Skip navigation
Share via:

Pitch

Using free markets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, taxing CO2 and methane gases emission. Then divide said fee evenly to everyone.


Description

Summary

Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors.[1]” (IPCC2014)

 

 

 

 


Proposals

climate-friendly-diet

2Carbon Dividend

 

 

 


What actions do you propose?

Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors.[1]” (IPCC2014)The challenge is how to reduce consumption and find alternative.

Goal:  1Good health and well being

2 affordable and green energy

3 decent work and economic growth  

4 industry innovation and infrastructure

5 responsible consumption and production

6 climate cation

7 partnership for the goal  

How would we achieve these goals? The explanation for the plane. The first thing is to put price on CO2 and Methane. The agriculture and fossil fuel  company need to pay fee on every ton of CO2 and Methane. The first year government start to charge with low price and the price start to increase each year. The study show us how it will looks like. “To account for the cost of burning fossil fuels, we propose an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry.”(figure 2 Citizens' Climate Lobby2017)


    As result the price of everything relate with CO2 and Methane will increase in other word the price of plastic bag, meet, Big Mac, clothe and heating etc. Is not sounds good at this stage, so we 100% divide the fee we collect from company to every citizen. This money can pay off the increase part on goods and use this money to change more efficient energy source like LED light and solar panel so they can save more money. On other hands the meat like beef and chicken price are rising, so people will eat less meat, and the demand of vegetable will increase.This policy also encourage more vegetable, because that require less Methane than livestocks. Some farmer will grow more vegetable instead of livestocks. When supply rising up the price will decrease. Overall we encouraged people consume less greenhouse gases production and eat more vegetable less meat. In addition we also increase the green energy economic. The boost demand of green efficient energy will incentive a great amount investor on green energy research, as result we created many job opportunity.

 

The study shown us how many money we can collect from this policy.(figure 3Citizens' Climate Lobby2017)

 

The last part of this plan is tax on border. That will have chain effect on global scale to put fee on CO2. “Import fees on products imported from countries without a carbon fee, along with rebates to US industries exporting to those countries, will discourage businesses from relocating where they can emit more CO2 and motivate other countries to adopt similar carbon pricing policies. Building upon existing tax and trade systems will avoid complex new institutional arrangements.Firms seeking to escape higher energy costs will be discouraged from relocating to non-compliant nations (“leakage”), as their products will be subject to import fees.”(Citizens' Climate Lobby2017)

Overall, This plan is use free market to encourage people choose more sustainable way of life, This highlight of this plan is benefit the poor and middle class, because compare with rich people they spend less CO2, and every give same amount of fee so the poor and middle class earn more. Is plan also encourage investor create more job opportunity on green energy, and more vegetable. Our world economic is highly connected so plan will also perfund impact on global scale. This plan did not involve in coercion so it’s very feasible way to lunch. A study from REMI shows that carbon fee-and-dividend will reduce CO2 emissions 52% below 1990 levels in 20 years and that recycling the revenue creates an economic stimulus that adds 2.8 million jobs to the economy.(Citizens' Climate Lobby2017)

Impact data 

REMI’s analysis, in 20 years (Citizens' Climate Lobby2017):

  • A 50% reduction of carbon emissions below 1990 levels
  • The addition of 2.8 million jobs above baseline, driven by the steady economic stimulus of the energy dividend
  • The avoidance of 230,000 premature deaths due to reduction in air pollutants that often accompany carbon emissions
  • CO2 emissions declined 33% after only 10 years, and 52% after 20 years relative to the baseline, $0/ton of CO2 case (Figure 1).Carbon fee study project emissions reductions

    Figure 1: U.S. CO2 emissions under F&D (yellow) and without a carbon tax (blue). F&D reduces US emissions to 69% of 1990 levels by 2025, and to 50% by 2035.

  • National employment increases by 2.1 million jobs after 10 years, and 2.8 million after 20 years. This is more than a 1% increase in total US employment we don’t get without a carbon tax (Figure 2)!Carbon Fee and Dividend would create 2.8 million jobs nationally compared with a business as usual baseline.

    Figure 2: Thousands of jobs created by F&D relative to the case without a carbon tax. Over a million jobs created within 4 years, over 2 million within 9 years.

  • 13,000 lives are saved annually after 10 years, with a cumulative 227,000 American lives saved over 20 years (Figure 3).

    Cumulative lives saved from reduce emissions.

    Figure 3: Cumulative lives saved from avoided emissions by region under F&D. Region ENC, including Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has the most lives saved. 227,000 American lives would be saved in 20 years under F&D.

     

  • $70-$85 billion increase in GDP from 2020 on, with a cumulative increase in national GDP due to F&D of $1.375 trillion (Figure 4).Increase in GDP from Carbon Fee and Dividend

    Figure 4: Annual additional GDP due to Fee and Dividend relative to no carbon tax. The numbers are positive due to a net increase in jobs and more consumer spending from the dividend. Over the 20 years of the study, GDP is $1.375 trillion higher than without F&D.

  • Size of monthly dividend for a family of 4 with two adults in 2025 = $288, and in 2035 = $396. Annually, this is $3,456 per family of 4 in 2025 ($1152 per capita–children get 1?2 dividend) (Figure 5).

    Monthly Dividend with Carbon Fee and Dividend

    Figure 5: Average monthly dividend for a family of four. Each adult gets one full share, and each child 1 half-share up to two children for a maximum of 3 full shares per household.

     

  • Electricity prices peak in 2026, then start to decrease.
  • Real incomes increase by more than $500 per person in 2025. This increase accounts for cost of living increases (Figure 6).

    US Income per capita with Carbon Fee and Dividend

    Figure 6: U.S. income per capita, after accounting for cost-of-living increases. This means that even accounting for the increased cost of living, the average American is wealthier every single year of the policy.

     

 

 

 

 

 


Who will take these actions and which types of actors are involved?

The government is the main component. The big fossil fuel company and agriculture company need pay money for the greenhouse emission.The price of  good that contain CO2 and will increase that will effect citizen’s life and let them make change on their lifestyle into more environmentally friendly way. Finally the green energy company will flourish by the need of citizen, that will make a close circle.

 

 

 

 

 


Where will these actions be taken and how could they scale?

USA and other developed country must take action first, Blew has a chart of country contribution on greenhouse gases.( Michel G. J. den Elzen; Jos G. J. Olivier; Niklas Höhne; Greet Janssens-Maenhout2013) And other figure on every country emission Greenhouse gases on history.  (Michel G. J. den Elzen & Jos G. J. Olivier & Niklas Höhne & Greet Janssens-Maenhout2013)

 

The developed countries has emitted more greenhouse gases in the past more than developing country.  The developing country still need building infrastructure in their country, but developed country has done it already. The way in developed country is change the way of people’s “lavish ”way of life into more environmentally friendly way of life. This plan start with developed country incentive free market to boost the need of green energy company. There will have more green energy company in the future. Then this plan will affect developing country, because they are  still building their country’s infrastructure, the best they can do is produce reduce greenhouse gases by using more  green energy, energy efficient material when they building their infrastructure.   And since the developed country has more green energy company the price of green energy will become lower, the developing country can get lower price of green energy and reduce the greenhouse gases .

Developed countries

52.0

Developing countries

48.0

United States

18.6

China

11.6

EU27

17.1

India

4.1

Russia

7.2

Brazil

3.9

Japan

2.8

Indonesia

4.8

Australia & New Zealand

1.7

South Korea

0.6

Canada

1.9

Mexico

1.3

Other Europen countries

1.1

Nigeria

0.6

Ukraine

1.5

Saudi Arabia

0.4

 

 

South Africa

0.8

 

 

Turkey

0.7

 

 

Middle East

2.6

 

 

Rest of Africa

5.7

 

 

Rest of Asia

0.6

 

 

Rest of Latin America

4.6

 

 

Rest of Southeast Asia

5.7

 

This plan doesn’t need cost, all we need to do is persuade the government to lunch this project. The strength is this project didn’t force anyone to lower their life quality in order to reduce greenhouse gases instead we totally depend on the market. The capitalism wants interest rather than production if we tax non- sustainable energy resource like the fossil fuel company.There will have lower interest in those resources  The business magnate will invest other things like green energy. The concept is let the market to solve the problem. Another strength is this plan benefits the poor and middle class because compared with rich people they spend less CO2, and everyone gives the same amount of fee so the poor and middle class earn more.

 

 

 

 


In addition, specify the countries where these actions will be taken.

United States


Country 2

China


Country 3

India


Country 4

No country selected


Country 5

No country selected


Impact/Benefits:


What impact will these actions have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or adapting to climate change?

Reduce CO2, CH4 gas and consumed less cow meet by the free market way which won't harm people's  freedom and give them an option. This police don't give poor and middle-class people much pressure. Also, this policy can create great number of job opportunity in green industry,

 

 

 


What are the most innovative aspects and main strengths of this approach?

(part of answer  is in another paragraph due to limit space )

The challenge is we can’t have corruption on this plan, we need 100% divide all fee to all citizen. In real world, this very hard to achieve.  Here is anti-corruption system I’m planning do apply. The first concern is company report CO2 consumption to government is lower than actual consumption.  Seconds concern is the government  bribed by the company so they tax them inaccurately. A third concern is inside of government can 100% divide fee from Co2 tax.  The question is how to run this system as accurate as possible. The government must transparent the fee of taxes every year, and public can investigate the data. The company also must transparent the income and actual production to the public. If find a violation or dishonest with data, the company will face high punishment The international NGO also need to take role of supervisor so we can run system with less risk of corruption.

 

 

 

 

 


Costs/Challenges:


What are the proposal’s projected costs?

The launch of this project doesn't cost much money. My focus is goal 2,3, 12,8,9,13, but not able to reaching poverty education, gender equality, clean water. 

 

 

 

 

 


About the Authors

 

 

 

 

 


References

work cite;

https://www.climatecolab.org/contests/2012/climate-friendly-diet/c/proposal/15302

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

Carbon Dividend

1. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change .

“Diet can take world to the next level of change - Climate friendly diet 2013.” Climate CoLab,www.climatecolab.org/contests/2012/climate-friendly-diet/c/proposal/15302

“The Basics of Carbon Fee and Dividend.” Citizens' Climate Lobby, citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/.

FAO (2014). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks.

. IPCC (2014): Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/countries-contributions-to-climate-change

“Countries' contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress.” Ga naar de Nederlandse taal,

https://www.climatecolab.org/contests/2012/climate-friendly-diet/c/proposal/15302

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/

Carbon Dividend

1. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change .

“Diet can take world to the next level of change - Climate friendly diet 2013.” Climate CoLab,www.climatecolab.org/contests/2012/climate-friendly-diet/c/proposal/15302

“The Basics of Carbon Fee and Dividend.” Citizens' Climate Lobby, citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/.

FAO (2014). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks.

. IPCC (2014): Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/countries-contributions-to-climate-change

“Countries' contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress.” Ga naar de Nederlandse taal,

 

 

 

 

 


What enabling environment would be required in order to implement this proposal?