Talk:Carbon tax

Revenue Neutrality

I would love to see more information in this article about different forms of revenue neutral carbon taxes--explained nicely by the Carbon Tax Center (http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase) and in this cute post (http://globalpublicmedia.com/joe_average_and_jane_median). Thoughts? CommuteByCycle (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Where are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.193 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section is a bit short, surely there are more criticisms then that for Carbon taxes? --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are theories that a Carbon tax would be used to fund the New World Order. 11 Nov 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.50.56 (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Name calling asside, why is there no disucssion of economic impacts to carbon taxation?

Carbon tax at point of Consumption

There is no mention in this Wiki of schemes based on the idea of taxing the net carbon dioxide produced as the result of producing any particular product for example a car. It has been suggested in the Age newspaper (Melbourne Australia) that such a tax could be levied in much the same way as "GST" or "VAT" operate and that would solve many of the problems that appear with current schemes that are operating. A Google of the name "Geoff Carmody" will lead you to some links that explain how the scheme would work. PR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.97.216 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision of several sections

I've written down some of the recent changes I've made to this article. I've found the article contains a number of unsourced statements that are potentially misleading:

The UK has unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime.

The UK does not have a carbon tax. The climate change levy is an energy tax. The EU ETS and UK ETS set a price for carbon, but are not carbon taxes.

Unlike other approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the revenue from the tax is returned by reducing other taxes. Alternatively, it may be used to fund environmental projects.

Unsourced, biased and misleading. Taxes can be just as complex and opaque as cap-and-trade.

In an October, 2006, report entitled the Stern Review by then HM Treasury official and former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, he states that climate change could affect growth which could be cut by one-fifth unless drastic action is taken.[...]

According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s.[...]

In the U.S., according to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%. [...]

I've deleted the paragraphs above. I don't see the purpose in having them in the article. The impacts of climate change are covered in the article the economics of global warming. The link between tax level and impacts is not made in the above paragraphs.

Also, a carbon tax does not disadvantage new or growing companies relative to more established companies as occurs when companies are given more carbon credits if they polluted more in the past. [...]

This and the subsequent list is misleading. Firstly, some of the claims, e.g., greater transparency of carbon taxes, are not necessarily true. Secondly, some of the criticisms apply only to caps where permits are grandfathered. Enescot (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I also had concerns about these sorts of statements, but didn't have the confidence to correct the problem.—greenrd (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tax calculation section redo

I have redone the entire section. Since the whole thing was just a bunch of calculations for different fuels, I put it all in a table. Instead of an arbitrary value for SCC, I used the average peer reviewed value. For what it is worth, that is the best estimate. I used the numbers per BTUs from EIA for the electricity tax estimate. Only arithmetic calculations and conversions are made, and that isn't OR, so I've removed the banner. The clean up banner too, since thing are nice and tidy now. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead changes

The lead starts:

Carbon atoms are present in every fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and are released as CO2 when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide. A carbon tax can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels—coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas—in proportion to their carbon content...

Enescot and I have two different finishes to this paragraph:

If carbon dioxide emissions are not released into the atmosphere on combustion of fossil fuels, e.g., carbon capture and storage, then a carbon tax will not apply. Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of low-carbon technologies, such as renewables, compared to the traditional burning of fossil fuels.

Accordingly, a carbon tax increases the competitiveness of energy sources that don't burn fossil fuels.

I think that carbon capture and storage doensn't belong in the lead. Isn't this an experimental technique that is impractical now and will need research and development yet to be done to be feasable, if it ever is?

I also prefer the simpler final sentence, at least I think "low-carbon technologies" is jargony, and innacurate as it says that there are significant CO₂ emissions from the other sources. They are zero, essentially. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)