$100 carbon tax by 2030 could save climate, say economists

May 29, 2017

Economists say countries should ramp up the price of carbon emissions to as much as $100 per metric ton by 2030 to stop catastrophic global warming.

Experts including Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern say should be taxed at $40-$80 per ton by 2020.

They say prices should rise to $50-$100 by 2030 to give businesses and governments an incentive to lower emissions even when are cheap.

In a report published Monday, they suggest poor countries could aim for a lower tax since their economies are more vulnerable.

The Trump administration has rejected calls to introduce a carbon tax in the United States, saying it would cost jobs.

European Union carbon prices stand at just under $6 per ton.

Explore further: Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

Related Stories

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

UN: Huge emissions cuts needed to meet Paris climate goals

November 3, 2016

The world is nowhere near on track to achieve the ambitious temperature goals adopted in the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change, the U.N. said Thursday in a sobering report that warned of a human tragedy unless governments ...

Now 'right moment' for carbon tax: IMF chief

October 8, 2015

The time is right for governments to introduce taxes on carbon emissions, which would help fight global warming and raise badly needed revenue, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

7 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2017
It would unfortunately increase the price of renewable energy, as all the technology is produced with fossil fuels, and all the infrastructure to use it is based on fossil fuels, so the incentive would fail to materialize. Seriously. Carbon tax is simply whipping yourself for not doing what is currently un-doable because the alternatives are either too expensive, or politically unviable. It will only change things for the worse.

If the cost of carbon is increased, then whoops, the cost of e.g. solar panels goes up because the chemical energy to refine silicon comes from, guess what? And that's not the only step of the process that runs on fossil fuels because they're cheaper than using the renewable energy back on the same process.

Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
A carbon tax makes sense only when the renewables industry is able to eat their own dog food, as a matter of expression. Not before.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
In 20 years we will have fusion and fossil fuel will be obsolete. That is if we can get the money to fund MIT's SPARK and ARC. and we are not talking billions either.
Edenlegaia
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2017
In 20 years we will have fusion and fossil fuel will be obsolete. That is if we can get the money to fund MIT's SPARK and ARC. and we are not talking billions either.


And in 20 years, we may be only 20 years apart from the next 20 years mark.....ect ect....
Stop being a prophet. You suck at being a prophet.
Professor Plum
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2017
Pardon the bee in my bonnet, but the sheer volume of dollar signs in this relatively short article is having an opposite effect on me; feels like I just got accosted by a used car salesman with bonus time shares in the global climate cottage industry.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2017
Well of course it's got to be economists who are spewing this BS, not scientists.

RCB
May 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.