Quantcast
ZME Science
  • CoronavirusNEW
  • News
  • Environment
    • Climate
    • Animals
    • Renewable Energy
    • Eco tips
    • Environmental Issues
    • Green Living
  • Health
    • Alternative Medicine
    • Anatomy
    • Diseases
    • Genetics
    • Mind & Brain
    • Nutrition
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
    • Feature Post
    • Art
    • Great Pics
    • Design
    • Fossil Friday
    • AstroPicture
    • GeoPicture
    • Did you know?
    • Offbeat
  • More
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Our stance on climate change
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

No Result
View All Result
ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
Home Environment Climate

An Exxon subsidiary figured out how to stop climate change 30 years ago — and we’re not even close

The solution is something most governments don't even want to hear.

Mihai Andrei by Mihai Andrei
December 12, 2019
in Climate, News, World Problems

Want to figure out how to stop climate change? Just ask Calgary-based Imperial Oil Ltd., which has ties to Exxon for more than a century. They figured out in the early 1990s.

Image credits: wongaboo / Flickr.

The key to curbing emissions, the analysis found, is to put a tax on carbon. But the price needs to be high enough — the price per ton of carbon would have to be about C$55, or roughly C$95 (USD72) in today’s money.

This is surprisingly similar to what leading economists are asking for today. Both theory and practice show that companies can’t be trusted to regulate their emissions in time, and the best way to force them to do so is to implement a tax on emissions.

This is a basic principle in economics. Whenever there is a negative externality resulting from the actions of a company, the company must pay to offset its negative effect. In this case, the entire planet is suffering because of emissions, so emissions can (and should) be treated as an externality. It’s not unique to emissions, and it’s not something groundbreaking — again, it’s a basic economic principle.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of world leaders want nothing to do with a carbon tax.

Get more science news like this...

Join the ZME newsletter for amazing science news, features, and exclusive scoops. More than 40,000 subscribers can't be wrong.

   

Imperial’s analysis made no mark when it was published. The company declined to comment and ExxonMobil, which owns 70% of Imperial, says it has supported economy-wide carbon pricing for a decade.

But that is highly questionable at best.

For starters, there is solid evidence that ExxonMobil knew about impending climate change and its effect back from the 70s. Not only did it hid its findings, but it also started a massive disinformation campaign to sow doubt about climate change.

Exxon did know about climate change since the 70s — and it lied, knowingly

Even today, Exxon (as well as other major fossil fuel companies) are actively participating in disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and its effects. In this light, the company’s position seems nothing more than posturing and greenwashing.

As for the carbon tax, it is still probably our best way to go about it. Perhaps a direct tax isn’t the best approach, but it is hard to envision the world taking the necessary steps without some form of a direct or indirect carbon tax. Yet we’re nowhere close to that.

According to Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist who worked on the Obama era carbon-pricing policy, found that the global average carbon price is currently $2.48 — and this includes most countries, which have a $0 carbon tax.

The debate is still ongoing about what is the optimal price for such a tax, and what are the best mechanisms to implement it. Nevertheless, this seems to be the elephant in the room when attempting to deal with climate change. We’ve tried to do it without a tax and we’re not doing a particularly good job at it. Unfortunately, very little has changed, and carbon taxes are still wildly unpopular — but it’s the price we have to pay if we want to curb carbon emissions. Otherwise, there may be a much higher price to pay.

Tags: carbon taxglobal warming
Mihai Andrei

Mihai Andrei

Andrei's background is in geophysics, and he's been fascinated by it ever since he was a child. Feeling that there is a gap between scientists and the general audience, he started ZME Science -- and the results are what you see today.

Follow ZME on social media

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Coronavirus
  • News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
  • More

© 2007-2019 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Coronavirus
  • News
  • Environment
    • Climate
    • Animals
    • Renewable Energy
    • Eco tips
    • Environmental Issues
    • Green Living
  • Health
    • Alternative Medicine
    • Anatomy
    • Diseases
    • Genetics
    • Mind & Brain
    • Nutrition
  • Future
  • Space
  • Feature
    • Feature Post
    • Art
    • Great Pics
    • Design
    • Fossil Friday
    • AstroPicture
    • GeoPicture
    • Did you know?
    • Offbeat
  • More
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Our stance on climate change
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2019 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.