VH Award Winner – April 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The climate change debate has\nprogressed – global warming is real. We\u2019re past discussions concerning the\ncauses. Now it\u2019s about how we solve it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the 2015 Paris agreement,\nsignatories agreed on a \u2018target\u2019 to reduce carbon emissions and to prevent\nglobal temperatures rising to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. But the 1.5C\nthreshold is now looming. Mechanisms for implementing this \u2018Paris target\u2019 are\nweak and many are predicting that rises of 3C or more are likely by the second\nhalf of this century. Last year global carbon\nemissions rose by over 37.1bn tonnes.\nScientists reporting for the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\n(IPCC) warn that in order to meet the target of 1.5C, global carbon emissions\nneed to be reduced by 45% by 2030. The solutions span technologies, behaviours,\nand policies that encourage less waste and sustainable resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One solution is the introduction of a Carbon Tax (CAT). A set price on the carbon released from fossil fuels. A price on carbon outputs will hopefully result in a decrease in fossil fuel use and the resulting harmful emissions released. CAT would make fossil fuels like oil and coal more expensive and this will, in turn, drive investment in cleaner technology (e.g.: wind and solar power). The reason why we should punitively tax carbon is clear from the dividend collected from the tax as well as the reduction in fossil fuel use. This dividend collected can be used to fund green projects, be returned to citizens as a tax credit or it could even be used to fund sustainable projects in developing countries.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CAT benefits are evident in the few\ncountries who have implemented this carbon tax. In Sweden a carbon tax was\nenacted in the early 1990s and despite a roughly $135-per-ton tax GDP has grown\nby nearly 80% and emissions have fallen by 25%. This Swedish success suggests\nthat, if properly implemented, taxing carbon does not have to be detrimental to\neconomic growth – a key concern for some opponents. In the Province of British\nColumbia, Canada, CAT was introduced in 2008. The dividend generated led to an\nannual Climate Action Tax Credit for every citizen. Together with a strong\ncommunication strategy it has won broad support for the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem is that such taxes tend to\nbe resented by citizens or large manufactures. In Canada several Provinces\nstarted legal proceedings against a federal carbon pricing framework. Recent\nprotesters in France known as the Gilets Jeune\n(typically rural French citizens engaged in low-paid jobs, pensioners, artisans\nand small businesses) think it is unacceptable that the diesel they use to\ntravel to work is taxed more than the jet fuel that the French President Mr\nMacron and the wealthy use to reach their long haul holiday destinations. Aviation\nfuel use must be addressed as in the 2018 Atmosfair Airline Index no airline\nreceived an A for efficiency and only two airlines were ranked in the\nefficiency class B. The protestors are not against actions on climate change\nbut believe it is being pursued at the expense of those least able to bear the\ncost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CAT is key to combating climate change and to incentivise the transition to low\ncarbon usage. But for it to work, carbon taxation must be planned to ensure\nsuccess. The economic benefits (dividend) must be visible for all to see and\nthe money must be allocated in a way that is fair. At the 2018 Climate Change Conference in Poland,\nthe overriding theme of the summit was for a fair distribution of any climate\nchange policy so, as we plan our low-carbon future we must be sure to achieve a\n\u2018just transition\u2019. People must be informed of increases to the tax and these\nshould be gradual increases. Low-carbon energy supplies need to be affordable\nso people are offered alternatives. Investment is needed in innovation and\ninfrastructure, such as public transport, electric vehicles and charging\nstations- the latter woefully lacking in the UK currently. Crucially, Carbon\ntaxation policies must be ambitious (the High-Level\nCommission on Carbon Prices has suggested\na carbon tax of $40-80\/tonne by 2020 and $50-100\/tonne by 2030) if they are to\nbe beneficial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If appropriately introduced, the punitive taxation\nof carbon can reduce fossil fuel use and harmful emissions and this, together\nwith other strategies may be enough to slow our rising global temperatures and\npreserve our planet for future generations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"