Back رسم الكربون وحصة أرباحه Arabic CO2-Preis mit Klimaprämie German Надоместок за јаглерод и дивиденда Macedonian Karbonavgift til fordeling NB Carbon Fee and Dividend Slovak

Carbon fee and dividend

See also: Carbon tax and Cap and Dividend

Concept of a carbon fee and dividend
A coal power plant in Germany. Fee and dividend will make fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas – less competitive as a fuel than other options.

A carbon fee and dividend or climate income is a system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. The system imposes a carbon tax on the sale of fossil fuels, and then distributes the revenue of this tax over the entire population (equally, on a per-person basis) as a monthly income or regular payment.

Since the adoption of the system in Canada and Switzerland, it has gained increased interest worldwide as a cross-sector and socially just approach to reducing emissions and tackling climate change.[1][2][3][4]

Designed to maintain or improve economic vitality while speeding the transition to a sustainable energy economy, carbon fee and dividend has been proposed as an alternative to emission reduction mechanisms such as complex regulatory approaches, cap and trade or a straightforward carbon tax. While there is general agreement among scientists[5][6] and economists[7][8][9][10][11] on the need for a carbon tax, economists are generally neutral on specific uses for the revenue, though there tends to be more support than opposition for returning the revenue as a dividend to taxpayers.[8]

  1. ^ Nuccitelli, Dana (26 October 2018). "Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  2. ^ "Switzerland leads the world on taxing carbon, despite gaping holes". Le News. 28 October 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  3. ^ "Carbon dividend from polluters to households could win over the public". Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  4. ^ "Proposed carbon tax plan would return proceeds to people once goals are met". Big Think. 18 January 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  5. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). The Power of Change: Innovation for Development and Deployment of Increasingly Clean Electric Power Technologies. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21712. ISBN 978-0-309-37142-1. Retrieved 28 November 2018.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Rosenberg, Stacy; Vedlitz, Arnold; Cowman, Deborah; Zahran, Sammy (August 2010). "Climate Change: A Profile of U.S. Climate Scientists' Perspectives". Climatic Change. 101 (3–4): 311–329. Bibcode:2010ClCh..101..311R. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9709-9. S2CID 153811272.
  7. ^ Fuller, Dan; Geide-Stevenson, Doris (14 April 2014). "Consensus Among Economists —An Update". The Journal of Economic Education. 45 (2): 131–146. doi:10.1080/00220485.2014.889963. S2CID 143794347.
  8. ^ a b Haab, Timothy; Whitehead, John (30 August 2013). "What do Environmental and Resource Economists Think? Results from a Survey of AERE Members". Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 11: 43–58. doi:10.1093/reep/rew019.
  9. ^ "Do economists all favour a carbon tax?". The Economist. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
  10. ^ Nuccitelli, Dana (4 January 2016). "95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  11. ^ "How to pay the price for carbon". Nature Climate Change. 8 (8): 647. 30 July 2018. Bibcode:2018NatCC...8..647.. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0256-0.

Developed by StudentB