Posted on 04/06/2018 6:50:29 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the public in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s one of the conclusions of an extensive analysis of several versions of such proposals, carried out by researchers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
What’s more, depending on the exact mechanism chosen, such a tax can also be fair and not hurt low-income households.
The analysis was part of a multigroup effort to apply sophisticated modeling tools to assess the impacts of various proposed carbon-pricing schemes. Eleven research teams at different institutions carried out the research using a common set of starting assumptions and policies. While significant details differed, all the studies agreed that carbon taxes can be effective and, if properly designed, need not be regressive.
The actual Paris agreements involved a range of different targets by different nations, but overall, Reilly said, the carbon-pricing scheme is predicted to exceed the targets for emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050, “so that’s a healthy reduction.” But even at the lowest end of the policies they studied, with a $25-per-ton initial tax,” that “would be adequate to meet the U.S. pledge in Paris” for 2030. But the rate of increase is important, the study says: “Five percent a year is sufficient. One percent a year is not.”
Reilly says “all these tax scenarios at worst meet U.S. commitments for 2030, and the $50 tax is well exceeding it.” Many experts say the Paris Agreement alone will not be sufficient to curb catastrophic consequences of global climate change, but this single measure would go a long way toward reducing that impact, Reilly says.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.mit.edu ...
“could”?
As long as we’re considering the theoretical, how about we double the tax rate for liberals and see if it shuts them up.
Like a medieval indulgence.
The only point of the climate change scam is to grow government.
It won’t do a thing to effect so-called man-made “climate change.”
Then again liberalism is about consoling the emotions and not dealing with reality.
This comes out to $0.50/gal.
A carbon tax would significantly reduce the standard of living for middle and lower income Americans. Of course, politicians and ‘important’ people (those who toe the politically correct line) would be exempt, National Treasures as they are.....
MIT is better at science than POLITICS.
The last time MIT grubered America it imposed
ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE.
Carbon already has a “ price”
Now for many of us it’s $3 a gallon gas and heating bills equal to another mortgage payment
But there are a lot more poor people than rich people, so a pricing scheme makes sense to make energy products unaffordable and reduce demand
Sounds like Clinton’s BTU tax all over again.
It’s just another means of wealth redistribution that like all wealth redistribution schemes accomplishes nothing.
So an ‘unbiased’ study by advocates of a carbon tax should be considered reliable?
A$$holes. Carbon is essential to life. Carbon enters into complex compounds that are essential to life.
They mean Carbon Dioxide.
It’s still stupid. If you reduce CO2 emissions, fewer plants will grow, increasing the volume of CO2 until an equilibrium is reached.
Plant more f*cking trees!
Got any other studies? I have one that tells me if Elon Musk goes to Mars himself, he will get more National exposure on TV and the internet...
MIT used to mean something, it has been infested like so many other formerly great institutions. The left picks their targets very well. National Geographic, Scientific American, Harvard the list is depressingly long.
Only if they include China. Everything else is just pissing in the wind.
For instance, this year China is _adding_ electrical generating capacity that is equal to the total capacity of Great Britain.
Fine. Let’s start w/ the tax paid by MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Reduce their floorspace (and thus heating/cooling/elec. costs). Sell off their home digs/cars/creature-comforts.
Please, show by example. Take the lead.
Was this co-authored by “Goober”, the Obamacare slug?
I’m all for the Yurps paying big honking carbon taxes to reduce their carbon footprint. After all, they’re the ones who are so keen on it and who like to wag their fingers at the US for not going along with the Kyoto or Paris agreements. So by all means, go ahead Yurps! Jack up your energy costs. Show us the way!
They already tried this.
No, they mean Carbon and anything else they can to sick on the wall. They even got the Supreme Court to agree with them about Carbon the same time Defense of Marriage fell +/- a few years or whatever my memories are capable of...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.