The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
To Beat the Climate Crisis, Carbon Taxes Should Start High 'to Give Us Breathing Room'
Most models have called for starting with a small price per ton of carbon and increasing it over time. But a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Tuesday argued the opposite: A carbon tax should start at more than $100 per ton, increase and then start to fall.
The reason is that previous models have not fully taken into account the uncertainty surrounding the climate crisis: We can't know how bad things will really get if we don't act.
"It's been broadly accepted that carbon prices should start low and increase over time," Gernot Wagner, study co-author and New York University (NYU) professor, said in an NYU press release. "Our paper argues that high uncertainty turns this view on its head: high prices today, which are expected to decrease in the long run as uncertainty clears up and technological change makes mitigation much cheaper."
Out in @PNASnews today: "Declining CO₂ price paths"— Gernot Wagner (@GernotWagner) October 1, 2019
It introduces EZ Climate, a climate-economy model financial economists would recognize. It's joint with two stellar ones: Columbia's Kent Daniel & ex top Goldman Sachs risk manager @BLitterman.https://t.co/lrJQeGcYPY pic.twitter.com/7mwHrdQ5Py
The new model is called the "EZ Climate" model, and Wagner developed it along with Kent Daniel of Columbia Business School and Robert Litterman of Kepos Capital.
"Our model shows that properly taking climate uncertainty into account leads to the conclusion that we need to take stronger action today to give us breathing room in the event that the planet turns out to be more fragile than current models predict," Daniel reiterated in the press release.
That wasn't the only key financial revelation contained in the study, as MIT Technology Review explained:
Another notable finding from the model is that the cost of putting off a carbon price rises at a staggering rate the longer we delay. If we wait a year to implement an effective carbon tax, the estimated cost of additional climate-change impacts will reach approximately $1 trillion. If we wait five years, that swells to $24 trillion. A 10-year delay could cost the world $100 trillion.
"To me the most surprising result of the research was how quickly the cost of delay increases over time," Litterman, who used to be the lead risk manager at Goldman Sachs, said in the press release. "When we modeled optimal carbon pricing policy with various start dates in the future, we quickly realized that the impact of the mitigating effects are closely tied to when you actually start ascribing a price to carbon emissions."
Or course, there are political difficulties with implementing a carbon tax. A Washington state initiative that would have passed one failed at the polls last November after the oil industry pumped a record $30 million into the No campaign.
There is currently no carbon tax in place anywhere in the U.S., and the ones implemented in other countries have been too low to make a difference, Grist explained.
"For me, the crux of the paper is that it points to the value of acting now — this emerges clearly and it is still perhaps not as forcefully appreciated as it should be," Cameron Hepburn, the director of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment who was not involved in the study, told Earther. "The challenge with the paper is the inadequate reference to real-world politics, which is a bit surprising given the authors."
In a Twitter feed, Wagner acknowledged this point.
"Of course, saying we need a high price doesn't make it so ..." he wrote.
"Nerdy but important" indeed. @BLKahn on why we may have been thinking about a CO₂ price all wrong all along https://t.co/f4u4vK4dHG— Gernot Wagner (@GernotWagner) October 1, 2019
Thanks for your thoughts in that article, @camjhep! Of course, saying we need a high price doesn't make it so...
However, Grist pointed to another study that suggests how the idea could win more support with voters: Frame it as a "fine on corporations" instead of the dreaded t-word. When an Emerson College poll asked about voters' support first for a carbon tax and then for "a fine on corporations that pollute the air with carbon dioxide," that support jumped from 35 to 52 percent.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Raphael Tsavkko Garcia
Rarely has something so precious fallen into such unsafe hands. Since Jair Bolsonaro took the Brazilian presidency in 2019, the Amazon, which makes up 10 percent of our planet's biodiversity and absorbs an estimated 5 percent of global carbon emissions, has been hit with a record number of fires and unprecedented deforestation.
Microsoft announced ambitious new plans to become carbon negative by 2030 and then go one step further and remove by 2050 all the carbon it has emitted since the company was founded in 1975, according to a company press release.
Winter is upon us and so is the risk of vitamin D deficiency and infections. Vitamin D, which is made in our skin following sunlight exposure and also found in oily fish (mackerel, tuna and sardines), mushrooms and fortified dairy and nondairy substitutes, is essential for good health. Humans need vitamin D to keep healthy and to fight infections. The irony is that in winter, when people need vitamin D the most, most of us are not getting enough. So how much should we take? Should we take supplements? How do we get more? And, who needs it most?
An expanse of uncommonly warm seawater in the Pacific Ocean created by a marine heatwave led to a mass die-off of one million seabirds, scientists have found.