We all know that even with products that are relatively inelastic [like energy consumption], higher prices means lower consumption -- an environmental win.

Trouble is, the hardship disproportionately impacts the poorer within the community -- a social justice loss.

Balancing the two is tough, and an important part of the job of our politicians.

Well, why don't they give me a rebate of $35 per metric ton of CO2 I avoid versus the average household per year!

Now I wonder how this plays out in areas with electric heaters, fireplaces/firestoves, & cold weather...I would guess pollution from burning wood is far worse than the pollution from creating electricity for the heaters. I know when we lost power in December 2006 for a week (in the entire Meto Area of Seattle) it was IMPOSSIBLE to breathe when you stepped outside from everyone burning wood to keep warm.

A problem with implementing such carbon pricing, as James Hansen has stated, are the special interests, which have undue sway with our governments. Even though growth in fossil fuels means more rapid destruction of life as we know it on the planet these special interests previal, effectively restricting any counter vailing action to the most minimal.

Given such conditions a more possible solution simply may be to implement a carbon accounting requirement, with significant penalties for non-compliance or cheating. While the smart players already are moving their chips elsewhere (right, Khosla?) even less savvy investors then might see the writing on the wall.

Government policy then will follow the change in investment. Such change is inadequate given the schedule that those calling for critical intervention have projected, but who knows, it might make a difference to one starfish.

stomv: that's an easy one, just combine a carbon tax with an income tax cut focused on low- and middle-income taxpayers. If the revenue from the carbon tax exactly offsets the losses from the tax cut, then low-income people win, and the wealthy lose. The only exceptions are a few outlier low-income high carbon consumers.

It's easy to make this work politically too: phase in the tax cuts just before the carbon taxes. For example, start the tax cuts this year and ramp them up over five years, and start the carbon taxes next year ramped up over five years.

[q->t to email]

Adam:

Are you sure that most people will remember that they had recieved an equivalent tax cut a year ago? Most people (and politicians in opposition)will cry high and loud against the carbon tax even if they were pre-compensated.

If you put a (very well justified) carbon tax on coal fired power stations you will have to do the same on gas and diesel fuel and, to an equivalent extend, on NG.

How would you offset this carbon tax for people NOT paying income tax?

Just be sure to make it a tax on *fossil* carbon. We don't want to penalize the use of captured landfill methane or sustainably-produced biofuels.

In BC the government is just sending everyone an equal sized cheque to make the carbon tax revenue neutral.

Yes, I can't really see a good argument against a tax in principle. For instance why not just take Adam's proposal but do both at the same time so that it is clear the lower income people are being compensated. You could even discount the CO2 pricing for people who use less than a threshold of electricity. Really to me this is a no-brainer and about the only chance we have of making significant progress. I don't think technological fixes alone will do it due to population and economic growth.

As the story behind CO2 warming falls apart, these taxes do also. What politician wants to be linked to a scam to defraud the constituency based on unsound science, exaggeration and innuendo? None who seeks re-election.

More reports in Nature, Science and elsewhere will demonstrate the facts: no relation between CO2 and global warming. Those found to have fomented the "catastrophe" will be roundly ushered out.

Had the need for sound energy policy, amended energy use, and potentials for environmental compromise been presented honestly without bias and hyperbole - this unfortunate circumstance would not prevail.

Those who demand taxes as punitive measures - reveal an inability to engineer political and social systems successfully. The results are revolting.

"IMPOSSIBLE to breathe when you stepped outside from everyone burning wood to keep warm."

And yet, we live to make this post...

sulleny: "IMPOSSIBLE to breathe": Patrick was right, it was impossible. We had to take a deep gulp of air, run outside, grab some firewood or chop a chunk off the neighbor's fence and run back inside all while holding our breath! ;-)

"Nature, Science and elsewhere" ... must be a new journal for alternative "Science" otherwise known as the journal of "I don't like what I'm hearing so I'll deny fact" or the "Oil patch journal of money based truth"

atela, your religious fervor is more than obvious.

sulleny,

Please look up hyperbole.

TIA!

"The more you know..."

Patrick,

wasn't aware I used the word...

"The more you know..."

Yes, you didn't use the word. And you still completely missed the intention - I never said you made an error in using any word.

Since you are incapable of fathoming the context let me hold your hand as I take you through this step by step:

1. I made an outlandish statement exaggerating the conditions (purposely exaggerated beyond the point of believability since I did not die - not a slight exaggeration which would leave any doubt of whether what I was stating was 100% pure fact).
2. I explain that you should look up hyperbole (with the thought that you would then apply it to my previous statement). Obviously, this was not direct enough but I initially wished to avoid a lengthy explanation.
3. Obviously you had a basic understanding of #1 and #2 above but felt it was better to try to be an a ss from the outset. I suppose I should ask if you feel better about yourself and if your self esteem is improved now?

@Patrick,

no need to ask... It is. And, your hyperbolic explanation is as entertaining as your original post. Thank you.

Adam,

Your only problem is tyhat 60% of the population pay ZERO Income tax.

All the years of "taxing the rich" and "giving a break" to the little guy, has created a lopsided Income Tax of ZERo tax for 60% of the population and 80% of the population pay less tha 15% of the income Tax.

Of course the government at all levels is taking an ever greater chunk of everyone's income, but its not in the Income Tax.

Sales taxes, FICA taxes, Real estate taxes, sin taxes, Gasoline taxes (a real carbon tax), and excisee taxes suck money from everyone.

Your solution doesn't get to first base, since there is no more break that you can give to the "little guy " than zero incomes tax. He has that already.

A rebate of 100% of his income tax is still Z_E_R_O.

I have long favored an oil import fee. That would be a tariff and not an excise tax, like a windfall profits tax. Tariffs usually trigger claims of unfair trade practices, but I can not see that in this case.

It the goal is to reduce oil imports and all you have is incentives and disincentives, I think that this is a good place to start. Sure, those oil import fees would drive up the price at the pump, but it would encourage conservation and efficiency. It would also encourage exploration without the huge tax breaks they are giving the oil companies now.