, but amazingly Australia's term for whatever reason has been changed to "carbon pricing" which smacks of POV.

As a result it's being made consistent with the rest of this article and all the other countries listed here and changed to Carbon Tax.Crocodile2009 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A Market mechanism is not a tax. This is a distinction which an encyclopedia should make. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shiftchange. Also, the piped link that Crocodile has changed (correctly) links to "carbon pricing" and there being no apparent consensus for the change, I've reverted it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Explain how a government enforced arbitrary fixed price of $23 a ton is a "market mechanism". Hmmm? "Carbon Price" smacks of bias and POV and is not a common phrase used in Australia to describe the Carbon Tax. Apparently every other country in the world calls a set government price a Carbon Tax. It's POV to change the term to "Carbon Pricing" to set what looks like very much like a Pro-Labor agenda that Gillard didn't lie at the last election.Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it has reduced demand for coal fired power. That is the aim of carbon pricing, to change the market, not to raise revenue like a tax does. Also a carbon tax is levied on fuels as stated in the first sentence of this page, which is not the case in Australia. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So every other country in the world that has introduced a Carbon Tax didn't do so with an aim to reduce CO2 emissions? The facts are quite clear. Australia introduced a set $23 per ton Carbon Tax and is comparable to all the other many listed Carbon Taxes we see listed on this article. How is it NOT a tax and be specific.Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said what you are suggesting. I don't know the details of the other trading schemes. I did notice from the article that China and India's taxes apply to fuels. Australia's price on carbon has to be paid by the owners of rubbish tips which has nothing to do with fuels. Just because something behaves like a tax or has a similar outcome doesn't mean it is a tax. For example, you will not find articles on fuel price rises within a taxation category despite them being commonly described as a tax on consumers. The distinction between the two is made from their main objective. If you can't grasp the difference I will gather you don't want to. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for evidence that: 1. The Australian Carbon Tax is not a Carbon Tax 2. The commonly used reference to the Carbon Tax is "Carbon Pricing" by the majority of Australians, the media or politicians

It seems to me that "Carbon Pricing" is a POV term and has no place in a wikipedia article entitled "Carbon Tax". Crocodile2009 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting Carbon Tax (in the Australian context) is a neutral term? I mean, really? --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No I'm suggesting "Carbon Tax" is the correct term not to mention the most used term in Australia. How many other countries are calling their Carbon Taxes a "Fixed Carbon Price"?Crocodile2009 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Map request

It would be useful to have a map showing which countries in the world put a price on carbon, possibly color-coded by technique (tax, cap-and-trade, etc.). -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Profit

The article says nothing about the effect of carbon taxation on corporate profits. (Or, are profits now considered immaterial in our socialist world?) If governments think wind and solar are better energy sources, why aren't they building windmills and solar generation plants? The answer is that wind and solar can't compete with coal and gas, even with carbon taxation. An article such as this should present a fair and balanced discussion of pros and cons of carbon taxation. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carbon tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== This article should be rated up to a B class. With more references, it could go higher.EECavazos 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== High priority because it is a worldwide concept, controversial so there would be high traffic, and important.EECavazos 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Section on Alberta

"Alberta is also opposed to a cap and trade system it fears the trades will pull revenue out of the province, a fear not to be dismissed"

This strikes me as a rather subjective statement. Let the readers look at the facts themselves and then decide for themselves whether or not the fear is to be dismissed. It may be a true statement but that's not the point, we need to stay impartial. If the link provided demonstrates evidence that the trades will indeed pull revenue out of the province, consider replacing the above with "...which is supported by research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.50.21 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is a "site-specific command-penalty"? [4] Secondary sources call it a tax. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Uniform Wording should accord with Legal Definitions

Here is a diff to which this thread relates. I have redacted copy-and-paste of some preliminary commentary that was originally posted at User_talk:Emperor_Zhark, and thank the user for starting this thread, the real substance of which is below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This article includes reference to command-and-control policy instruments such as Alberta's regulation that is not a "carbon tax" as defined in Canadian law. Canadian law is the most reliable source, and any Wikipedia editor or economist who says otherwise is being either sloppy or disingenuous. If they wish to pad the article with untruthful conflations of "taxes" and "fees" then that's their business, but to remove a reasonable, very concise discussion of three different instruments (taxes, emissions trading/credits and subsidies) as NewsAndEventsGuy did, I disagree with and so have undone the edit, as Canadian legal definitions are more reliable than he. My edit did not suggest that carbon taxes are command-penalty regulations, that conflation appears later in another's edit that suggests that Alberta has a "carbon tax". My edit correctly repeated the description that carbon taxes and emissions trading are distinct economic instruments built upon a base of command-penalty regulation (a non-economic instrument), which is much more common and earlier policy instrument. There is no act in Alberta that has "carbon" and "tax" in the title, neither does the "Specified Gas Emitter's Regulation" (SGER) have a definition for "tax" in it. The reason for this is because it is an administrative penalty within a Command-Penalty Regulation, not a carbon tax. The textbook I cited, "Environmental Law and Policy in the Canadian Context" by Allan Greenbaum and Alex Wellington is a recent (2010) and reputable one. If NewsAndEventsGuy can give reference to definition for "tax" in Alberta's SGER, then I'd respect that it is a tax. No amount of bluffing can detract from these distinctions made in law and described in policy texts. If objecting editors have a different set of laws to reference, or policy texts that respect legal definitions, then it's their turn to present them, and not hide behind multiple quick edits to distract away from the legal definitions fairly presented. --Emperor Zhark (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(A) Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

(B) You stuck all this Canada stuff in the general section for "economic theory" in general. Definitions in Canadian law really aren't pertinent to the general classification of these different approaches. All this Canada-specific stuff does not belong in a general section.

(C) Best stow the language like "hide" "pad" and "untruthful" since that is not conducive to building a mutually agreeable consensus.

(D) Revising this once again. After skimming "Alberta’s (Non)-Carbon Tax and Our Threatened Climate" I think I know what you're getting at. I'll return to this in a few hours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(A) Thanks for emailing me directly, I don't yet know how to do that and it is a nice courtesy.

(B) The definitions of economic instruments listed (tax, emissions trading, subsidy) are signified by the names of the acts and definitions contained in them regardless of jurisdiction. Canadian examples of this are not particular to Canada alone. Most of the footnotes link to documents that clearly distinguish between proposals or legislation specifying either carbon tax or emission trading. As the Canada section shows an instance of misattribution on these policy grounds, it is all the more important that the relevant law and policy background be covered in the policy section. --Emperor Zhark (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(A) FYI, I did not send you any email. Must have been someone else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

If you - and the person you want to email - have an email address associated with your account, then you can go to that person's userpage (or talkpage) and click on "Email this user" in the toolbar. Alternatively, go to Special:EmailUser.

Some people like to email but others prefer to keep everything on-wiki. It's often best to avoid email on the most controversial topics, because others might think it's sneaky. Bear in mind the risk of disclosing your email address to the other editor. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and advice. The email in question was not directly sent, however it does appear more directly personal than a simple notification of page changes, as the header reads "_________ left you a message on Wikipedia", and lands on one's talk page.--Emperor Zhark (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Carbon tax objective

The article should explain how a carbon tax gets to the objective of stabilized emissions. That is capping CO2 in the atmosphere at say less than 500ppm by 2050. There have been a number of analyses suggesting the need for 12000 750MW nuclear power plants worldwide by 2050 to achieve the objective of stabilization. Currently there are a little over 400. Trying do it with renewables like solar and wind the numbers become huge. The heavy taxation of gasoline in some countries over time has had a marginal effect on consumption. This suggests that a carbon tax will have a marginal effect. Even if the taxes are used to fund some renewables it's unlikely to do what is required unless the taxes were draconian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurmike (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"The article should explain how a carbon tax gets to the objective of stabilized emissions." Please suggest some article text including citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Personal speculation and general topic discussion doesn't really cut it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Text from Social cost of carbon

I just reverted this recent addition

A defining feature of carbon taxes, compared to other policy instruments aimed at reducing pollution, is that they raise revenue. This revenue can be used for a number of purposes, but economists have focused in particular on the potential for carbon tax revenue to be used in a revenue-neutral tax swap.

The problem with this is that the text, including its supporting ref, appears to be plagiarized from a blog post "The case for a carbon tax in Canada" by Nicholas Rivers.

There is also a POV issue. Revenue neutrality is certainly something that has been studied, but it is hardly the only aspect that has been studied.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501105005/http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=cc&id=3979&action=detail to http://www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=cc&id=3979&action=detail

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072425/http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/631 to http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/631
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072425/http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/631 to http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/631
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191918/http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200805.pdf to http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200805.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227063524/http://www.bouldercolorado.gov:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7698&Itemid=2844 to http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7698&Itemid=2844
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717055202/http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100525/maryland-county-carbon-tax-law-could-set-example-rest-country to http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100525/maryland-county-carbon-tax-law-could-set-example-rest-country
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/columns/may99.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126201600/http://www.columbia.edu:80/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Student Project

I have a few comments on the section regarding Norway:

• The information in this section needs to be updated as the most recent information is from 2008 and most is from before then.
• This sentence should be more specific and also cite where this information is from: " Some industry sectors have been granted exemptions from the tax to preserve their competitive position." [Citation Needed] Which industry sectors?
• Links for citations 126 and 129 go to pages that no longer exist and thus need to be updated.
• This section talks about how much revenue is being collected but mentions nothing about where that money is going so that should be added as well.
• This sentence needs a citation of the specific economic analysis by Statistics Norway it is referring to: "Various studies in the 1990s, and an economic analysis by Statistics Norway, have estimated the effect of the CO2 tax to be a reduction of 2.5–11% of Norwegian emissions under a business-as-usual approach (i.e., the predicted emissions that would have occurred without the tax)." [Citation Needed]
• This sentence also needs a citation: "Carbon taxation is also applied to the production of oil and gas offshore." [Citation Needed]

Bstocks (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Assessments

This article contains significant amounts of statistics, which require thorough citation. Under the "Calculations" content, the column labeled tax (per fuel unit) is missing a citation. These are numbers that have been aggregated by a source and thus require citation of that source (its not simply information that is gathered from different sources and understood and restated). The information about the different implementation methods in different countries does well in representing a general consensus about the necessity of carbon tax and its implications to the environment and economy. The article attempts to present positions of support for carbon tax and opposition from environmental groups, which weakens its neutrality. Opposition from an environmental group has substantial weight, but opposition from businesses, firms, and other entities directly affected by the carbon tax would add to its unbiased position on the pros and cons (winners and losers) of a carbon tax. There is a brief mention of it in under the carbon tax content, but further explanation is need. The article also describes social costs of carbon without describing the social benefits of carbon tax. This additional information and juxtaposition will further a mission of unbiased, neutrality. Aniaraklian (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110121155/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ecea1487-507c-43ef-ab88-5a972898e0b7&k=38130, to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ecea1487-507c-43ef-ab88-5a972898e0b7&k=38130,
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055926/http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/notices/British_Columbia_Carbon_Tax.pdf to http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/notices/British_Columbia_Carbon_Tax.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Seemingly non neutral

The Alberta section has a part that seems very non-neutral to me (especially as an Albertan), and without proper (or any) references,

Because Alberta has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada the majority of Albertans are strongly opposed to a nationwide carbon tax. There is a fear that a nationwide carbon tax would cause Alberta's economy to suffer significantly more in proportion to other provinces. Alberta is also opposed to a Cap and Trade system it fears the trades will pull revenue out of the province, a fear not to be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.136 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Internal Price on Carbon (UC Berkeley CBE 195 Spring 2017)

under the United States sub-section

We will talk about the internal price of carbon used by companies in the United States. Companies in the United States use their own cost of carbon to anticipate future government regulations which may levy an internal price of carbon on their business while planning their operations. Timeline of how social cost of carbon is being implemented in the United States. - Ja9young (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC) If a company publishes its own internal cost of carbon, is it considered a wikipedia-worthy source? I assume it is because it's still factual, but that might be something to make sure of. I do think that's a really cool section to add though, because it shows how different companies might internally acknowledge the role of carbon emissions on climate change regardless of what they say externally. Do you have a method in mind for choosing which companies to include? Maybe like the top 5 biggest oil companies, or some other objective criteria like that? Gokulramadoss (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I like that the corporate carbon prices were added to the article. I would recommend trying to find more sources to back up this information and add actions that companies did in response to this price. They may use it as an economical decision for future plans, but what about now, how is the carbon prices effecting their bottom line? JamesM.Queen (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717152152/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J36.pdf to http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J36.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr?url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10360930
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ecea1487-507c-43ef-ab88-5a972898e0b7&k=38130%2C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106094410/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead links

Currently, many of the references, even in the lead section, go to dead links. Oeoi (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carbon tax revenue used for ?

Each country government seems to be free to decide what to do with the revenue of the carbon tax. So, it would be entirely possible that the revenue is used for pointless activities (i.e. in Denmark, money collected from the tax goes to "research for alternative energy resources"), and in some cases it could go even to activities that damage the environment (i.e. building more roads, unnecessary infrastructure, ...).

Revenue of the carbon tax should, at least partly, be used to completely offset the amount of carbon on which the tax is levied.

I would assume that I'm not the only one that thinks that, so perhaps this can be implemented in the article somewhere. KVDP (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming

The term "carbon tax" seems to refer to me like any tax on carbon, rather than just carbon tax on fuel (which is the only thing it discusses right now). Other things too can be carbon taxed, like any product bought/sold in a particular country (concrete, wood, food, ...) -via a mechanism similar to VAT-. It could even be part of VAT, yet kept aside solely to offset the carbon emissions.

Perhaps that this Carbon tax article can be renamed to Carbon tax on fuel, or the article's scope can be expanded to also include carbon taxing on concrete, wood, food, ...

KVDP (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Carbon taxes compared to cap-and-trade

This section has some information regarding the basic differences between cap and trade programs vs carbon taxes (certainty in overall quantity reduced, etc.), but fails to mention historic problems relating to cap and trade programs, mainly deciding on a initial permit price. Examples such as the EU's cap and trade program should be included to illustrate the difficulties of accurately measuring the marginal cost of carbon abatement for firms, and thus the permit price. This is perhaps the biggest issue with cap and trade, and thus the most important factor in an analysis of the benefits/costs of cap and trade vs a carbon tax.Bcdill69 (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Bcdill69 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Carbon Tax

Article claims that "In 1997 the rate was raised to 0.365 SEK/kg ($60 per ton) of CO2.[125][126] In 2007, the tax was SEK 930 (EUR 101) per ton of CO2". This is obviously incorrect data and needs to be corrected using current exchange rates. Perhaps inflation in Sweden could also be corrected for/discussed in order to give American readers a real idea of how much this carbon tax actually was, and how much it increased over the years. Bcdill69 (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Bcdill69 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2017

Support

Article claims "NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has argued in support of a carbon tax", along with "FedEx CEO Fred Smith;[217] James Owens, CEO of Caterpillar;[218] Paul Anderson, CEO and Chairman of Duke Energy.[219] Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX[220] Unilever has also spoken out in favor of a carbon tax[221] Nestlé also favors a carbon tax" Many of these supporters are totally unqualified to be supporting/ analyzing the costs and benefits of a carbon tax. Thus, their inclusion in the article could be misleading and used to create a biased view in favor of the proposed taxes. Only endorsements of economists and policy experts should be included. Bcdill69 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Bcdill69 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503041544/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-a-d.html to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/annex1sglossary-a-d.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101051713/http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122051143/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=e8aecbbb-16c6-412d-8054-7e64e2b176ef to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=e8aecbbb-16c6-412d-8054-7e64e2b176ef

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Carbon tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228222715/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/236.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/236.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501162131/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/051.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/051.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514150249/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/235.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/235.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072349/http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/ClimateChangePolicy_ASurvey.pdf to http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/ClimateChangePolicy_ASurvey.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501160405/http://www.worldcustomsjournal.org/media/wcj/-2010/2/Ireland.pdf to http://www.worldcustomsjournal.org/media/wcj/-2010/2/Ireland.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320104522/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20317.pdf to http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20317.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013649/http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200809.pdf to http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200809.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072138/http://www.moneywebtax.co.za/moneywebtax/view/moneywebtax/en/page259?oid=51312&sn=Detail to http://www.moneywebtax.co.za/moneywebtax/view/moneywebtax/en/page259?oid=51312&sn=Detail
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504045439/http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2008/LTMS/A%20LTMS%20Scenarios%20for%20SA.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2008/LTMS/A%20LTMS%20Scenarios%20for%20SA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514214451/http://michaelturton.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/environmental-venting/ to http://michaelturton.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/environmental-venting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926113104/http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/historic+climate+change+legislation+passes to http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/historic+climate+change+legislation+passes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703095941/http://www.ilsr.org/ecotax/greentax.html to http://www.ilsr.org/ecotax/greentax.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328031928/http://insideireland.ie/2009/12/09/archive2313-2373/ to http://insideireland.ie/2009/12/09/archive2313-2373/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016151116/http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20080716090749/WP246.pdf to http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20080716090749/WP246.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514200128/http://www.irishrurallink.ie/Publications/IRL%20Briefing%2009.01%20Carbon%20Tax%20and%20Rural%20Ireland.pdf to http://www.irishrurallink.ie/Publications/IRL%20Briefing%2009.01%20Carbon%20Tax%20and%20Rural%20Ireland.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826044637/http://www.bafu.admin.ch/co2-abgabe/index.html?lang=de to http://www.bafu.admin.ch/co2-abgabe/index.html?lang=de
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501152941/http://www.bafu.admin.ch/co2-abgabe/05179/05316/index.html?lang=de to http://www.bafu.admin.ch/co2-abgabe/05179/05316/index.html?lang=de
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?file=19802
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.swisster.ch/news/business/swiss-favour-carbon-tax-over-emissions-trading.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807121815/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40593_20100222.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40593_20100222.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807121815/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40593_20100222.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40593_20100222.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501072424/http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/49116 to http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/49116
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511122351/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=8c3c9760-7cbe-4fab-b00c-1c77243903b6 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=8c3c9760-7cbe-4fab-b00c-1c77243903b6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315010627/http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-05-22/news/17155215_1_carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-emissions to http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-05-22/news/17155215_1_carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-emissions
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Montgomery-poised-to-tax-carbon-to-fight-global-warming-94204419.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Billion-dollar-power-company-sues-Montgomery-over-carbon-tax-95657154.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514081455/http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-80.pdf to http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-80.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401011121/http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/1231 to http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/1231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813193820/http://www.taxecarbone.info/indexE.html to http://www.taxecarbone.info/indexE.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503194344/http://gemini-e3.ordecsys.com/ to http://gemini-e3.ordecsys.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article should be watched closely for point of view issues, the summary alone is very conclusive when the sources cited therein do not support the conclusions. Better review of this article would help with point of view. 74.95.68.69 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)ELN

Can you give an example? --PJ Geest (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The section on Boulder, CO's carbon tax plan uses some one-sided language ("fantastic opportunity" "average household pays just US$21" etc.) 1.167.53.21 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I fixed the section. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source with great info to add

If you know how to do sourcing, please look at this report and add info on the views from economists on carbon taxes. It summarizes their overall opinion so it is a helpful thing to include in the article.

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:47F:E30C:E0AA:B4AE:B49:4CA6 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

But it is 2015. Hasn't economics moved on since then? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Top map

Hello Ranamode Having a map is useful but the cited source seems to be a bit dated. https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data does not match with the map as the World Bank one distinguishes between ETS and carbon tax and also "under consideration" and implemented. I have replaced it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#/media/File:Carbon_taxes_and_emission_trading_worldwide_2019.svg for now but that is dated 2019 so maybe needs update? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

CO2 and global warming

In the Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty), CO2 emissions are regulated along with other GHGs. Different GHGs have different physical properties: the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Should this be updated to the Paris Agreement? 24.138.60.176 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Done - there is lots more needs updating in the article if you have time to edit it yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The third sentence in the introductory paragraph uses "latter," but there is no clear indication of what the former item would be. Perhaps remove the following for clarity: "the latter of which is quite similar but". Nico19901111 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

fossil carbon tax

https://www.recycling-magazine.com/2021/06/17/tax-on-fossil-carbon-is-more-effective-than-tax-on-co2-emissions/ could be added but I don't know the subject well enough - can someone do? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peralta.21, Rpwis, Adamksza.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imanrahul, Ja9young, Yjmlow, Jeremy.lan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bcdill69. Peer reviewers: Bcdill69.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bstocks, Aniaraklian. Peer reviewers: Bstocks, Aniaraklian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Canard in section on Denmark

"Denmark also needs to be behind this by actually showing they are investing and not just collecting money"

This non-NPOV sentence should be amended. I see it cites a source so I'll change it to reflect that content properly.