Tag Archives: california
Australian Carbon Tax To Go – What Lessons Can Be Learned?
By Phil Covington | July 23rd, 2013 There are three things governments can do in order to address carbon emissions. Firstly, they can do nothing, which is the position the U.S. Federal government has taken, since the U.S. Congress has no appetite for pricing carbon. Secondly, governments can create a carbon marketplace, such as the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and California’s cap and trade program; providing an opportunity for businesses to make money from carbon allowances and for market forces to set the price. Or thirdly, they can impose a carbon tax; the choice the Australian government opted for, and which has been causing quite a bit of disquiet within the business community over there in recent months. Soon business leaders won’t have to worry. Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, a former PM who returned to power in June by virtue of a leadership change within the incumbent Labor Party, has announced the government will end what has become the unpopular carbon tax and instead, bring forward an emissions trading scheme a year earlier than planned. There are of course many pros and cons in the debate as to whether a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is the better way to control CO2 – and while the point of this piece is not to go into these, there is perhaps a lesson here for any countries out there trying to decide between them. Here is a very simplified perspective that may be drawn from Australia’s experience. Australia’s carbon tax at 23.09 (AUD) per tonne, was introduced to curb emissions from a country that is one of the world’s worst per-capita greenhouse gas emitters . The tax makes the biggest polluters pay, but that cost is passed on to small businesses and consumers by way of higher energy prices. This is why it has become so unpopular. By comparison, businesses and consumers in Europe, while also having to pay more to accommodate the price of carbon under their cap and trade system are, however, less burdened than Australians. Given that Europe’s price on carbon floats subject to market forces, in April the price per tonne of carbon effectively collapsed down to just 2.75 Euros – the equivalent, at the time of writing – of less than 4.00 Australian dollars per tonne. While this was generally considered to be way too low, EU countries were not prepared to prop up the price , largely because under their ongoing economic doldrums, there wasn’t much will to raise costs. Europe’s free falling carbon price even prompted The Economist to wonder if it might even spell the end of the ETS altogether. Under such circumstances, however, with Europe’s carbon price so low, Australia’s flat tax very easily became a competitive disadvantage for its businesses operating within the global economy. The disparity in price between Australia and Europe – with Australia paying almost six times as much per tonne of carbon as Europeans – makes it easy to see why even if a sensible carbon tax rate were originally set, it can start to look unfair when carbon markets elsewhere in the world set the price much lower. Furthermore, despite being designed as a disincentive for carbon emissions, carbon taxes still don’t impose a carbon cap, so their ability to mitigate carbon is still not certain. Australia’s Rudd suggests that moving to an emissions trading scheme – which will be linked to the European carbon market – will save households 349 Australian dollars a year. So despite a carbon tax being a simple way to price carbon, and despite Europe’s ETS being far from perfect, the lesson from Australia is that their carbon tax has proved to be unpalatable, uncompetitive and ultimately abandoned. Image by Quinn Dombrowski Continue reading
California Again Leads The Way, This Time With Forest Carbon Offsets
FORBES ENTREPRENEURS | 7/22/2013 Editor’s Note: David Rothschild (left) serves as a Principal of the Portfolio Team at the Skoll Foundation and manages a variety of key relationships with funded social entrepreneurs, domain experts, policy makers, corporate partners and co-funders. Karin Burns (right) serves as Executive Director of Code REDD and advocates for corporate leaders to address climate change by catalyzing the market for REDD verified emissions reductions through both voluntary and compliance carbon markets. Often misunderstood, REDD+ forest carbon offsets are a “must have” for any realistic climate-change mitigation strategy Californians are known as innovation leaders, and once again, we are on the verge of demonstrating critical leadership. Only this time it isn’t about the Internet, social networking, reality television, venture capital or electric cars. It is about stopping tropical deforestation and supporting local communities. ‘ What!? ’ you say? How is the great state of California, home of bankrupt and massive, thirsty desert cities and Silicon Valley, a place that elected such juggernauts of history as Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, about to lead in avoiding tropical deforestation? Thanks to the people of California, and Arnold, in 2006 we passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32). As a result, this January the state launched its own cap-and-trade carbon market , demonstrating global leadership on climate change as well as opening doors to further innovation in green technologies and job creation. California now has an opportunity to again be an early adopter, offering polluting companies the chance to offset a small percentage of their carbon emissions by supporting reductions in tropical deforestation through a mechanism called jurisdictional REDD+ – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Since deforestation accounts for some 15% of global carbon emissions, reducing deforestation plays an essential role in addressing climate change. Trees perform vital functions for our climate such as absorbing and storing carbon. But they are currently not valued for these services – and it is this shortcoming that REDD+ forest carbon offsets aim to address. Entities regulated under AB32 would be able to contribute to this solution by reducing a small portion of their emissions by purchasing forest carbon offsets as part of their strategies to reduce their carbon emissions. Companies and other institutions can contribute to this effort by signing Code REDD’s Letter of Support for inclusion of REDD+ in CA’s climate policy . Carbon offsets are often misunderstood. Some claim they amount to “permits to pollute,” but this is not accurate. Offsets are necessary to achieving emission reduction goals as we transition to a low-carbon economy since they are one of the only ways to address unavoidable emissions. They are part of, and do not replace, companies’ emissions reductions efforts. To be clear, we aren’t talking a huge amount. If approved, California polluters would be allowed to offset just 2% to 4% of their compliance obligations with REDD+ offsets (only 8% can be offset in total). This means that 92% of a regulated entity’s carbon emissions must still be addressed at source. Yet this 2% to 4% would play a hugely important role—demonstrating to the world that REDD+ is a viable climate solution, and empowering local communities, protecting wildlife and slowing deforestation. And since the planet does not differentiate between CO 2 molecules – no matter where they originate – reducing carbon emission from tropical deforestation is still reducing carbon emissions – even here in California. Furthermore, California’s leadership in REDD+ is already catalyzing innovation, growth in California’s green jobs, technology development, and public-private partnerships – right here in California. It is not enough anymore for businesses to simply change light bulbs and make their buildings more energy efficient. We need corporate leaders to understand that sustainability and addressing climate change means taking that extra step needed to meet our 2020 emissions goals. It is time for more companies to recognize and adopt offset policies as an integral part of carbon emission reduction plans. REDD+ allows responsible companies to go beyond the reductions achievable in their direct operations and offset their unavoidable emissions by reducing deforestation. In addition to jurisdictional REDD offsets under AB32, through the voluntary market companies and philanthropists today can directly support high-quality, high impact REDD+ project s. REDD+ projects “done right” are transforming the economic incentives that lead to deforestation, protecting endangered wildlife and improving the lives of local communities. These projects demonstrate that REDD+ can bring greater value to forests while supporting the rights of forest peoples. To help stop climate change, we must greatly reduce tropical deforestation. And there has been significant progress . But to succeed, we need to find ways to bring greater value to living forests. REDD+ forest carbon offsets are one step in the right direction. Let’s voice our support and help the great state of California make an important and vital contribution. Continue reading
Montana Property for Sale – Custom Home + 40 Acres
40 ACRES – 1998 Custom Redwood board & bat home built with California Redwood. 3036 Sq. Ft has 4 Bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths, Tile/wood/Stain Concrete flooring, be… Continue reading
