Fee & Dividend

 Click logo to return to 'links-page'

 

We can debate the start level of the tax ($10, $100 . . . ) till the ravens leave the tower, but the issue is going to zero carbon globally over the next twenty years.

If we are serious about avoiding climate catastrophe & using Fee-&-Dividend (a 'progressive' rather than a 'marginal' carbon-tax model) to drive this, (without precluding the potential usefulness of other inter-ventions as well), then indexing the shape of the carbon/F-&-D curves to no more that the safely available total of carbon emissions, literally counts global carbon out by weight to zero by the given date.

In visual tems, when IPCC talks-the-talk of a carbon-budget for 1.5° C with a zero carbon path-integral globally within 18 years, carbon-taxing alla Fee-&-Dividend has a 'green man' that walks-the-walk as shown in the slides. Without this all we have is just another headless chicken which doesn't even know why it is trying to cross the road, let alone whether it intends to (or even knows how to) or not . . . .

What these curves clearly demonstrate is that over twenty years, we get better odds (66%) for achieving 1.5° C for less $(F-&-D) ($65 trillion), than if we opt for doing this over 32 years where we get worse odds (33%) for achieving 1.5° C for more $(F-&-D) ($190 trillion) and where the sky probably falls in.

So is this going to be the headless chicken that gets run over through yet more 'Emissions Creep', or the chicken that gives momentum to timely road-crossing rather than yet more road-kill?

As carbon is constantly being added to the total seen as 'safe' by researchers, things are not looking good. The latest example is from Comyn Platt et al, compared with what is being said by the IPCC. Here are some slides detailing this 'emission-creep'