Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Time for a carbon tax ring-fenced for CO2 fighting?

A good idea would be to replace VAT with a Greenhouse Gas tax on products. So beef would be a luxury rather than a necessity (due to it's massive carbon and methane footprint).

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Time for a carbon tax ring-fenced for CO2 fighting?

Eric is right, you can't use the tax word.

I'm warming to the concept of a "universal carbon price". Linking the pollution we cause by our consumption to the price we pay for stuff. Skewing markets in favour of non carbon means of production, accelerating their development into the timescale we need before climate change gets sufficient momentum and becomes irreversible. That's looking like a decade it seems. Which ain't long at all.

This generally interesting piece about hydrogen from Reuters from the weekend says this. Hydrogen faces at least another decade of development before it can make a difference without carbon pricing:

Future of hydrogen fuel depends on emissions pricing

The problem with the government's 2050 carbon neutral target (now enshrined in law) is that doesn't include aviation and imports, both of which need a mechanism of inclusion such as carbon pricing.

On the later, we can't really whinge about the fact that all the efforts made in Europe to de-carbonise is for nothing when it's more than offset by increases in Asia, when we have outsourced all our manufacturing to China where they use coal and have to ship the goods from the other side of the world. Ideally, the whole world needs to adopt carbon pricing (the "universal" bit), or failing that, introduce carbon pricing at the border like you would with VAT and import tax.

Piddles

OR..... (off the top of the head without thinking it through)

VAT is a consumption tax, so phase a conversion into a carbon price. Phased in a way similar to the EURO vehicle emission system. So if your central heating needs replacing the calculation of what you replace it with changes. If you're an investor in hydrogen technologies you're incentivised to advance your investment

Not a new tax: tick. There's already a collection mechanism: tick. Gives the consumer a route to avoid the tax by taking carbon based buying decisions: tick. Speeds up development of low carbon technologies: tick. Consumption vested interests can be won over: possibly.

What do you think?

Piddles

pile-o-stone wrote: »

A good idea would be to replace VAT with a Greenhouse Gas tax on products. So beef would be a luxury rather than a necessity (due to it's massive carbon and methane footprint).

Opps. Sorry pile-o-stones. I missed that. You get the kudos! :rotfl:

Zarch

Doncaster Sheffield airport is to build a £2 million solar farm as a way to reduce its carbon footprint.

https://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/doncaster-sheffield-airport-to-build-solar-farm/

Piddles

Zarch wrote: »

Doncaster Sheffield airport is to build a £2 million solar farm as a way to reduce its carbon footprint.

Saving 25% on their bill. Or 220 tonnes of CO2 per year, which is just one return flight to Gran Canaria. Sounds like window dressing. They've got a lot of land, seems like they should do a lot better.

NigeWick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

A good idea would be to replace VAT with a Greenhouse Gas tax on products. So beef would be a luxury rather than a necessity (due to it's massive carbon and methane footprint).

By that reckoning, all food would be a luxury due to its carbon, chemical, pollution and biodiversity destroying footprint.

That said, a pollution tax would work for me as I do think it is fair that companies and people who pollute, pay to prevent it and clean it up.

Martyn1981

Piddles wrote: »

Eric is right, you can't use the tax word.

I'm warming to the concept of a "universal carbon price". Linking the pollution we cause by our consumption to the price we pay for stuff.

I've been working in the sun, so probably a bit off today, but can I just check that a carbon tax, and a carbon price are the same thing?

Piddles

NigeWick wrote: »

By that reckoning, all food would be a luxury due to its carbon, chemical, pollution and biodiversity destroying footprint.

Apparently not. The average price rise would be around 3%. So doable. pile-o-stone's provocative beef suggestion is the extreme example at 40%. The rise in food prices as result of not tackling the issue is the real point. At that point people at the bottom of the pile go hungry and society falls apart..

Again, a phased introduction would allow the industry to adapt. There are alternative technologies available, there just needs to be an incentive to fully develop and introduce them.

A byproduct would be a healthier diet. With a massive 5% of GDP due to be spent on diabetes and obesity related diseases by 2025, 3% could be very money saving expert...

Rather more knotty is that the same calculation brings a 50% increase in heating costs. :eek:

https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2016/12/01/Carbon-price-would-result-in-food-costs-rising-3

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I've been working in the sun, so probably a bit off today, but can I just check that a carbon tax, and a carbon price are the same thing?

Mention that word and you get les gilets jaunes setting London on fire. Wrap it into VAT (no one says the t word out loud) and it's done.