On the "climate" side of our issues, there are a lot of other organizations out there operating in the same space. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it is a good place to see many of the other groups (either for - or against) working in this arena.
Most studies indicate that any such impact would be very small. British Columbia adopted a carbon tax in 2008, and its per capita GDP growth has outperformed Canada’s. (Meantime, the tax has reduced fossil fuel consumption by 9 percent, while use in the rest of that country has risen.) “Far from a ‘job killer,’ it is a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon constrained world,” according to a commentary by two Canadian professors and the chairman of Pan American Silver Corporation and Alterra Power.
A Climate Nexus analysis of 20 years of the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages on climate shows a consistent pattern that overwhelmingly ignores the science, champions doubt and denial of both the science and effectiveness of action, and leaves readers misinformed about the consensus of science and of the risks of the threat.
For over a decade, prominent political figures and economists have spoken out on the need to price carbon. Below you will find 26 quotes speaking to its importance.
The only way to reduce the threat posed by climate change is to reduce the burning of carbon, so any industry that extracts or sells fossil fuels is vulnerable to a carbon fee. To succeed in the marketplace, therefore, those industries must adapt.
Regional disparities would be small, according to most studies in recent years. “We … find that the regional variation is at best modest,” wrote economists Kevin A. Hassett, Aparna Mathur and Gilbert E. Metcalf in “The Incidence of a U.S. Carbon Tax: A Lifetime and Regional Analysis,” a January 2008 working paper by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). They concluded that “variation across regions is sufficiently small that one could argue that a carbon tax is distributionally neutral across regions.”
Putting a price on carbon would make gasoline, home heat and air conditioning, and carbon-intensive products (e.g. steel and cement) more expensive. Those at the upper end of the income ladder generally spend more on such items. For example, for every gallon of gasoline used by the poorest 20 percent of households, the richest 20 percent use three or four.
A number of prominent economists have commented both positively or negatively on pricing carbon over the years. This spreadsheet gives an overview of many of their positions. We will be updating this database periodically.
Support for putting a price on carbon is growing rapidly, especially in the business community. This is due in part to the effective debunking of myths about carbon pricing. Below, is the first in a series of blogs explaining why the most common criticisms of carbon pricing do not hold up.