Talk:Carbon fee and dividend

Comment

I know Switzerland has already adopted versions of the Fee and Dividend so I'm hoping we get more specific data on this. Also Canada may have some forms of the policy already in place. I am going by memory from conversations earlier this year. One was with a major insurance company representative in their climate change department. We will need to locate the references for cite though.
reply: The workings of British Columbian tax was discussed on RealClimate if memory serves. You should find a couple of links there. I have yet to see my dividend from the "version" of F&D that Switzerland is supposed to have adopted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.237.35 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't "cap and dividend" be addressed as well, if only with an invalid link? I think F&D is better but there's at least one C&D bill in Congress and it seems a few big names are (or were) pushing that...

It looks like a hybrid bill between Cap and Trade and Fee and Dividend. I looked at it last week and am thinking about how it might be best included. It does involve trading certificates and a portion of the fee returned to public. But these +/- arguments are discussed on the www.climatelobby.com site in the Q&A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpr2000 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fee and dividend?

A quick look through the article shows no source for the name. Is there one, or is it the vivid imagination of some Wikipedia editors. The concept may be notable, but the name doesn't seem to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin I agree on the name. It should be changed to "Carbon Fee & Dividend," which is more descriptive and more commonly in use (sometimes shortened to "fee and dividend," "carbon dividends," etc.) Just about anything could have a fee that is returned as a dividend; however, this policy is specifically about carbon-based fuels.

References

Original research

Even the material with apparent sources, is mostly from blogs or editorials. I just don't see it. If someone used the term, and did so in reliable sources, we might have an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google turned up some useful links:

• HuffPo editorial - good for notability
• NY Times OpEd by James Hansen - ditto, plus Hansen is an expert, hence this his a RS
• Dallas News OpEd
• The Guardian - seems to be plain reporting (by Hansen, see above)
• Hansen's Book, Storms of My Grandchildren
• Excerpt of same in The Nation
• PJ Star Endorsement of a candidate who pushes for Fee and Dividend

I'd say notability is well established. For RS directly about it we are mostly down to Hansen, at least according to the 5 minute search I did. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we say the term (and probably the concept) was invented by Hansen? (And I disagree that The Guardian article even appears to be "straight reporting". It reads more like an editorial. But that may just be a perspective from the other side of the pond.)

We still don't know that there is not a better known term for the same concept. Google wouldn't help for that. All the sources for it being a good idea seem to be Hansen.

The reference to the bill before the US Congress (which, by the way, should use a primary source rather than the echo of a primary source now given) isn't obviously "fee and dividend". We still need a reference for that. There's still a fair amount of WP:OR in the article, even though there is something which could be properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re the Guardian: Yes, my formulation was clumsy. What I tried to say is that there is no outward evidence that it is an OpEd (i.e. it's not in a Opinion section or explicitly marked as an editorial). I agree that parts of it read like an OpEd (and parts don't). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I know someone in Switzerland that knows a bit more about the history of fee and dividend, and will try to get more information when he is available. Although Hansen uses the term, I don't know if he is the originator either? The concept apparently has been around for quite some time though.--Jpr2000 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to find more on origination. However, I just ran across a document on the whitehouse.gov web site called "The Carbon Fee and Dividend Act of 2010" I only found a link to the pdf but as to notability, I think that shows strong acceptance. I just tired a Google of "fee and dividend" which yielded 3.7 million hits. This is not a proof but it is indicative.212.41.123.166 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fee and dividend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120219194417/http://www.rep.org/opinions/weblog/weblog10-10-11.html to http://www.rep.org/opinions/weblog/weblog10-10-11.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121023020210/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2380/text to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2380/text

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

EMF report due late-2016 on US GHG and revenue recycling scenarios

The Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), coordinated by Stanford University, is due to release its EMF 32 report in late-2016. The study is titled "US GHG and revenue recycling scenarios" and will, among other things, look at the redistribution of revenue from selected climate policies. I image a carbon tax or fee is one of those policies. Quoting from the EMF website:

The purpose of this modeling exercise is to use energy-economic models to assess emissions, energy and economic outcomes from a plausible range of US policies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). In addition to standard emphasis on the effects of such policies on emissions, energy prices and macroeconomic performance, an economic issue of particular interest will be how fiscal decisions on revenue distribution might also affect these outcomes.

The study appears appropriate for this article and should probably be added when released. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Separate section for criticisms?

The first source in the first section is a critical opinion piece from a somewhat biased website that may not be in line with the academic community. Rather than remove it, should a separate section for criticisms be started? Or should it be removed entirely? The Great Depression was harmful because the economy was stagnated, not because of "wealth redistribution," so the argument seems an example of poisoning the well rather than a serious academic criticism. Based on IMF research, wealth redistribution would be expected to grow an economy, as gains to the bottom quintile stimulate growth, while gains to the top quintile stagnate the economy. --Emmieleigh (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Implementation in Canada

This article from the Guardian and Carbon price (Canada) contain info on implementation in Canada from December 2018. Morten7an (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Propose adding a citation for the following information present in the article: "A border tax adjustment is levied on imports from nations that lack their own equivalent fee on carbon. For example, if the United States legislated a carbon fee-and-dividend system, China would face the choice of paying carbon fees to the United States or creating its own internal carbon pricing system. This would leverage American economic power to incentivize carbon pricing around the world."

Suggested citation:

Cf2022 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

Cf2022 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

 Done Ferkijel (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References