4,149
edits
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing: Difference between revisions
🛢💸 The real deal about Carbon Pricing (view source)
Revision as of 17:55, 19 March 2020
, 19 March 2020→Carbon taxes
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
If we dive in the flaws from the more straightforward method, carbon tax, we can see how it compares to emissions trading. First, one could think that carbon taxes are less “citizen friendly” than emissions trading, because they directly impact goods price, but they are harder for companies to dodge, thus less expensive to governments and citizens, while generating more revenues worldwide. In fact, ecologists often favor carbon tax systems on emissions trading: James E. Hansen for instance, an influent former NASA scientist studying global warming since the 70s, advocated for a carbon tax in an open letter to the Obama presidential couple<ref>James Hansen, <i>An open letter to the president and 1st lady from the nation’s top climate scientist</i>, 2009, Grist website. | If we dive in the flaws from the more straightforward method, carbon tax, we can see how it compares to emissions trading. First, one could think that carbon taxes are less “citizen friendly” than emissions trading, because they directly impact goods price, but they are harder for companies to dodge, thus less expensive to governments and citizens, while generating more revenues worldwide. In fact, ecologists often favor carbon tax systems on emissions trading: James E. Hansen for instance, an influent former NASA scientist studying global warming since the 70s, advocated for a carbon tax in an open letter to the Obama presidential couple<ref>James Hansen, <i>An open letter to the president and 1st lady from the nation’s top climate scientist</i>, 2009, Grist website. | ||
source: https://grist.org/article/dear-barack-and-michelle/</ref> in 2009, when emissions trading was not even implemented for long enough to discredit it. According to Hansen, emissions trading will allow “business as usual” for emitting industries, thanks to its ultra-liberal dimension; while a tax will appropriately affects all products that use fossile fuels, from cars to food. But as Hansen points out, “the public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis, deposited monthly in bank accounts”. He asks for absolutely no revenues of this tax to ends up in government pockets, and some says it could allow for a basic income to exist. | source: https://grist.org/article/dear-barack-and-michelle/</ref> in 2009, when emissions trading was not even implemented for long enough to discredit it. According to Hansen, emissions trading will allow “business as usual” for emitting industries, thanks to its ultra-liberal dimension; while a tax will appropriately affects all products that use fossile fuels, from cars to food. But as Hansen points out, “the public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis, deposited monthly in bank accounts”. He asks for absolutely no revenues of this tax to ends up in government pockets, and some says it could allow for a basic income to exist. | ||
That is where the notion of “climate justice” comes into play: a carbon tax should be fairly levied and equally redistributed. But in 2020, the majority of carbon taxes accords diverse ranges of exemptions to economic sectors considered fragile due to international competition. Typically, exempted sectors would be road transporters, public transports, taxis, agricultural operators, air transports and fishery. Companies already subjected to an emissions trading scheme or considered to be exposed to a risk of carbon leakage are often exempted too.<ref>“Carbon Tax” and “Taxe carbone en France” (fr) on Wikipedia, 2020. | |||
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Implementation | source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Implementation | ||
source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxe_carbone_en_France#Exon%C3%A9rations</ref> This does not seem to meet Hansen’s advices, and as a result, some countries observed that poor people are the most heavily affected by the tax, because a bigger share of their income might be dedicated to fuel and heating. In France, in 2010 and in proportion to their income, 10% of the poorest people paid 4 times more carbon tax than the richest 10%<ref>P. Malliet et A. Saussay, <i>Impact redistributif de la taxe carbone</i>, OFCE, Science Po school, 2017. | source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxe_carbone_en_France#Exon%C3%A9rations</ref> This does not seem to meet Hansen’s advices, and as a result, some countries observed that poor people are the most heavily affected by the tax, because a bigger share of their income might be dedicated to fuel and heating. In France, in 2010 and in proportion to their income, 10% of the poorest people paid 4 times more carbon tax than the richest 10%<ref>P. Malliet et A. Saussay, <i>Impact redistributif de la taxe carbone</i>, OFCE, Science Po school, 2017. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 66: | ||
source 1: https://www.lafinancepourtous.com/decryptages/finance-et-societe/nouvelles-economies/finance-verte/taxe-carbone/ | source 1: https://www.lafinancepourtous.com/decryptages/finance-et-societe/nouvelles-economies/finance-verte/taxe-carbone/ | ||
source 2: https://blogs.mediapart.fr/patrick-cahez/blog/111118/les-taxes-sur-les-carburants-financent-le-capital</ref>, a tax advantage accorded to companies employing workers, supposed to encourage employment and incomes growth. CICE was highly unpopular, since it was considered as a gift for companies with no mandatory results on employment, until it was discontinued in 2019. | source 2: https://blogs.mediapart.fr/patrick-cahez/blog/111118/les-taxes-sur-les-carburants-financent-le-capital</ref>, a tax advantage accorded to companies employing workers, supposed to encourage employment and incomes growth. CICE was highly unpopular, since it was considered as a gift for companies with no mandatory results on employment, until it was discontinued in 2019. | ||
- To close the “carbon pricing flaw folder”, it appeared in Europe that there was a threat of high emissions electricity imports in countries applying a carbon price to fossil fuel energy. A few EU countries<ref>From Sandbag NGO datas: | |||
[[File:carbon-intensities-of-connected-grids_2020_how_electricity_generated_from_coal_is_leaking_into_the_eu_sandbag.png|thumb|Thumbnailed image|Carbon intensities of connected grids in EU. How electricity generated from coal is leaking into the EU, 2020, GNO Sandbag, p.10.]] | |||
To close the “carbon pricing flaw folder”, it appeared in Europe that there was a threat of high emissions electricity imports in countries applying a carbon price to fossil fuel energy. A few EU countries<ref>From Sandbag NGO datas: | |||
*Greece, connected with Turkey. | *Greece, connected with Turkey. | ||
*Finland, largest EU importer, connected with Russia (it appears that Finland tried to implement a border tax, but it was discontinued by the EU). | *Finland, largest EU importer, connected with Russia (it appears that Finland tried to implement a border tax, but it was discontinued by the EU). | ||