Talk:Carbon price/Archive 1

Archive 1

Magnitudes for carbon prices

I've been trying to ask about this at WP:RDS, here (now archived), here, and here.

Is transferring the $500 billion/year of fossil subsidies to wind and water sufficient, too much, or not enough? Should we try to arbitrage against the expected prices in 2020? Why Other (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Dr. Jacobson, this is related to Eqn. 3 in http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/fossil/ClimRespUpdJGR%201.pdf

"[calculate] the time-dependent change in CO2 mixing ratio from a given anthropogenic emission rate, [and with that] the time-dependent difference in mixing ratio resulting from two different emission levels by subtracting results from the equation solved twice. Note that chi in the equation is the anthropogenic portion of the mixing ratio (this is explained in the text) and units of E need to be converted to mixing ratio. The conversion is given in the paper."

Why Other (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving PrisonPlanet.com sourced material here

Based on a tag questioning the reliability of PrisonPlanet.com, I moved this paragraph here for discussion:

In addition to U.S government intervention, the United Nations is pushing ahead for a global carbon tax that will increase the expansion of world government as globalists attempt to make Americans pay for their own sovereignty and future prosperity.www.prisonplanet.com/globalists-race-to-enforce-criminal-carbon-tax.html] The Associated Press reports that “Carbon taxes, add-ons to international air fares and a levy on cross-border money movements are among ways being considered by a panel of the world’s leading economists to raise a staggering $100 billion a year to fight climate change,”www.prisonplanet.com/globalists-race-to-enforce-criminal-carbon-tax.html]

Are there any reliable sources which agree with that? Since carbon is so heavily subsidized, a huge amount of subsidies would need to be removed before a net tax could be levied. And I thought the cross-border money transfer tax was intended for general development assistance, not specifically climate change mitigation. Why Other (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that there is a reliable corroborating source. Good point about the subsidies too. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Resource: It’s time to put a price on carbon, NRC says: Substantial, immediate action on climate should begin

It’s time to put a price on carbon, NRC says: Substantial, immediate action on climate should begin, new report says by Janet Raloff Science News Web edition Thursday, May 19th, 2011. Excerpt:

... May 12 report by the United States National Research Council. It didn’t get a lot of press play in the past week, perhaps because its 144 pages don’t say anything readers might not have expected this august body to have proclaimed years ago. But that shouldn’t diminish the significance of this report, its authors contend. A lot has happened since 2009, when the United States Congress first requested advice from NRC on whether to take action on climate — and if so, on what type of action. First, there was the Climategate controversy (where some critics read hacked emails by climate scientists like tea leaves to glean the political intent of those researchers). Then there was the inability of world leaders to craft a new and binding treaty to control the release of climate-altering pollutants. Finally, there was that brouhaha — and embarrassing retraction by the IPCC — over the science organization’s acceptance of unvetted claims about the extent of glacier melting in the Himalayas. These events “left a lot of people confused over what to think about climate change,” notes Stephen Seidel, a vice president and climate-policy analyst at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The fact that the new NRC report now concludes that the imperative to act on climate is as strong as ever proves to be a powerful statement, he says, and one that legislators are likely to take seriously. Whether they’ll act on it: That’s another issue.

What resulted was a 2010 NRC report: Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Its conclusions — which served as a bulwark for the latest report’s recommendations — “do not build upon the IPCC report,” Albert Carnesale emphasizes. They are independent of it. By sifting through scientific studies and analyses, he says, “we could reaffirm that climate change is occurring, is likely caused by human activities and poses significant risks.” Adding to the new report’s strength, Carnesale argues, is the composition of the committee that wrote it.

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This "report", the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? 99.109.126.237 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I do not believe this article is neutral. It is written in an essay-like fashion and in places argumentative. I cite from the section that is supposed to sing the praises of the German tax: "Purchases of three- to five-litre cars increased, for example, an illustration of the way that ecotaxes provide incentives for investment in more environmentally-friendly technologies and, in the long run, create competitive advantages." First of all, that makes no sense at all--Germans are buying three- to five-liter cars when carbon is taxed? instead of one- to two-liter cars? Second, the cause and effect suggested here is argumentative and could only possibly be verified by reference to the source--a website called "Growth: The Celtic Cancer." Best way to improve this: delete ("merge") its contents and redirect to Carbon taxes. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Look at this sentence: "The EU is leading the way in carbon pricing and emissions reductions." It's a pretty obvious case. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs substantial improvements. Why Other (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is completely left wing biased. There is no mention that human induced climate change may not be real and that a carbon dioxide price is just a giant new tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.253.68 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "Consensus theory" What is that? Is that slightly worse than "theory"?? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.160.187 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything about carbon pricing as a means of combating pollution is likely to be labelled "left wing". The article does not say that carbon pricing will fix anthropogenic global warming. It only says:

carbon pricing may incentivize a reduction of carbon emissions and the discovery or implementation of low-emission technologies.

Probably the best way to expand the article, rather than rewriting it, would be to write a "Criticisms of Carbon Pricing" section, as is done in many other Wiki articles.Flanker235 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

$55-266/ton per US government

[1] says that [2] and [3] say the U.S. government's most recent pricing estimate is between $55 and $266 per ton. I lack expertise in this area so I hope someone else can do something with this. —Cupco 22:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted section re subsidies

I have removed the following text from this article because it is about subsidizing the exploration and production of fossil fuels, which is a different fish than a carbon price. The latter is defined (see Lead RS) as a price paid to public authorities on the atmospheric release of CO2. That's very different than taxpayer money flowing from public authorities to the fossil fuel companies to reward them for producing oil & coal etc. But the text might be useful to fossil fuel subsidy or related pages so I'm pasting it (minus the graphic) here for reference.

Governments world-wide subsidize fossil fuels by $557 billion per year. Scientists have advanced a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030, recommending transfer of energy subsidies from fossil fuel to renewable, and a price on carbon reflecting its cost for flood and related extreme weather expenses. They expect the cost to generate and transmit power in 2020 will be less than 4 cents per kilowatt hour (in 2007 dollars) for wind, about 4 cents for wave and hydroelectric, from 4 to 7 cents for geothermal, and 8 cents per kwh for solar, fossil, and nuclear power.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Lead definition

I don't understand this edit by Stoft (talk · contribs). The two versions appear to say the same thing, and contain link the same articles (though one version makes use of the redirect article "cap and trade" which still ends up at emissions trading just like the other version.

Stoft, first, thanks for being interested in improving this article. Question, do you think the different versions result in different meanings? If not, then in my opinion the old version (the one you altered) made for easier reading comprehension, so I'd suggest putting it back the way it was. But maybe you seem some difference in meaning that I don't see. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Dear NewsAndEventGuy, First sorry to be so dreadfully slow to reply. Just not up to speed on how this all works (but learning). OK, here's the answer, the original said "paid to some public authority" but that's wrong because in cap and trade the payment is often not to a public authority -- even when the permits are initially auctioned by a public authority (and they are often given away). Purchases of permits often occur in the private permit market, and the payment goes to some other company.

The second edit was just a matter of sloppy sentence construction. The sentence read "Such payments usually takes the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading ("cap-and-trade") system." OR shorter: "Such payments take the form of ... an emissions trading (cap-and-trade) system. Payments cannot take the form of a system. They take the form of a check or wire transfer. --Cheers, Steve

Activity?

I'm intending to re-write this page, as (1) it is out of date as noted in the top-of-page warning, and (2) it is mainly off point. The two main sections are on cap-and-trade which is covered much better in the cap-and-trade entry and on "U.S. Government Interventions" which should perhaps be located on the "Public Sector" page, which is where "government interventions" redirects to. In any case, this section is not mentioned elsewhere in the Carbon Price page, and barely touches on a carbon price.

In place of these, I intend to put a discussion of the economics of carbon pricing, the controversy over whether this is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions, and the controversy over how a carbon price should be implemented. I have published three papers in the area of carbon pricing. Sstoft (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Steven Stoft (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone else actively working on this page? -- Steven Stoft (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Reducing Unnecessary Controversy

I'm drastically shortening the following small paragraph because it's off point and simply causes controversy. It's not mainly about carbon pricing, it's mainly an argument that clmate change is real. That is handled elsewhere. The replacement will stick to what is relevant to this page. I'm new at this, so I'm not sure how to identify myself. Guessing: User:stoft Steven Stoft (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Steven Stoft

Release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes climate change, according to the scientific opinion of anthropogenic global warming. Greenhouse gas emissions result from burning fossil fuels. Since carbon pricing puts an approximate cost on damage such as might result from increasing extreme weather, it may provide incentives to reduce carbon emissions and discover or implement low-emission technologies, possibly avoiding dangerous climate change.[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoft (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the external links. Since you're new(ish) at editing, please give our talk page guidelines a study. Two quick comments; add new sections with the "new section" link or if there is some reason to do it manually scroll to the bottom so the threads run in chronological order (based on first post in the thread). Second, to sign a post use four tildes.... described further in the talk page guidelines. Thanks, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Steven Stoft (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Added the "Types of carbon-pricing policies" Section

This helps provide readers with a quick, practical overview. I will add an "econ of carbon pricing" section pretty soon. Steven Stoft (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I explained this somewhere, but ... I also moved the "U.S. government intervention" section to the "economic interventionism" page because that is where "government intervention" redirects to. Also is was not relevant material and it was not referred to elsewhere on the page. Steven Stoft (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

An "Economics of Carbon Pricing" Section

I am about to add a section on the economics of carbon pricing. Most of it applies to taxes and cap-and-trade alike. It is all standard material. Most of it can be found in Stavin's papers. I will cover efficiency, cost, profit, etc. Steven Stoft (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-Write of my section on carbon pricing policies

Now called "Policies and commitments" it adds some orientation and highlights the "commitments" aspect instead of the international aspect when classifying Kyoto's "emission reduction commitments" Also adds some detail on revenue usage and hybrid policies. Steven Stoft (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking material from the introduction and from the old carbon pricing polices, I have created a new first section called "Economic views on carbon pricing." Since this page is the in the Environmental Economics section and since "price and pricing" are the most fundamental of economic concepts, it seems appropriate to start with an overview of what the bulk of economics profession thinks (represented by 2500 economists who signed the Climate Statement) and what the top economists working in this area (not to mention the World Bank and IMF) are saying. Also this would seem to be of the most general interest. Steven Stoft (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A new introduction

The old introduction began with a definition of "Carbon price" which claimed it reflected payments to a public body. However, the EU ETS gave away almost all of it's permits at the start. I corrected that, but I notice that this page is billed as "Carbon pricing" in the Green economics sidebar, and that seems to be a more interesting and up-to-date approach to the subject. However "carbon price" is defined in the next sentence.

Overall, I am attempting to bring the policy discussion and economic foundation to the forefront, and put less stress on technicalities. Also, since there has been a complain since August 2011 (three years ago) that this is out of date, I have put some focus on the new thinking by top US economists, the World Bank and the IMF, but this is only reflected a little in the introduction. Steven Stoft (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Here is the introduction as it was just before this change (the new one is noticeably shorter): A carbon price is the amount that must be paid for the emission of 1 tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Such payments usually take the form of a carbon tax or the cost of purchasing emission allowances (permits to emit) in a cap-and-trade system.

Purpose: The purpose of carbon pricing is to force emitters to pay at least part of the cost of the negative externalities (pollution costs) caused by CO2 emissions. If the price equals the full cost of externalities, then according to Pigou and now standard economics, emissions will be reduced to an efficient level. This means that emitting one tonne less would reduce the dollar benefits from activities (such as driving) by just as much as CO2 pollution costs are reduced. (In theory this could even be negative.)

The source of these negative externalities for CO2 is assumed to be climate change, since CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. However, the cost of the externalities is not well known. Of course CO2 emissions come mainly from burning fossil fuels, from the chemistry of making cement and steel, and from deforestation.

Advantage: A key dispute (outside of economics) concerning carbon pricing is whether it is better than subsidizing alternative energy sources. The economic argument favors pricing because of its efficiency. When carbon emissions are taxed, all alternatives are helped equally and without favoritism. This would include, wind, solar, nuclear, home insulation, choosing to drive your higher mileage car, living closer to work and installing LEDs, to name a few. It is essentially impossible to subsidize all of these equally and in practice the subsidies are extremely unequal. For this reason subsidies are less efficient. Essentially, economics argues for a level playing field for all forms of CO2 emissions reduction. Other advantages are claimed for renewable subsidies, but efficiency is considered decisive by most economists, as was attested to in the "Economists’ Statement on Climate Change," signed by over 2500 economist including nine Nobel Laureates in 1997. This statement succinctly summarizes the economic case for carbon pricing:

"The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits."

In short, this statement argues that carbon pricing (either "carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits.") is a "market mechanism" (in contrast to renewable subsidies) and hence is the way that the "United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies."

References

Up to Date

I am taking of the "Update|inaccurate=yes|date=August 2011" at the top which says:

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2011)"

The article has now been very significantly updated include theoretical developments in late 2013 and 2014 and new World Bank and IMF positions up through July 2014. I have also eliminated some in inaccuracies and re-writing most of the material using high-quality citations.

There is still one out of date section at the bottom, which I will be cleaning up over the next week, but it is now a minor part of the article and the new parts do not depend on it. I will post a copy of it next and then gradually clean it up, which will likely mean eliminating most of it. In fact it seems to be just a short, out-of-date version of the main "cap and trade" page, so I think we should rely on that page instead. Steven Stoft (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Emissions trading: cap and trade

Total extreme weather cost and number of events costing more than $1 billion in the United States from 1980 to 2011.

Emissions trading has been discussed internationally—through the Kyoto Protocol—and in Australia, New Zealand, various European countries, Canada, and the United States; it has been implemented in some of these locations.

Under a cap-and-trade system, firm A can sell one of its "permits" at a higher price than the cost it would incur to reduce the emissions internally, it will sell one permit to B for, say, $5.00 – $1.00 less than the marginal cost ($6.00) for firm B to reduce its emissions internally. Project-based programs, also referred to as a credit or offset programs, earn credit for projects that reduce emissions more than is required by a pre-existing conventional regulation. These credits can then be traded to other facilities where they can be used for compliance with a conventional regulatory requirement. The decision to generate these credits usually is voluntary, but credits must be certified through an administrative process.

Credit programs can include a large variety of sectors and source types than other types of trading programs. Examples of these types of programs include offset requirements for new sources in areas that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards and open market trading programs. Rate-based, also called averaging programs, is when a regulatory authority sets a constant or declining emission rate performance standard such as tons of emissions per megawatt hour. Emission sources with average emission rates below the performance standard earn credits that they can sell to other emission sources and sources with emission rates above the standard must obtain credits to cover the excess. Rate-based programs can lower emissions, but emissions can grow if activity grows.

Cap-and-trade programs have provisions that allow a covered entity to borrow allowances from the future to meet current compliance. Allowances generally have a "vintage", or grandfather clause, that defines the time period in which the allowance was created. Banking provisions permit the use of prior year allowances for compliance in a later period. This allows a compliance entity to over-comply in early periods, in anticipation of higher carbon prices in subsequent years. At the end of the compliance period, emission sources must have enough allowances to cover their emissions during the period. Sources that do not have a sufficient number of allowances to cover emissions must purchase allowances from other sources that have excess allowances from reducing emissions.

United States

Examples of cap-and-trade programs in the United States include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast. The EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on March 10, 2005, to build on the success of these programs and achieve considerable additional emission reductions.

European Union

In the European Union, a goal to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 is in place, but may soon be increasing to 30 per cent from 1990 levels. On April 27, 2010, Germany sold 300,000 carbon permits for approximately 15.30 euros per metric tonne. The EU hopes to lead the way in green products and energy resources by increasing the carbon price and forcing more green jobs. However, critics say that companies are purposefully increasing emissions in order to get paid to eliminate them.

On January 1, 2005, The European Union introduced the EU emissions trading system on electricity plants (EU ETS). The EU ETS sets caps for the CO₂ emissions of some 11,500 plants across the EU-25. Installations have the flexibility to increase emissions above their caps provided that they acquire emission allowances to cover emissions above, while electric plants with emissions below caps are allowed to sell unused allowances.

Denmark

The Danish CO₂ Emissions Trading System report by Sigurd Lauge Pedersen gives a background to and describes the functioning of the Danish carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions trading system for the period 2000–2003 that was adopted by the Danish Parliament. According to this report, Denmark is another country that has committed itself to reducing the emission of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).Following the European Community's commitment to stabilize its GHG emissions at 1990 levels in the year 2000, Denmark committed to the EU that it would reduce GHG emissions by 5 per cent within this same period. To accomplish this, Denmark has made considerable progress in the energy area with respect to reducing CO₂ emissions through energy savings, increased use of combined heat and power (CHP) and renewable energy, as well as fuel switching and increased efficiency of the power plants. Legislation on the Danish CO₂ quotas (the CO₂ Quota Act) was passed by the Folketing in June 1999 together with a totally new Electricity Supply Act. The CO₂ Quota Act lays down a total CO₂ quota for electricity production of 23 million tonnes in 2000. This is reduced by 1 million tonnes per year, to reach a quota of 20 million tonnes in 2003. A number of energy planning exercises have ascertained that the CO₂ reductions laid down in the Act are in fact possible at moderate cost (0–30 US$/tonne).

The legal entities to receive emission allowances are the power companies. The allowances are issued per company, not per unit or per plant. The system covers all electricity producers operating in Denmark, except producers relying entirely on renewable energy. The cut-off threshold of 100,000 tonnes of CO₂ from electricity production per year still means that more than 90per cent of the total CO₂ quota for electricity production will be issued as emission allowances. On the other hand, only around eight of about 500 electricity producers will be covered by the CO₂ emission allowances regime. The emission allowances under the CO₂ Quota Act are tradable. The trading is done by the electricity producers without government interference. Whenever an emission allowance is traded, the Danish Energy Agency must be notified as to the volume of CO₂, the year(s) affected by trading and the price of allowances. Thus, the traded commodity is simply a right to emit X tonnes of CO₂ in a given year. Unused emission allowances can be banked and used in the following years. Thus the producers are not only provided with an emission allowance but also a saving limit, which is identical to the emission allowance. Banked CO₂ can also be traded. If an electricity producer exceeds the CO₂ emission allowance, taking into account traded CO₂ emission allowances and banked CO₂, they must pay a penalty to the state. The penalty is fixed at DKK 40 (about US$5) per tonne of CO₂ emitted in excess of the allowance.

The market for CO₂ trade has exploded in recent years and is worth an estimated 675 billion kroner globally. The money to be made within this industry creates a temptation to cheat. Since The Danish CO₂ Emissions Trading System report was issued, Denmark has been under investigation for CO₂ fraud. "Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO₂ quotas are traded in other EU countries... Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven't been removed from the register". This speculated corruption highlights the downside of a cap-and-trade system.

Steven Stoft (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Changes to "Emission trading - Cap and trade"

The material on project-based credits is taken from an EPA document that is not about carbon pricing but is instead about cap and trade system used for SOx and NOx. So it is rather off point although similar to the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (which was not discussed). I'm shortening this.

The Denmark discussion seemed to apply to a test phase in the development of the EU ETS, and not to be any longer relevant. The report cited was no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoft (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This section has now been pretty much cleaned up. Probably the remainder should be integrated with the material above. Steven Stoft (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Real price of 1 ton of co²

Can we mention that the long term cost of 1 ton of CO² is estimated to be 220 USD ? See https://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs-011215.html KVDP (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Schubert's comment on this article

Dr. Schubert has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Carbon pricing usually takes the form either of a carbon tax or a requirement to purchase permits to emit, generally known as cap-and-trade, but also called "allowances".

I would say: Carbon pricing usually takes the form of a carbon tax or a market of tradable emission permits, generally known as a cap-and-trade system.

The standard economic solution to problems of this type, first proposed by Arthur Pigou in 1920, is for the product - in this case, CO2 emissions - to be charged at a price equal to the monetary value of the damage caused by the emissions

I would add "at a price equal to the monetary value of the marginal damage caused..."

The economics of carbon pricing is much the same for taxes and cap-and-trade. Both prices are efficient[a]; they have the same social cost and the same effect on profits if permits are auctioned. However, some economists argue that caps prevent non-price policies, such as renewable energy subsidies, from reducing carbon emissions, while carbon taxes do not. Others argue that an enforced cap is the only way to guarantee that carbon emissions will actually be reduced; a carbon tax will not prevent those who can afford to do so from continuing to generate emissions.

This paragraph is too allusive, too short, and sometimes inaccurate. I would rewrite it completely.

I would change the outline of the article: section 1 (Economic views on carbon pricing) should arrive later (between ssections 2 and 3) , as it discusses concepts and proposals that have not yet be explained.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Schubert has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Antoine D'Autume & Katheline Schubert & Cees Withagen, 2011. "Should the carbon price be the same in all countries ?," Universite Paris1 Pantheon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00654239, HAL.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Carbon price. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20121025183559/http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/tradingtypes.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/tradingtypes.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iasplus.com/dttpubs/1002capandtrade.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622142352/http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Stavins'_Article_on_US_Cap-and-Trade_for_Oxford_Review.pdf to http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Stavins'_Article_on_US_Cap-and-Trade_for_Oxford_Review.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020133036/http://scholar.harvard.edu:80/weitzman/publications/can-harmonized-national-carbon-taxes-internalize-global-warming-externality to http://scholar.harvard.edu/weitzman/publications/can-harmonized-national-carbon-taxes-internalize-global-warming-externality
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113034807/http://www.epa.gov:80/captrade/faqs.html to http://www.epa.gov/captrade/faqs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702014732/http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf to http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140629235647/http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter3.pdf to http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812183852/http://www.cdmrulebook.org/359 to http://www.cdmrulebook.org/359

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No critics

I searched the article for critics, criticism, nothing. Is this really a balanced article? Nobody critices carbon pricing or its pricing mechanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.168.48 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carbon price. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Stavins%27_Article_on_US_Cap-and-Trade_for_Oxford_Review.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://scholar.harvard.edu/weitzman/publications/can-harmonized-national-carbon-taxes-internalize-global-warming-externality
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epa.gov/captrade/faqs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812183852/http://www.cdmrulebook.org/359 to http://www.cdmrulebook.org/359

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The section on "costing the poor" is riddled with misinformation and does not reflect the consensus view of economists

I suggest we remove the section until it can be written in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmieleigh (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think this section ("Problems") isn't accurately reflected by its single citation either. Here's what the abstract of the paper says:

"Because electricity is a higher fraction of spending for those with low income, carbon taxes are believed to be regressive. Many argue, however, that their revenues can be used to offset the regressivity. We assess these claims by employing data on 322,000 families in the U.S. Treasury’s Distribution Model to study vertical redistributions between rich and poor, as well as horizontal redistributions among families with common incomes but heterogeneous energy intensity of consumption (different home heating and cooling demands). Accounting for the statutory indexing of transfers, and measuring impacts on annual consumption as a proxy for permanent income, we find that the carbon tax burden is progressive, rising across deciles as a fraction of consumption. The rebate of revenue via transfers makes it even more progressive. In every decile, the standard deviation of the change in consumption as a fraction of consumption varies around 1% or 2% and is larger than the average burden (about 0.7%). When existing transfer programs are used to rebate revenue, the tax and rebate together increase that variation to more than 3% within each decile. The average family in the poorest decile gets a net tax cut of about 1% of consumption, but 44% of them get a net tax increase. Relative to no rebate, every type of rebate we consider increases this variation within most deciles."

This doesn't really reflect the section as currently written. Anotheranothername (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon research it seems that "It hurts the poor" is a common talking point against carbon taxing/pricing in general. Will try to do this myself in a week or two if no one else can help... ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I already deleted the section before reading this. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

New source

Hi folks,

Here is a new source from a quality publication. MonsieurD (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurphy109.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Marginal abatement cost vs carbon price

The article states that the IPCC suggest a carbon price of x in 2030 and y in 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°. The reference for that statement is the 2018 IPCC special report on a global warming of 1.5° above pre-industrial levels. However, that report mentions only that the marginal abatement cost would be x and y in 2030 and 2050 respectively. Is it correct to link marginal abatement cost to carbon price level ? 2A01:E0A:A99:5240:E949:33E:911B:4F4C (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Implicit carbon prices

An editor has created a draft about implicit carbon prices. As an Articles for Creation reviewer, I would be grateful for any comments on its merits. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)