4 Replies
3 Posts
I believe that this is a topic that is not discussed enough. These are the emissions that a business or individual can survive without, if necessary. An example of this are the travel emissions accrued from a vacation trip or the emissions from purchased non-essential goods. I am not stating that all non-essential emissions must be banned. However, these emissions are typically not regulated nor restricted by any laws. If we were to curtail these emissions, the transition to 100% clean energy use will be much easier and quicker.
105 Posts
@Seth Jordan Welcome to CCL! And thanks for raising a thoughtful question. I think what you are getting at would be addressed by a carbon fee and dividend. This one of our foundational policy ideas. Including the “social cost” of fossil fuels in the price of a good or service would give each of pause before deciding on vacation travels (for example). Of course our real hope is that a gradual increase in the carbon fee would inspire businesses to innovate such that (eventually) a dream vacation doesn't have to break the carbon bank. Does this make sense?
3 Posts
I understand the concept and goals of a carbon fee. Essentially, they are aiming at encouraging corporations to invest in more sustainable energy sources. In turn, this responsibility of the cost of carbon would be passed along to the individuals. There are a couple of downsides to this policy idea. First, this would allow major polluters to greenwash their companies and distort their success on a renewable energy transition. Second, very wealthy consumers can bypass this carbon fee because they can afford to do so. Not only would these wealthy consumers ignore the price increases, but impoverished consumers would not be able to keep up with the change if no alternative is provided.
My argument is to focus the attention on the habits and practices of the ultra-wealthy. This could certainly include a carbon fee on some things. However, I think focusing the scope of what needs to be addressed could tackle these high emission sectors. One example, that is not a carbon fee, could include legislation that puts a limit on kWh usage per day for an individual. Another example could include an exponential tax depending on how many homes you own. These examples are off the top of my head, but I hope the message I'm providing is clear. From my perspective, we need as much change as possible, real fast. We cannot rely on "encouraging" companies to do the right thing. Time and time again, we are let down.
My argument is to focus the attention on the habits and practices of the ultra-wealthy. This could certainly include a carbon fee on some things. However, I think focusing the scope of what needs to be addressed could tackle these high emission sectors. One example, that is not a carbon fee, could include legislation that puts a limit on kWh usage per day for an individual. Another example could include an exponential tax depending on how many homes you own. These examples are off the top of my head, but I hope the message I'm providing is clear. From my perspective, we need as much change as possible, real fast. We cannot rely on "encouraging" companies to do the right thing. Time and time again, we are let down.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency