Stanford Energy Modeling Forum project confirms carbon pricing can be effective way to curb GHG emissions
06 April 2018
The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) was established at Stanford more than 40 years ago to bring together leading experts and decision makers from government, industry, universities, and other research organizations to study important energy and environmental issues. For each study, the Forum organizes a working group to develop the study design, analyze and compare each model’s results and discuss key conclusions.
The EMF 32 project, which launched in 2014, is an ongoing modeling exercise intended to assess emissions, energy and economic outcomes from a plausible range of US policies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). In addition to the standard emphasis on the effects of such policies on emissions, energy prices and macroeconomic performance, the EMF 32 researchers are particularly interested in how fiscal decisions on revenue distribution might also affect these outcomes.
This study gathered together 11 modeling teams to run a common set of carbon tax scenarios, in order to explore how environmental and economic outcomes depend on the initial carbon tax rates, the rate at which the tax escalates, and how the government uses the revenue collected by the carbon tax. The study is also motivated by a desire to inform critical policy design decisions with information such as: the policies’ expected revenue and tax rate outcomes; options for balancing distributional and efficiency goals; the likely significance of international emissions leakage and competitiveness effects; and the outcomes of an emissions tax approach relative to regulation under the Clean Air Act. A key objective of this model inter-comparison project is to understand which insights are robust across models and scenarios and which are more sensitive.
This study provides timely analysis for public policy debates. Despite the skepticism from critics, recent polls suggest as many as two-thirds of those who voted for President Trump support regulating or taxing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A number of groups and organizations, including some that are Republican, Libertarian, or conservative, have promoted the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with a variety of perspectives on how revenue neutrality should work in practice. Of course, a primary reason for implementing a carbon or GHG tax is to reduce emissions, but the revenue can serve other goals. The revenue could reduce the federal deficit, help finance tax reform, support new spending on infrastructure or other priorities, or provide rebates to households. For example, a group of senior Republican leaders have proposed a $40 per ton CO2 tax rising over time, with revenues rebated to US families through a monthly dividend.
As policymakers contemplate a carbon tax, potentially in the broader context of other potential fiscal reforms, this EMF study seeks to inform questions such as: How much revenue would different carbon tax trajectories generate? How will revenues change over time? How do economic outcomes depend on how the revenues are used? What might be the effect of a carbon tax on revenue from other taxes?
—McFarland et al.
The EMF 32 modeling project consists of one reference scenario and several policy scenarios. The baseline scenario projects a future for emissions and economic activity without new climate policy or GHG regulations on stationary sources by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The policy scenarios impose different designs of a carbon tax in the United States. All of the scenarios are coordinated across models to the extent feasible.
That means that the teams harmonized their baseline economic projections and policy representations so that the differences in their results primarily derive from the difference in models rather than differences in economic forecasts and policy implementation.
Now, the results of this work have been published in a special issue of the journal Climate Change Economics. The special issue contains 15 papers: 10 written by modeling teams and 5 overview/synthesis papers.
The results of this part of the EMF 32 study are consistent with much of the existing modeling literature on carbon pricing in the United States, the researchers said.
Across all models, they found that the core carbon price scenarios lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity sector and disproportionately through reductions in coal.
Emissions reductions are largely independent of the uses of the revenues modeled.
Expected economic costs (not accounting for any of the benefits of greenhouse gas and conventional pollutant mitigation), in terms of either GDP or welfare, are modest, but they vary across models and policies.
Using revenues to reduce preexisting capital or, to a lesser extent labor taxes, reduces welfare losses in most models relative to providing household rebates, but the magnitudes of the cost savings vary. The use of revenue can also have important distributional implications, revenue recycling in the form of capital tax reductions is the most efficient but the most regressive, while lump sum rebates to households is the most progressive but the least efficient.
The EMF 32 researchers found that it is possible to protect low-income households with a modest share of revenues, while using the remainder of revenues on capital tax reductions allows the policy-maker to attain efficiency close to that of a pure capital tax reduction.
The models of the present study do not agree on the regional implications of the various revenue recycling schemes. Beyond 2030, the researchers concluded that model uncertainties are too large to make quantitative results useful for near term policy design.
Resources
“Special Issue on EMF 32 Study on U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios”; Guest Editors: A. A. Fawcett, J. McFarland, A. C. Morris and J. P. Weyant (2018) Climate Change Economics
James R. McFarland et al. (2018) “Overview Of The EMF 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios” Clim. Change Econ. 09, 1840002 doi: 10.1142/S201000781840002X
Making a market for carbon makes sequestration in empty fossil wells profitable. Make fuels using solar hydrogen and carbon products like fiber to add value.
Posted by: SJC | 06 April 2018 at 01:37 PM
The hard part is convincing the public. The even harder part is ensuring that politicians keep their hands off the money.
Here in Ontario, the carbon cap and trade system is regarded by the general public as a tax, and a very unpopular one. In Alberta, where the carbon cap and trade system was brought in with the promise of being revenue neutral, and the government that brought it in apparently attempted that, but the successor government simply uses it as general revenue; i.e. it is a carbon tax.
It is highly likely that the (very unpopular) government in Ontario which brought in the carbon tax - which is what everyone calls it! - will be given the boot in a couple of months, and the likely winner of the next election is already promising to revoke it.
South of the border, higher gasoline prices are seemingly the only way to get Americans to drive anything other than the biggest possible trucks and SUVs. Good luck with that.
I don't know how any sort of carbon cap and trade scheme could be sold to the public in a scenario where there is general distrust of government and all that it entails. It's unpopular, and if it is unpopular enough, another political party will promise to revoke it and they'll get elected ...
Posted by: Brian P | 06 April 2018 at 08:30 PM
Steve Aplin has lots of good coverage of energy in Ontario.
http://canadianenergyissues.com/
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 07 April 2018 at 06:38 AM
To make gasoline or other fuels usage go down by raising the cost only burdens the lower classes.
And if you create a system of taxes, and then credits for the middle classes and lower, you are just creating a mess of government.
Realistically you would need to increase cost/gal here by over 300-1000% to see any behavior changes. So that's like a 1000%+ change in taxes with out a viable alternative ready to replace everyone's gasoline car.
It would only lead to anarchy in the USA if implemented at any level that would change behavior.
Any carbon taxes would put an unjust burden on those less fortunate. It would raise the cost of transportation, the cost of food, the cost of electricity, and heating. The more well to do likely won't be affected.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 05:45 AM
Interesting link EP. Makes me not want to flee to Canada in the next major political election. I know it's Canadian dollars, but $.28/kwh is crazy. Also why are Canadians even bothering with solar? I figured they wouldn't work well at those latitudes. The one article talks of cost per day heating during the cold snap, and rise in use of shelters for families. Then goes on to say solar is paid almost $.80/kwh. That is unconscionable if true!
By me most of the wind is political, the nephew of a senator got approval and grants to line some of the major highways with turbines. Canada seems like a solar producers dream land.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 05:59 AM
"Across all models, they found that the core carbon price scenarios lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity sector and disproportionately through reductions in coal." From above.
How about throwing some federal money around to divert power from coal to natural gas, Instead of a social experiment?
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 06:08 AM
Of course a carbon tax will reduce consumption. Have you looked at the engines in the vehicles offered in Europe vs. the USA? You can't buy a Fiat 500 with a Twinair on the west side of the Atlantic. People buy V6's instead of I4's. Raise the price of fuel enough and all that will change.
Heck, people might even stop speeding.
I drive most of my mileage on electric power already, so even doubling the price of gasoline wouldn't cost me much.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 08 April 2018 at 07:39 AM
Autonomous cars will curb speeding, better than raising prices. I mean what's better than having big brother driving you around?
I don't recall any observable difference when gasoline was 2.5x more expensive than it is now as regards to my miles driven/ speed. Or let alone everyone else's speed.
Don't forget that things don't appear in the store by magic, a truck gets them there. Goods are also manufactured using some form of energy.
Typically the poor is less inclined to own property, or purchase vehicles that might have a price premium associated with it, such as an EV or hybrid. So even if they were buying plug ins, they might not be able to charge them at "home".
My car is cleaner than a model S on the highway(in my area, lots of coal). So i think I'm doing a fair bit myself. Also keep in mind that Americans fear technology, small turbo'd engines are pretty much an anomaly in the states. People honestly think the turbos blow up at around 80-150k miles.
Also Europe has long favored diesel because of thier taxation. Cars are taxes basically on displacement and alleged g/km. They also have a much different layout than the USA as far as roadways/cities are concerned.
I honestly think most makers have axed V8 and V6s from most of thier lineup. Most makers are working again on hybrids from the largest truck down. It seems like ~ 2020 we'll see some interesting powertrains.
Other thing to note is in Europe, the number of new drivers as part of the population is dropping. They have a transit system in place to bear that population of non drivers, the USA doesn't.
You should look up John Oliver's subprime car loan video. It gives an example of the disparity of owning a car in the USA vs not owning one.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 09:30 AM
I do think that our CAFE laws are working. Probably much better than a vice tax would in the states. A steady incremental approach is good enough for me.
It only affects the initial purchaser in any meaningful way. As with the used car market there is always waiting till a car depreciates more over time if price is a barrier.
A use tax couldn't curb miles driven beyond its inflexible state. I mean people either drive thier car to work and the store or they don't anymore. Leisure activities would be the first to go, you know like trips to see grandma or something.
From experience I'd say people would cut back on other spending before they would cut back on driving.
I will agree with you on a the slower speeds means more mpg. I laugh hard and shake my head at people screaming about EPA numbers and not hitting them, then to learn that they drive 80+ on the freeway.
But if it's a true carbon tax, ev owners would also suffer.
I'm interested in fords next hybrid truck. It should be interesting if it has 20+mile range, not just some micro battery. It will be interesting to see units tow, how maintenance drops, and fuel economy climbs.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 09:50 AM
You're thinking too short-term. New vehicles start showing up in the used market in about 2 years, when the first ones start coming off lease. If almost everything was suddenly a stop-start hybrid or better, the poor would have them available soon enough; they'd be the only things available to buy.
Anyone who rents a house probably has an outside outlet already, and that's all you need. Multi-unit housing is increasingly electrifying parking areas too; that may take a while but it's coming.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 08 April 2018 at 10:02 AM
Average life of a car now is over 12years old, and it's climbing.
Best way to change the rolling fleet out is with a other cash for clunkers. I feel that that program benefited the less abled financially than current tax credits do. Both achieve most the same goal, to push fuel economy.
My point is if energy cost climb 20% or more artificially, it will have more than a 20% cost increase on peoples necessary spending. Which in turn could pinch even the middle class.
Why not start with electric generation? You know where the article said most of the gains would be had. Leave the populous out of it.
I really wish politicians would find the middle ground. Offered federal financing and phaseout plans to transition coal plants to natural gas, nuclear or geothermal. You can't just ban something without offering an alternative. Some companies cannot adequately bankroll a new plant.
energy is uniquely non elastic for many. Most of the ways to improve the average households net energy usage comes in the form of the two largest purchases. The home and the car. Our homes are notoriously poorly insulated. Our cars, change over time, and have been getting better, the difference between cars in Europe and America as far as offerings are concerned are pretty minor on the scheme of things. Sure up until the thing with Volkswagen, diesel was the main fair, now we are seeing a sharp decline in purchases as scandals deterred buyers, beyond that a large number of the population deciding never to get behind the wheel.
The only way we can really benefit our culture is to focus on the future, not punishing others for what we are currently stuck using.
Work towards more efficient power generation, better insulated homes, more fuel efficient cars. We won't have an economy if we hold energy hostage.
I don't think there is as much willfully wasted energy as many suspect. Energy is our lifeblood, and it cost consumers money as it is, why put the squeeze on consumers when we can more aptly put pressure upstream to generators and manufacturers? Sure, some cost trickles down, but not a blanketing tax that assuredly would apply more pressure for the less abled financially.
I mean if in the end it doesn't matter. I guess the simplest solution would be euthanasia. Give ourselves the dystopian society we've always wanted. Start with those who don't own an ev. -sarcasm, but I've encountered many with that mindset, it's more prevalent than you'd think.
I think the carbon tax is short sighted. Offer alternatives not punishment. Is the goal to tax enough to change consumption? If so the tax will have to be heavy enough to actually change behavior. When it gets to that breaking point, we could ruin the economy.
Look to cigarettes, the cost to make is a few pennies. The added benefit to ones life doesn't exist. We tax the heck out of them, yet people choose to smoke.
I'd say our energy usage is even more inflexible than tobacco.
We just need to have in place goals and standards to actually progress incrementally, rather than disenfranchising the actual majority of the population.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 08:14 PM
EP, let me ask you this,
At what cost $/kwh would you go out of your way to carpool with a stranger who lived 3 miles out of your way to the same job which is 15miles from your home? Assuming you had no other alternative like a bus or shuttle to catch.
I mean, what would it take to put the squeeze on you to change your behavior?
Even more still, how much more would it be if you had to pick up 3 strangers before you arrived at work?
I mean these are the gains we could have by such a tax, carpooling being the lowest hanging fruit. Others would be telecommuting, vegetable gardens, and various dietary changes.
At what price would you give in? Ask yourself.
What if it meant you had to arrive an hour before your shift started and stayed an hour later, in addition to a half an hour gained on your commute.
What cost per kw/h or therm you ever consider leaving your home at <60f through the winter?
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 08 April 2018 at 08:31 PM
Do you realize that the engine power of cars like the Camry have multiplied over the years, while MPG has held roughly constant? Why hasn't that technology been directed toward economy instead of power? It could easily be RE-directed if sufficiently powerful incentives were brought to bear. We should so direct them.
You are very wrong. For 8 years I drove a vehicle which used less than 2/3 of the average fuel consumption, and it still had more than adequate pulling power. Un-necessary SUVs and pickup trucks are criminal wastes. Those who drive a 2 ton dually to work daily when a Fiat Twinair would do the job deserve to pay penalty prices.
Because consumers don't just have control over what they buy, they also control how they use it. NOBODY else does.
Oh, please. That was another criminal waste, which only had the effect of moving inventory that should have been mothballed instead. Replacing a true clunker with a brand-new vehicle that only achieved a 5-10% improvement in fuel consumption—and which was going to be around for around 12 years, as you yourself noted—was a criminal waste of an opportunity. A real fix would have gone about getting people to retire clunkers and replace them with used econo-cars, and sell new econo-cars. That would have changed the composition of the fleet much more favorably.
Easily offset with a citizens-only deductible on payroll taxes to make it revenue-neutral. You want incentives for people to use less fuel in order to keep more of their own money. Whether buying a 4-cylinder instead of a 6 or just lightening up on the gas pedal, the consumer has a lot of control over this. The thing is to get them to use that control.
I used my control last night to burn well under a tenth of a gallon of fuel for something close to 40 miles of travel. Granted, I'm driving a PHEV, but I'm hyper-miling the heck out of it too.
The populace has to be involved, because most of these things come back to consumer demand. You can't get anywhere if people keep buying F250's with 6.2 liter V8 engines as a lifestyle statement, and the Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator are obscenities.
A Pacifica PHEV is a perfectly viable alternative to an Escalade, and cheaper besides.
I'd generate my own electricity first. I have PV panels I haven't hooked up yet.
A $100/ton tax on CO2 comes to about 3.3¢/kWh in a 60% efficient NGCC plant. I could stand another 3.3¢ pretty easily. I could also switch to a cogenerating furnace/water heater and cut CO2 emissions that way. There's probably enough biomass in my area for me to switch from NG to bio-DME and go completely non-fossil, but that's not an option for the bulk of the country.
One of the reasons I bought a PHEV is so that I could ferry my neighbors to the grocery store even if there was an outright gasoline absence. I would have nothing to do with strangers these days, as it's too dangerous.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 09 April 2018 at 07:37 AM
I did that in 2009, and that was well after the 2008 price spikes had abated. Overnight I'd set the thermostat at 48.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 09 April 2018 at 07:48 AM
I know there are frictional losses, and other losses due to more spinning mass with bigger engines... But typically most of the losses come from the vehicles wind resistance and relative footprint. Idling losses making up most of the deficit between higher displacement engines and lower in the same frame.
I mean, Chevy has v8 corvettes returning mpg of a typical sedan. I think thier implementation sucks, but they are getting the numbers.
My youngest brother drives a ~92 camery. I can say the biggest difference to fuel economy is the weight, not the engine size. The profile of the car helps too.
Weight= need for larger engine for non lethargic acceleration.
That's also why hybrids are great, small power plant, and more agility.
Carpooling takes an incredible load off those g/km/person numbers. Gasoline cars can surpass evs just by putting more people in the cars.
The thermostat question was to point out steps we can do to actively use less energy.
Homes are going to be the largest and longest lasting blight on our energy consumption for centuries. Just like everyone cannot go out and buy a car next year, new home purchases are even more elusive.
Homes last what 50-100 years?
Cars we will run through quickly enough that I'm not worried about in the scheme of things. Incremental increases and all.
If we really are trying to curb CO2 emissions we need to do things now like push for even stricter standards for insulation.
ICFs and SIPs are great newer methods that can provide 4x the r value of tradition construction. It's a ~5+% increase in cost for savings that can last the life of the home.
It even worse for renters, my apartment cost about $400/mo just to heat a 1200sq Ft apartment. A building that was built in 2009. Of course it could just be management double dipping. They lied and collected damages from me too when i left.
I don't think the individuals who buy $100,000 escalades and F250s are going to be affected by any tax that would pass in the next ten years.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 09 April 2018 at 02:58 PM
So i guess the only thing to do is pass the tax and see what happens.
$100/ton co2 would raise my electricity rate by >30% If all things were equal. Probably closer to 50% since we have all that coal. Would take the electric bill from $1200/yr to $1800/yr
It would raise my cost per gallon of gasoline about $.30/gal
Which in the scheme of thing wouldn't be too troubling. 10% increase. No one will flinch at that. Roughly $1500 before to 1800 after.
It would raise shipping and cost of goods by some significant amount depending on various factors.
It will be interesting.
I think if you want what you want from the tax, you need to think about $500/ton otherwise its just a waste of red tape., and a hassle for everyone.
I mean that is if you want people to stop driving thier Escalades and F250s
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 09 April 2018 at 05:17 PM
Probably should correct myself again. For someone driving more than one $70,000 vehicle like an escalade or a luxury non work truck like a F250. I think the tax should be closer to $2000/ton.
it gets pretty ugly, i mean gasoline is still barely manageable somewhere in the range of $9, but home energy usage would break current Americans.
Other prices would definitely rise in response, cost of living would likely increase beyond many peoples means.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 09 April 2018 at 05:37 PM
I am having a hard time getting verification on carbon tax on gasoline. I am seeing anywhere from $.28-$.88/gal per $100/ton tax.
Just as a disclaimer.
I just don't see where this would benefit anyone but those who can afford it, and can additionally afford things like solar panels and EVs. I bet this would likely kill off net metering. Power company probably won't want to subsidize someone else's effort.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 09 April 2018 at 05:46 PM
I guess my initial thoughts on a tax is a bit of a shock, i thought cars would be unaffordable, but rather its homes.
At $9/gal a car getting 26mpg might only spend $500/mo on gas. But the energy bill at home might be $1000/mo.
More reason to take the focus off of cars, more onto the grid and homes.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 09 April 2018 at 05:53 PM
No, you have substantial differences even in motion (highway). The difference is throttling losses. Idling losses are of course bigger for the bigger engine too, but a lot of that is the same per-ft³ throttling loss times more airflow.
They do that by turning the engine into a V4 for much of the EPA test. Displacement.
Right now I'm burning wood that would otherwise rot and displacing natural gas. My furnace will run for a bit in the morning but all night the house coasts on warmth from the fire.
We had a huge opportunity during the last housing boom, and totally blew it.
No, $100/ton should be more than enough. It makes nuclear power cheaper than natural gas. It makes lots of alternatives to petroleum competitive. It makes lots of conservation measures very attractive. It might even make carbon sequestration a hot thing.
A gallon of gasoline generates about 20 lb of CO2, so about 90¢/gallon at $100/metric ton. A gallon of methanol generates 5.5 kg, about 12 lbs.
Lots of work for small business making multi-pane storm windows, insulating and sealing old walls with expanding foam, caulking, and all that stuff. Or selling DIY kits. Let people get tax rebates for their upgrades.
When the Achates engine is about to kick thermal efficiency up by close to 50%, there is no reason to take the pressure off vehicles. It needs to be kept on, HARD, because that is where the low-hanging fruit is and we need to make people pick it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 10 April 2018 at 11:43 AM
I think our political future next election might net exactly what you are calling for and then some. I believe our next president will lean left hard. I don't think they'd stop at $100/ton.
But these newly implemented engine cycles might be available by then, we definitely can see fleets adopting soonest, as most conversions are marketed to them. Look at all the aftermarket upfitting for vans and 1500 trucks.
One thing that could shake things up, that no one would aptly consider a great way to do things, is to declare patents concerning newer technologies open, and set a cap on royalties.
Another thing would be to change usery laws, to allow people to save money to invest in newer/better technology.
There are already grants/deductions for those upgrading their homes, but there are still too many barriers to purchase price. I mean a can of foam it is cheap. But if you have R13 insulation in the walls, you likely will still leak heat. I also don't understand why something like fiberglass or other batting is so costly to install. It's also nearly impossible to cheaply upgrade your exterior walls rvalue.
R25+ should be the standard for walls, there is no reason we cannot use advanced building practices to get there. There are enough disruptive technologies to make stick built homes obsolete, it's only now catching on. The great thing is SIPs and ICFs cut down on labor, enough to make the costs irrelevant or justified with the better sealing and rvalue. It pays back in a few years.
But the problem is subdivisions go up at ten houses at a time, then they get the buyers to come in. There is need for stricter standards for rvalue. As buyers are not making the decision most of the time.
Home cogeneration might be an interesting value in colder climates, but again, when i called around even small systems were near $40,000.
I just don't think the $100/ton tax is enough other than to just tick people off. Sure at the grid level it might make a change, but it might also still just trickle down to the consumer with no changes as a result other than a higher rate at the meter.
I rather see planned obsolescence, plan a phase out of coal. Plan a phase out of poorly insulated homes. Plan a phase out of non hybrids, then plan a phase out of ICEs.
Don't schedule everything now for vehicles, but look to it over time. When you hit the no-non-hybrid point, then plan the demise of the ICE.
CAFE does a Fair bit to that extent, but i do think we give too much credit to EVs. I think we'll be seeing some big progress in the next two vehicles generations from all the car companies.
I am a conservative in most facets of my life, spending, politics, usage of resources. I do think there needs to be some sort of government intervention to protect the public in the two largest purchases people make, to ensure they are getting a home that is well built and properly insulated, and for a car that doesn't needlessly pollute.
I think 2020 is going to be the year of the hybrids(at least by 2025). I believe most makers will offer a serious hybrid in most of thier larger models. We are also told of pure EV suvs coming out by someone who isn't Tesla.
So you are aware, there are coasting strategies that allow larger engines to open thier throttle, but yes, ideally larger engines are best used in thier efficiency ranges. But there are some anomolous cases like the F150 where the 5.0 gets better highway in practice than the 3.5EB because of turbos being sized too small.
If hybrids can drop 70% of our need for liquid fuel, then we can focus on carbon neutral fuel for the remaining 30%. I do think it's a worthy step to visit plug in hybrids in this capacity. Hybrids can boost the need for infrastructure projects like public charging, and lead to awareness. Hybrids can be that bridge that gets us from ICEs to FCs or BEVs.
I think also BEV credits should be restricted to those households making less than $100,000 a year and be applied upfront to the purchase.
Small changes in these policies can be a difference between someone buying an ev and someone not due to price.
It's sad that many of these great technologies are out of reach financially for many. I think that to tax people for not having access to these technologies would place an unjust hardship on them. That's why i am so adamant against taxing carbon.
Where instead i rather see plans to combat waste, or enable people to have access to the technologies.
We don't need coal plants. We don't need shoddy homes. We don't need tax rebates that do nothing for the majority people that could stand to improve thier homes that couldn't do so without help, same for cars.
We just need to change things to make these technologies accessible to the majority, not just the privileged. If we make it accessible, then we will see adoption more rapidly.
Posted by: CheeseEater88 | 12 April 2018 at 07:48 PM