Legislative adaptations

How to Set a Price on Carbon Pollution

<embed>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-set-a-price-on-carbon-pollution/</embed>

Still, enacting a carbon tax will be a big political lift. If a window does open for it, climate scientists, economists and politicians need to be ready to pounce. They will need to get it right the first time. And they will need to explain why a specific tax rate is justified.
Economists typically calculate climate damages with integrated assessment models (IAMs)—large computer models that capture feedbacks between the economy and the climate. They use a series of equations that characterize the global economy, the worldwide circulation of CO2 emissions arising from economic activity, and damages resulting from atmospheric and upper-ocean temperature increases. IAMs are so important that in 2018 the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus, for his pioneering work on them.

China and Japan see the future, and it’s not coal: why Australia will be stranded

<embed>https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/china-and-japan-see-the-future-and-it-s-not-coal-why-australia-will-be-stranded-20190816-p52hr3.html</embed>

The point to realise is that the global transition to renewables means our investments in coal are likely to become “stranded” and eventually these will need to be written down.
But such transitioning takes time, leadership and policy.
Germany’s transition to a low-carbon economy with its “Energiewende” has taken 30 years. It will decommission all its coal plants by 2038. Beijing has stated its intention to clean up its polluted cities, so it will increasingly turn to cleantech for its power supply to improve air quality.
Countries such as China ad Japan – our significant coal customers – see the future, and it’s not coal.

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash 'could pay for green transition'

<embed>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-cash-pay-green-energy-transition</embed>

Coal, oil and gas get more than $370bn (£305bn) a year in support, compared with $100bn for renewables, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) report found. Just 10-30% of the fossil fuel subsidies would pay for a global transition to clean energy, the IISD said.

Reforming Subsidies Could Pay for a Clean Energy Revolution: Report

Global Subsidies Initiative 6/19/2019

Reforming the USD 372 billion countries spend each year on fossil fuel subsidies and reallocating between 10 and 30 per cent of the savings to renewable projects would pay for a transition to clean energy. This is the finding of a new study by the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
The report authors highlight that the “subsidy swap” concept could not only make the clean energy revolution possible but also save taxpayers’ money for other priorities. “Often fossil fuel subsidies are inefficient, costly to governments and undermine clean alternatives,” said Richard Bridle, IISD Senior Policy Advisor. “All countries should be looking to identify where swaps can kickstart their clean energy transitions.”

Illinois Passes Tougher Rules on Toxic Coal Ash Over Risks to Health and Rivers

<embed>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052019/illinois-coal-ash-power-plant-law-health-hazard-groundwater-contamination-pritzker</embed>

The state has more coal ash ponds leaching unsafe levels of contaminants into groundwater than any other state in the nation, a recent analysis of federally mandated water testing showed. That pollution can pose health risks for humans: Coal ash can contain chemicals and heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury and lead, that have been linked to cancer, heart disease, reproductive issues and brain damage in children.

Carbon Tax Plans: How They Compare and Why Oil Giants Support One of Them

<embed>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07032019/carbon-tax-proposals-compare-baker-shultz-exxon-conocophillips-ccl-congress</embed>

But four years later, amid the political upheaval wrought by President Donald Trump, several carbon tax proposals are getting a serious look on Capitol Hill. Ironically, the president's rejection of climate science and his fossil fuel-focused agenda may have helped usher in an era when carbon taxation is politically thinkable.

South Africa's Carbon Tax Set To Go Into Effect Next Week

<embed>https://www.npr.org/2019/05/26/727154492/south-africas-carbon-tax-set-to-go-into-effect-next-week</embed>

A carbon tax in South Africa will go into effect on June 1. President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the measure into law on Sunday, making South Africa one of about 40 countries worldwide to adopt a carbon-pricing program.

What Is Carbon Pricing?

<embed>http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon</embed>

There are several paths governments can take to price carbon, all leading to the same result. They begin to capture what are known as the external costs of carbon emissions – costs that the public pays for in other ways, such as damage to crops and health care costs from heat waves and droughts or to property from flooding and sea level rise – and tie them to their sources through a price on carbon.

Jay Inslee's Plan for 2020

<embed>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/jay-insles-climate-plan-keeping-it-100/588652/</embed>

You could call it the 100-100-100 plan. Inslee would require that, by 2030, 100 percent of new cars sold in the United States must be fully electric, 100 percent of U.S. electricity must come from carbon-neutral sources, and 100 percent of newly constructed buildings must emit no greenhouse gases from their kitchens, chimneys, or heating systems.