While world leaders, policy makers, corporate CEOs and pretty much everyone that matters are gathered here in Paris to hammer out a deal that might see the planet aligned around a common framework, elsewhere in Paris a tycoon is addressing a different crowd. Elon Musk – involved with cutting-edge tech companies like Tesla, SpaceX and Solar city – told youngsters gathered at an event at the University of Sorbonne, Paris that carbon pricing would accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to a renewable energy economy. He estimates this is the single most impactful action policy makers can make, estimating it would halve the time it would take to transition. With this in mind, he urged the young crowd listening to talk to their representatives about this.
“If countries agree to a carbon tax and it’s real and it’s not super watered down and weak we could see a transition [to clean energy] that has a 15- to 20-year timeframe as opposed to a 40- or 50-year timeframe, we could probably cut it in half and that would have a huge impact on the … welfare of the world … it really matters where we do this transition sooner or later,” Musk said.
The alternative, Musk continued, implies going forward with what can only be described as “the dumbest science experiment in history”.
Specifically, Musk is referring to a revenue neutral tax, which implies gov. treasuries would still receive as much money as before. This net zero approach means heavily taxing carbon, but lowering taxes in other areas. This approach proved to be successful when taxing tobacco and alcohol. Musk says.
The tech entrepreneur and inventor underlined how simple to take this decision is, reasoning that everyone can agree that eventually fossil fuels will run out – sustainable energy is thus a mandatory prerequisite if we’re to preserve both our lifestyles and the planet’s climate. Vile and hidden fossil fuel subsidies, worth $5.3 trillion a year according to the IMF, seriously hinders this transition.
“The fundamental problem is the rules today incent people to create carbon; this is madness,” Musk said. “So what can you do? Whenever you have the opportunity, talk to your politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax.”
A revenue neutral carbon fee with a dividend, makes enormous sense! Economists and scientists say it is the best solution. This way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly dividend. That would cancel out any price spikes in dirty energy. Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard School of Medicine).
It would rapidly lower emissions, as happened in BC Canada with a similar policy. BC lowered both emissions and taxes with their fees. A study by respected Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9 million additional jobs in 20 years, while reducing emissions much faster than regulations.
To those who reject the science: perhaps nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the dividend) in your pockets?
To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate change is worth it. For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Why even bother with the paid deniers who thrive creating the delay of a false debate? IMO we must take action by supporting responsible adults, of either party, for Congress.
A revenue-neutral carbon fee is critical to driving carbon-intensive products – including fuels – out of the market. But gains could be meaningless if two other things don’t also happen.
First, ending the $120B a year in subsidies that fossil fuel companies get from governments all over the world – including the $20B+ they get from the US government. Second, restoring “polluter pays” laws with enforcement funded by fines, with sharp teeth and with no exemptions. If fossil fuel companies had to guarantee restoration of environmental damage up front, with no delays, no maximum limit on liability, and no ability to take tax deductions for their costs, adding these obligations to their balance sheets would drive their investors away in droves.
You think the companies that allow you to turn your lights on when you get home are able to just eat these increased costs without passing them right to the customer? Money doesn’t grow on trees. Due to the already extensive environmental requirements and controls the power industry has to meet, there is literally no disposable income for places like co-op based power plants. They have the cost of fuel, repairs, maintenance, environmental controls and fees, then a tiny percent is worker’s wages and benefits (of course none of you give a crap about the hundreds of thousands of workers you’re gladly throwing out on the streets)
So you tax these companies for carbon, they increase their price. And you think the Government is going to just offset that cost for every citizen? Haha, crazy.
We are already transitioning to cleaner energy, coal plants are closing all the time and NONE are being built. Yet we still ship millions of tons of coal overseas to be used in plants and factories that don’t have NEAR the excellent environmental controls we have here.
We all breathe the same air.
Caring for the environment is great, as is people’s health. The transition is happening, but you live in fantasy land if you think you can just tax the hell out of power plants in order to shut them down, and that it’s going to have anything but a disastrous effect on the economy, job market, power grid reliability.
What’s going to replace coal that is shut down before there’s enough alternative sources to offset the loss? Wind? Solar? Haha, I work for a power company, we have coal, gas, wind, and hydro. The wind, which we spend billions on and actually lose money on, is so utterly unreliable it isn’t even funny.
Where does the power come from when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining? There’s no economically viable way to store any excess for times when that power isn’t available.
You people are celebrating a fantasy that’s going to screw over the country.
As one of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of workers who bust our butts to keep your lights on, it’s disgusting how much you celebrate the ends of our hard-earned jobs.
And never ONCE have we ever seen any of you mention so much as a token job-placement *assistance program in your job and economy killing plans.
*no, we don’t expect to be GIVEN jobs, but some type of placement assistance would be nice, since this type of policy is a direct cause of countless jobs being lost….
You are missing something when you comment ”
<>
Read the article about how the revenue neutral rebate protects consumers. Then rant if you wish…
”
That’s one aspect of my argument, but OK.
You’re going to strip jobs from highly trained workers in the energy sector, engineers, mechanics, chemists, instrument techs, electricians, and you’re going to make up for that with increased jobs in healthcare and retail? Oh yeah, that’ll be just great. Sending a bunch of highly trained people to work at JC Penney for minimum wage. That’s how they get away with claiming this crap will “create jobs” What a bunch of crap, seriously.
“Electricity prices increase for about the first decade due to the carbon pollution price, but then begin to decline as low-carbon energy sources become increasingly cost-effective and widespread”
This is already happening at a steady pace without our dictator having to get out his executive pen. And it can’t be sped up because the alternative energy sources ARE NOT THERE yet. Basically all you can argue at the moment is wind and solar and I’ve already explained the limitations of that. New technology will no doubt become available eventually, but a carbon tax and stripping jobs isn’t going to make new energy sources appear out of thin air. Solar and wind account for 4.8% of our total power production in 2014. That’s a drop in the bucket despite the growth of wind farms even by companies that rely mostly on fossil fuels.
“Yeah, but but but there will be more funding for this kind of research”
There’s already a ton of money for green energy research and all those billions of taxpayer money have amounted to jack squat, except for more pre-determined studies grossly influenced by the green energy sector, and money in the pockets of organizations such as the Sierra Club.
So many of the projections in this model you so love are based on “pulled out of their butt” predictions on new energy sources appearing out of thin air by a certain date.
“Coal is anticipated to be phased-out entirely by 2025.
NUTS! We will be “lucky” if coal fired power plants account for less than 20-25% in ten years. Currently it is around 39%
Cool plan, bro. Too bad it’s total BS.
I’m also a big fan of how it’s going to create all these jobs in healthcare, but at the same time cure everything from asthma to heart attacks to death, saving a bazillion lives in 20 years.
Too many claims above are speculative and vague, at best.
Here is a link to a top non partisan economic study of the effects of a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend : effects on jobs, emissions, premature deaths, etc. EG: MOre jobs are created in green energy than carbon based, per MWH. And lives are saved as pollution kills
Summary of REMI by CCL
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/REMI-National-SUMMARY.pdf