A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 7, 2004
4,115
2,750
1,743
#1
A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING
11:50 AM 10/08/2018
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
450
  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.
A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.
For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.
If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.
However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)
In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.
To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.
That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but still no walk in the park.
California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.
The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.
“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius]-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.
In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.
However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”
But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.
The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C-consistent cost-effective pathways.”
 
Aug 11, 2004
1,207
73
1,678
55
Newkirk, Ok
#4
I think a tax at that level would cause food production and transportation to shut down so I guess it would indeed remove global warming from being a pressing issue.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,966
2,119
743
Where else but Stillwater
#5
I think conservatives would far rather wait and let global warming prove itself as real before doing anything about it for now. Years from now, their children or grandchildren will be debating on how to deal with it when the actual damaging effects start to undeniably set in, such as harbors going under water.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
25,732
13,506
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#6
Hmmmmm. Purposely wiping out most of the worlds population through a tax or if global warming is a real disaster maybe things will get bad? 1 of those seem closer to murder.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
7,376
5,696
743
Gondor
#7
Hmmmmm. Purposely wiping out most of the worlds population through a tax or if global warming is a real disaster maybe things will get bad? 1 of those seem closer to murder.
Nah...liberals would never advocate weeding out useless eaters.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,721
2,273
1,743
So Cal
#8
I have yet to see a solid argument as to why global warming is a "problem" that needs "fighting".

What is the "normal temperature" of the Earth?

Are we above or below that "normal temperature"?

How can there be any objective discussion about the climate if we cannot answer even these basic questions?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,345
15,660
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#10
This reminds me of that academic paper a few years back calling for all people to be moved by force into existing urban areas and creating super metropolis areas where all fossil fuel transportation would be public provided only and all jobs would be mandated by the Govt....all in an effort to battle Climate Change.

China is kinda on board with this and has forced 250 million of their residents to move out of rural areas/farms into govt built cities
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
7,376
5,696
743
Gondor
#11
This reminds me of that academic paper a few years back calling for all people to be moved by force into existing urban areas and creating super metropolis areas where all fossil fuel transportation would be public provided only and all jobs would be mandated by the Govt....all in an effort to battle Climate Change.

China is kinda on board with this and has forced 250 million of their residents to move out of rural areas/farms into govt built cities
Agenda 21.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,345
15,660
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#12
I have yet to see a solid argument as to why global warming is a "problem" that needs "fighting".

What is the "normal temperature" of the Earth?

Are we above or below that "normal temperature"?

How can there be any objective discussion about the climate if we cannot answer even these basic questions?
The "normal" temperature of Earth has been constant fluctuation between extremes of Ice Ages to No Ice. I've yet to see it ever be proven the Earth's temperature isn't in a constant state of flux toward one of the two extremes.....it has always been either getting hotter or cooler at any given time period geologically speaking

1539031497734.png
 
Last edited:

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,558
6,493
1,743
Yukon, OK
#14
The "normal" temperature of Earth has been constant fluctuation between extremes of Ice Ages to No Ice. I've yet to see it ever be proven the Earth's temperature isn't in a constant state of flux toward one of the two extremes.....it has always been either getting hotter or cooler at any given time period geologically speaking

View attachment 65199
WHAT?! You mean to tell me Silurian is a real thing?!?
1539034550097.png
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,805
23,501
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#15
The irony is that even if you slapped a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline, people like DiCaprio and Obama would still fly around in private jets, get driven around in stretch limousines, and sail around on mega yachts.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,721
2,273
1,743
So Cal
#17
I think that's what's intended so the ultra elite can reign over the peasants.
naw.... it is much, much more sinister than that.... the intent is to make it too expensive to drive, so that we have to take alternative transportation, or force us into driver-less cars - where the "algorithm" makes all of the decisions, including who dies in an "accident". (do we hit the pedestrian on the sidewalk or hit the tree killing the car occupants? computing... who's life is more valuable to society.... pedestrian dies, don't hit the tree. Can't wait for AI)