Talk:Carbon tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South Africa (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Section on Alberta[edit]

"Alberta is also opposed to a cap and trade system it fears the trades will pull revenue out of the province, a fear not to be dismissed"

This strikes me as a rather subjective statement. Let the readers look at the facts themselves and then decide for themselves whether or not the fear is to be dismissed. It may be a true statement but that's not the point, we need to stay impartial. If the link provided demonstrates evidence that the trades will indeed pull revenue out of the province, consider replacing the above with "...which is supported by research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.50.21 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is a "site-specific command-penalty"? [1] Secondary sources call it a tax. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Uniform Wording should accord with Legal Definitions[edit]

Here is a diff to which this thread relates. I have redacted copy-and-paste of some preliminary commentary that was originally posted at User_talk:Emperor_Zhark, and thank the user for starting this thread, the real substance of which is below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This article includes reference to command-and-control policy instruments such as Alberta's regulation that is not a "carbon tax" as defined in Canadian law. Canadian law is the most reliable source, and any Wikipedia editor or economist who says otherwise is being either sloppy or disingenuous. If they wish to pad the article with untruthful conflations of "taxes" and "fees" then that's their business, but to remove a reasonable, very concise discussion of three different instruments (taxes, emissions trading/credits and subsidies) as NewsAndEventsGuy did, I disagree with and so have undone the edit, as Canadian legal definitions are more reliable than he. My edit did not suggest that carbon taxes are command-penalty regulations, that conflation appears later in another's edit that suggests that Alberta has a "carbon tax". My edit correctly repeated the description that carbon taxes and emissions trading are distinct economic instruments built upon a base of command-penalty regulation (a non-economic instrument), which is much more common and earlier policy instrument. There is no act in Alberta that has "carbon" and "tax" in the title, neither does the "Specified Gas Emitter's Regulation" (SGER) have a definition for "tax" in it. The reason for this is because it is an administrative penalty within a Command-Penalty Regulation, not a carbon tax. The textbook I cited, "Environmental Law and Policy in the Canadian Context" by Allan Greenbaum and Alex Wellington is a recent (2010) and reputable one. If NewsAndEventsGuy can give reference to definition for "tax" in Alberta's SGER, then I'd respect that it is a tax. No amount of bluffing can detract from these distinctions made in law and described in policy texts. If objecting editors have a different set of laws to reference, or policy texts that respect legal definitions, then it's their turn to present them, and not hide behind multiple quick edits to distract away from the legal definitions fairly presented. --Emperor Zhark (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(A) Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL
(B) You stuck all this Canada stuff in the general section for "economic theory" in general. Definitions in Canadian law really aren't pertinent to the general classification of these different approaches. All this Canada-specific stuff does not belong in a general section.
(C) Best stow the language like "hide" "pad" and "untruthful" since that is not conducive to building a mutually agreeable consensus.
(D) Revising this once again. After skimming "Alberta’s (Non)-Carbon Tax and Our Threatened Climate" I think I know what you're getting at. I'll return to this in a few hours. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(A) Thanks for emailing me directly, I don't yet know how to do that and it is a nice courtesy.
(B) The definitions of economic instruments listed (tax, emissions trading, subsidy) are signified by the names of the acts and definitions contained in them regardless of jurisdiction. Canadian examples of this are not particular to Canada alone. Most of the footnotes link to documents that clearly distinguish between proposals or legislation specifying either carbon tax or emission trading. As the Canada section shows an instance of misattribution on these policy grounds, it is all the more important that the relevant law and policy background be covered in the policy section. --Emperor Zhark (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(A) FYI, I did not send you any email. Must have been someone else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
If you - and the person you want to email - have an email address associated with your account, then you can go to that person's userpage (or talkpage) and click on "Email this user" in the toolbar. Alternatively, go to Special:EmailUser.
Some people like to email but others prefer to keep everything on-wiki. It's often best to avoid email on the most controversial topics, because others might think it's sneaky. Bear in mind the risk of disclosing your email address to the other editor. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and advice. The email in question was not directly sent, however it does appear more directly personal than a simple notification of page changes, as the header reads "_________ left you a message on Wikipedia", and lands on one's talk page.--Emperor Zhark (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Carbon tax objective[edit]

The article should explain how a carbon tax gets to the objective of stabilized emissions. That is capping CO2 in the atmosphere at say less than 500ppm by 2050. There have been a number of analyses suggesting the need for 12000 750MW nuclear power plants worldwide by 2050 to achieve the objective of stabilization. Currently there are a little over 400. Trying do it with renewables like solar and wind the numbers become huge. The heavy taxation of gasoline in some countries over time has had a marginal effect on consumption. This suggests that a carbon tax will have a marginal effect. Even if the taxes are used to fund some renewables it's unlikely to do what is required unless the taxes were draconian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurmike (talkcontribs) 19:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"The article should explain how a carbon tax gets to the objective of stabilized emissions." Please suggest some article text including citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Personal speculation and general topic discussion doesn't really cut it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Canard in section on Denmark[edit]

"Denmark also needs to be behind this by actually showing they are investing and not just collecting money"

This non-NPOV sentence should be amended. I see it cites a source so I'll change it to reflect that content properly.

Text from Social cost of carbon[edit]

I just reverted this recent addition

A defining feature of carbon taxes, compared to other policy instruments aimed at reducing pollution, is that they raise revenue. This revenue can be used for a number of purposes, but economists have focused in particular on the potential for carbon tax revenue to be used in a revenue-neutral tax swap.

[1] The problem with this is that the text, including its supporting ref, appears to be plagiarized from a blog post "The case for a carbon tax in Canada" by Nicholas Rivers.

There is also a POV issue. Revenue neutrality is certainly something that has been studied, but it is hardly the only aspect that has been studied.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ |author=Lawrence H Goulder, Ian WH Parry, and Dallas Burtraw. |title=Revenue-Raising versus Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: The Critical Significance of Preexisting Tax Distortions: RAND Journal of Economics 28.4 pp. 708–731 |year=1997