IMF: We Need a $75 per Ton Carbon Tax within 10 Years

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The world needs a massive carbon tax in just 10 years to limit climate change, IMF says

The international organization suggests a cost of $75 per ton by 2030.

By
Chris Mooney and Andrew Freedman
Oct. 10, 2019 at 11:07 a.m. EDT

A global agreement to make fossil fuel burning more expensive is urgent and the most efficient way of fighting climate change, an International Monetary Fund study found on Thursday.

The group found that a global tax of $75 per ton by the year 2030 could limit the planet’s warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), or roughly double what it is now. That would greatly increase the price of fossil-fuel-based energy — especially from the burning of coal — but the economic disruption could be offset by routing the money raised straight back to citizens.

“If you compare the average level of the carbon tax today, which is $2 [a ton], to where we need to be, it’s a quantum leap,” said Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the fiscal affairs department at the IMF.

The IMF report comes out as financial institutions increasingly grapple with the risks associated with climate change, including damage from sea-level rise, extreme weather events and billions in fossil fuel reserves that might be in excess of what can be burned while also limiting warming. The Federal Reserve, for example, is taking a closer look at how climate change may pose a risk to economic stability.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...tax-just-years-limit-climate-change-imf-says/

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Twenty years too late.

 

[Run&Blade]

Mission Impossible sure needs a lot of funding. Tom Cruise is obviously embezzling.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Twenty years too late.

Yeah. Even if we do that, that only keeps the increase to 2 degrees C. Assuming you believe the IMF, and assuming you believe the reports they used to base their assessment on.

To be fair, 2 degrees C is MUCH better than things are looking now. So we really MUST do this. But we need to do MORE than this.

Meanwhile, instead of doing this, the criminal Trump administration is making things worse, from cancelling environmental protections, to opening up more areas to drilling and fracking and mining, to pulling out of the Paris agreement, and more.

 

[HawkMD]

My biggest gripe about Obama is that I wish he had done something like this instead of or in addition to Obamacare. He had control of both houses of Congress. This would have been far more important of an accomplishment and much more important for the survival of this planet.

 

[coloradonoles]

Assuming this is passed tomorrow... who is in charge of collecting the money? Who is in charge of it being spent wisely and efficiently??

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Assuming this is passed tomorrow... who is in charge of collecting the money? Who is in charge of it being spent wisely and efficiently??

What's your point?

 

[HawkMD]

Assuming this is passed tomorrow... who is in charge of collecting the money? Who is in charge of it being spent wisely and efficiently??

So because there are details to work out, we should just forget it?

 

[Mattski]

The group found that a global tax of $75 per ton by the year 2030 could limit the planet’s warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), or roughly double what it is now

There's absolutely no way they know this with any level of certainty.

 

[sober_teacher]

There's absolutely no way they know this with any level of certainty.

Maybe not with 100% certainty, but I'm fairly sure they're not just pulling that number out of a hat.

 

[Rifler]

The phrase is ass,... as in yes, they are basically pulling that number out of their ass....

 

[83Hawk]

The world needs a massive carbon tax in just 10 years to limit climate change, IMF says

The international organization suggests a cost of $75 per ton by 2030.

By
Chris Mooney and Andrew Freedman
Oct. 10, 2019 at 11:07 a.m. EDT

A global agreement to make fossil fuel burning more expensive is urgent and the most efficient way of fighting climate change, an International Monetary Fund study found on Thursday.

The group found that a global tax of $75 per ton by the year 2030 could limit the planet’s warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), or roughly double what it is now. That would greatly increase the price of fossil-fuel-based energy — especially from the burning of coal — but the economic disruption could be offset by routing the money raised straight back to citizens.

“If you compare the average level of the carbon tax today, which is $2 [a ton], to where we need to be, it’s a quantum leap,” said Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the fiscal affairs department at the IMF.

The IMF report comes out as financial institutions increasingly grapple with the risks associated with climate change, including damage from sea-level rise, extreme weather events and billions in fossil fuel reserves that might be in excess of what can be burned while also limiting warming. The Federal Reserve, for example, is taking a closer look at how climate change may pose a risk to economic stability.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...tax-just-years-limit-climate-change-imf-says/

Yeah, I’m sure the money raised will be routed straight back to citizens. Sure it will.

 

[coloradonoles]

So because there are details to work out, we should just forget it?

Yes.

 

[whatsup13579er]

Is this like the South Park episode where they cure AIDS with large amounts of cash?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

There's absolutely no way they know this with any level of certainty.

Of course they could know it with SOME level of certainty.

But what's your point?

How much certainty do you need to take steps that are highly likely to help solve a serious problem?

If a child runs in front of you in traffic, do you debate how sure you are that hitting the brakes will help or do you hit the brakes?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The phrase is ass,... as in yes, they are basically pulling that number out of their ass....

While it's uncertain exactly how much a $75/ton carbon tax would help, there is absolutely no doubt that it would help.

Who you gonna trust? Most scientists and the IMF or Hannity?

 

[Mattski]

Of course they could know it with SOME level of certainty.

But what's your point?

How much certainty do you need to take steps that are highly likely to help solve a serious problem?

If a child runs in front of you in traffic, do you debate how sure you are that hitting the brakes will help or do you hit the brakes?

No because hitting the brakes doesn't cost me anything and I'm fairly certain what the results will be when I do.
This is a fundamental economic takeover by government entities that have a track record of pissing away money. Not to mention the science on being able to "stop warming " is beyond sketchy.
It just is so telling that taxes are the proposed fix.

 

[BioHawk]

Yeah. Even if we do that, that only keeps the increase to 2 degrees C. Assuming you believe the IMF, and assuming you believe the reports they used to base their assessment on.

To be fair, 2 degrees C is MUCH better than things are looking now. So we really MUST do this. But we need to do MORE than this.

Meanwhile, instead of doing this, the criminal Trump administration is making things worse, from cancelling environmental protections, to opening up more areas to drilling and fracking and mining, to pulling out of the Paris agreement, and more.

2 degrees is come and gone. Short of developing an artificial way to remove carbon from the atmosphere that's several times more efficient than a tree we are going to fly past 2 degrees C. Right now we are trying to keep it below 4 degrees C, which, we won't do either if we don't change anything. After that it gets really nasty.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

There's absolutely no way they know this with any level of certainty.

You're absolutely correct. Thinking this will limit it to 2° C is a very best case scenario bordering on dreaming that would depend on lots of other things occurring just right. That we will hit 2° C by 2050 is as close to certain as it gets. I'd put the smart money on 3° C by mid-century, however.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No because hitting the brakes doesn't cost me anything and I'm fairly certain what the results will be when I do.
This is a fundamental economic takeover by government entities that have a track record of pissing away money. Not to mention the science on being able to "stop warming " is beyond sketchy.
It just is so telling that taxes are the proposed fix.

Crazy talk.

Sad to see you so far off base on such a critical issue.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

2 degrees is come and gone. Short of developing an artificial way to remove carbon from the atmosphere that's several times more efficient than a tree we are going to fly past 2 degrees C. Right now we are trying to keep it below 4 degrees C, which, we won't do either if we don't change anything. After that it gets really nasty.

You are preaching to the choir.

I was the one saying these "alarmist-then-but-obvious-now" things a few years ago. Nice to see a few people have caught up.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You're absolutely correct. Thinking this will limit it to 2° C is a very best case scenario bordering on dreaming that would depend on lots of other things occurring just right. That we will hit 2° C by 2050 is as close to certain as it gets. I'd put the smart money on 3° C by mid-century, however.

Don't reinforce Matt's comment. He's denying, not saying things are worse.

But of course they are worse. See my original response to you. The carbon tax is needed. It alone isn't sufficient.

 

[Mattski]

You're absolutely correct. Thinking this will limit it to 2° C is a very best case scenario bordering on dreaming that would depend on lots of other things occurring just right. That we will hit 2° C by 2050 is as close to certain as it gets. I'd put the smart money on 3° C by mid-century, however.

So let's spend money figuring out how to deal with it, not putting in place tax grabs that won't make an impact anyway. Wrecking our economies will be worse than a warming planet in most places.

 

[Mattski]

2 degrees is come and gone. Short of developing an artificial way to remove carbon from the atmosphere that's several times more efficient than a tree we are going to fly past 2 degrees C. Right now we are trying to keep it below 4 degrees C, which, we won't do either if we don't change anything. After that it gets really nasty.

2 degrees is come and gone? Really? It hasnt happened yet, but were already beyond something that hasnt happened yet? You guys are way too engrossed in the doom and gloom of this stuff.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Don't reinforce Matt's comment. He's denying, not saying things are worse.

But of course they are worse. See my original response to you. The carbon tax is needed. It alone isn't sufficient.

LOL...that wasn't reinforcement...that was mocking him. What we can't say with any certainty is that we can limit it to 2° C. It's as near to certain as it's possible to be that we will hit 2° C. Me, myself, I doubt we hold it to 3° C...I doubt we hold it to 4° C absent some breakthrough carbon removal technology.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So let's spend money figuring out how to deal with it, not putting in place tax grabs that won't make an impact anyway. Wrecking our economies will be worse than a warming planet in most places.

Deal with what? The tax WILL have an impact...there's no doubt about that. The problem is - thanks to idiots spouting your line - it'll not be imposed until it's far too late. So your solution is to adapt....to what? You want to adapt to a 2° C rise? If we don't do anything we'll blow right past that. 3° C? Again...if we don't cut carbon drastically, we blow through THAT. You keep putting off the day of reckoning and we hit 4° C and at that point there is no adapting. Feedbacks are now fully kicking in and that signals catastrophe on a scale we can't even imagine. At that much cooler we were in an ice age. What the hell do you think the world looks like at 4+° C WARMER? And recognize this will be happening far faster than most species can adapt whether we can manage it or not. At that temperature a mass extinction is unavoidable.

 

[Run&Blade]

Deal with what? The tax WILL have an impact...there's no doubt about that. The problem is - thanks to idiots spouting your line - it'll not be imposed until it's far too late. So your solution is to adapt....to what? You want to adapt to a 2° C rise? If we don't do anything we'll blow right past that. 3° C? Again...if we don't cut carbon drastically, we blow through THAT. You keep putting off the day of reckoning and we hit 4° C and at that point there is no adapting. Feedbacks are now fully kicking in and that signals catastrophe on a scale we can't even imagine. At that much cooler we were in an ice age. What the hell do you think the world looks like at 4+° C WARMER? And recognize this will be happening far faster than most species can adapt whether we can manage it or not. At that temperature a mass extinction is unavoidable.

Sounds like making unnecessary things illegal would be a better strategy.

although the neatest science experiment I ever saw was in junior high when the teacher gave every student a quarter and poured boiling water in the cup. He then asked each student to give him the money back. When he collected all the quarters he took the temperature of the water in the cup and amazingly it was cooler.

I was floored.

 

[BringIt2017]

Assuming this is passed tomorrow... who is in charge of collecting the money? Who is in charge of it being spent wisely and efficiently??

I would think the most efficient thing to do would just have OPEC be responsible for collections and remittances

 

[Mattski]

Deal with what? The tax WILL have an impact...there's no doubt about that. The problem is - thanks to idiots spouting your line - it'll not be imposed until it's far too late. So your solution is to adapt....to what? You want to adapt to a 2° C rise? If we don't do anything we'll blow right past that. 3° C? Again...if we don't cut carbon drastically, we blow through THAT. You keep putting off the day of reckoning and we hit 4° C and at that point there is no adapting. Feedbacks are now fully kicking in and that signals catastrophe on a scale we can't even imagine. At that much cooler we were in an ice age. What the hell do you think the world looks like at 4+° C WARMER? And recognize this will be happening far faster than most species can adapt whether we can manage it or not. At that temperature a mass extinction is unavoidable.

Yeah thanks to idiots spouting my line... at least you have your boogy men picked out, never mind the corrupt a holes actually participating in these shell games.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yeah thanks to idiots spouting my line... at least you have your boogy men picked out, never mind the corrupt a holes actually participating in these shell games.

It's really quite simple. Our actions are driving temps higher. If your answer is to adapt to it, you've already lost. You can't adapt to a target that doesn't stop moving. Those who have fought all action to cut emissions by claiming "boogy men" trying to steal money ARE idiots who are driving us toward catastrophic climate change. And that's not speculation.

To your credit, I think greed has won the day.

 

[Hawkeye_311]

Why does every global warming er climate change solution require an immediate transfer of money from the people to a globalist government?

 

[Hawkeye_311]

It's really quite simple. Our actions are driving temps higher. If your answer is to adapt to it, you've already lost. You can't adapt to a target that doesn't stop moving. Those who have fought all action to cut emissions by claiming "boogy men" trying to steal money ARE idiots who are driving us toward catastrophic climate change. And that's not speculation.

To your credit, I think greed has won the day.

So I guess you have emptied your bank accounts to help fight this?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So I guess you have emptied your bank accounts to help fight this?

Why yes...yes I have. And you've done the same in opposition. Idiot.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what passes for "intelligence" in the denier community.

 

[Hawkeye_311]

Twenty years too late.

So why are we still talking about this then?

 

[Hawkeye_311]

Why yes...yes I have. And you've done the same in opposition. Idiot.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what passes for "intelligence" in the denier community.

But yet you still have the internet and a means to post. I don't think you have given all you can filthy polluter.

 

[Hawkeye_311]

The world needs a massive carbon tax in just 10 years to limit climate change, IMF says

The international organization suggests a cost of $75 per ton by 2030.

By
Chris Mooney and Andrew Freedman
Oct. 10, 2019 at 11:07 a.m. EDT

A global agreement to make fossil fuel burning more expensive is urgent and the most efficient way of fighting climate change, an International Monetary Fund study found on Thursday.

The group found that a global tax of $75 per ton by the year 2030 could limit the planet’s warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), or roughly double what it is now. That would greatly increase the price of fossil-fuel-based energy — especially from the burning of coal — but the economic disruption could be offset by routing the money raised straight back to citizens.

“If you compare the average level of the carbon tax today, which is $2 [a ton], to where we need to be, it’s a quantum leap,” said Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the fiscal affairs department at the IMF.

The IMF report comes out as financial institutions increasingly grapple with the risks associated with climate change, including damage from sea-level rise, extreme weather events and billions in fossil fuel reserves that might be in excess of what can be burned while also limiting warming. The Federal Reserve, for example, is taking a closer look at how climate change may pose a risk to economic stability.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...tax-just-years-limit-climate-change-imf-says/

Let me guess everyone but China has to pay?

 

[Mattski]

It's really quite simple. Our actions are driving temps higher. If your answer is to adapt to it, you've already lost. You can't adapt to a target that doesn't stop moving. Those who have fought all action to cut emissions by claiming "boogy men" trying to steal money ARE idiots who are driving us toward catastrophic climate change. And that's not speculation.

To your credit, I think greed has won the day.

Then the governments in charge of cutting emissions should actually put in laws to do so.
The tax everything causing warming is the shell game. See the green new deal.

 

[SotaHawk87]

It's really quite simple. Our actions are driving temps higher. If your answer is to adapt to it, you've already lost. You can't adapt to a target that doesn't stop moving. Those who have fought all action to cut emissions by claiming "boogy men" trying to steal money ARE idiots who are driving us toward catastrophic climate change. And that's not speculation.

To your credit, I think greed has won the day.

K but as mentioned by many many many climate change scientists if you pull the carbon out of the air necessary to stop a 2 degree warmth that’ll just kick off 10 other events that will destroy the planet. I’ve listened to all the talks speeches etc etc it’s climate change scientists who get to end of their 45 minutes talks and say I’m sorry we don’t have a solution that will comprehensively fix this..

 

[thewop]

The answer isn't a tax, it's a loyalty rewards program. People can voluntarily pay into the "save the world" program, and they get "points" for every dollar contributed. The reward? Seats on the getaway vehicle convoy when it all fails and the earth eats itself.

Diamond members board first, get the nicest accommodation on the ship, and get first right of refusal on the most prime land on Mars (or wherever the destination is)!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Then the governments in charge of cutting emissions should actually put in laws to do so.
The tax everything causing warming is the shell game. See the green new deal.

WTF...a carbon tax WOULD be a law that would force the cutting of emissions. Maybe you don't understand how this works.