Yep, a carbon tax.

Creating an international price for carbon emissions could reduce global greenhouse gases by 12% at a cost of less than 1% of global GDP, according to a new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) and PwC.

The report found that if global governments agreed together to set a price for pollution to help cut carbon emissions the cost would be less than the economic losses triggered by the fallout of a runaway climate crisis.

The scientists on this issue – the economists- have only been saying this for 30 years now…..

12 thoughts on “Yep, a carbon tax.”

  1. Carbon Dioxide isn’t “pollution” FFS!

    It’s plant food and a (trivially-effective) “greenhouse gas”.

    “Pollution” is all the shit that we’re dumping into the sea (or in our case in the UK, having it dumped by proxy), plus all the other filth that we leave lying about because we’re so bound-up with ludicrous regulations that it’s almost impossible to dispose of it properly, safely and legally.

    I despair.

  2. “The report found that if global governments agreed together to set a price for pollution”

    If you believe that I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing.
    They won’t set a price for pollution. They’ll set a price to maximise tax revenue. We’re talking governments here, remember? So the “cost of less than 1% of global GDP,” is wishful thinking bollocks.
    Economists! Grow up.

  3. Bloke in North Korea (Germany Province)

    “So not a snowball’s chance in a globally warmed hell, then.”

    Global governments seem to be very much in agreement of the need for global government.

    No doubt the WEF will volunteer to run the planet, oops sorry, digital carbon passport rationing system, oops, wrong again, carbon tax, in the manner Klaus, oops, sorry, the electorate wants.

  4. Doesn’t this depend on the same logic as the idea that having a meter that gives you real time info on your energy use will save you money. It would only work if you were prepared to take cold showers and drink cold tea.

  5. I notice the statement carefully avoids to mention what the local effects would be.
    Mayhaps the cost/effect ratio would be a tad different if you aren’t including the economies of StoneAgistan in the equation?

  6. “Global governments seem to be very much in agreement of the need for global government.”

    I was watching a YouTube video primer for some SciFi series. It stated a common future trope: “The United Nations has become a world government”. Hmmm…. how did they get Russia and China to do what they were told and not wage incessant wars of independence? Oh wait a bit! Russia and China *ARE* the world government.

    That’s the bit world-government-ophiles never realise. They always assume it will be *them* running the world. It reality, if it is a global government it will be the biggest chunks of the world that will be running it. England runs the UK, Germany runs the EU, the US runs NATO. And they never seem to have noticed the millennia of people fighting to escape enlarging polities. France escaping England, Portugal escaping Spain, Spain escaping France, Netherlands escaping Spain, most of Africa escaping France, most of the world escaping Britain….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *