Carbon tax best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions: IMF

The IMF said that carbon pricing is "the single most effective mitigation instrument" in cutting greenhouse gas emissi
The IMF said that carbon pricing is "the single most effective mitigation instrument" in cutting greenhouse gas emissions

At $70 per ton of carbon dioxide, a carbon tax would be the most efficient means of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, according to an International Monetary Fund report published Friday.

But for the moment, carbon taxes remain unpopular, particularly in France, where plans to increase it to 55 euros (or $61.60) from 44.60 euros recently ignited the Yellow Vest protest movement.

The French government was forced to suspend the plan in the face of popular revolt.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015 by more than 200 countries, aims to cap overall increases in at two degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial era.

"The 2C target would require cutting emissions by roughly a third by 2030 and a global carbon price of around $70 per ton," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and Vitor Gaspar, the fund's head of fiscal affairs, said in a joint blog post.

"There is a growing consensus that carbon pricing... is the single most effective mitigation instrument," they said.

It allows for a reduction in , favors cleaner energies and mobilizes private financing, according to the IMF.

"It also provides much needed revenues," they said, adding that countries could use that income to finance sustainable and more inclusive growth.

In the report, the IMF said that in China, the world's largest emitter, and in India or South Africa, countries which rely heavily on coal, a of just $35 per ton would cut emissions by 30 percent.

But in nine countries that use little coal, such as Ivory Coast, Costa Rica or France, the result would be a reduction of only 10 percent.


Explore further

Now 'right moment' for carbon tax: IMF chief

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Carbon tax best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions: IMF (2019, May 4) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-carbon-tax-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
43 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 04, 2019
Why should we trust such irresponsible people to our future. 40,000 people in Venezulea murdered by their economic sanctions at the behest of the Koch brothers and capitalist oil interest..ruined the Greek economy...and put the entire world at peril with the precipitious rise of CO2 levels that haven't existed on earth when our ancestors were rodents and we don't even know if such could support 8 billion large mammals. Its is beyond ridiculous to leave the fate of our world up to these bloody grifters. The IMF should be dismantled, their members fortunes expropriated, and their 'leaders' imprisoned. The billionaire class will just play games with loopholes and pass the cost onto the consumer. No carbon tax...a carbon ban. Humans are creative and with a ban there will be a much stronger incentive to green the economy. Without that, once the apocalyse starts to happen, it will be complete mayhem, and there will be no hope for any kind of organized effort.


May 05, 2019
Always a new tax, this one designated to the International Monetary Fund as the piggy bank to fund the extravagant lifestyles of international political hierarchies living at Lake Como.

You don't know who populates this exclusively extravagant resort in Europe? Look it up. No one populating the gaggle of politicians at this place cares a tinker's damn about the environment, only about what the next upgrade on their boats will be so they can brag about it to another politician. Very few yachts there are owned by private business entrepreneurs, this because in socialist Europe there are none, politicians own everything of value.

May 05, 2019
The most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions is direct government intervention. Tell owners to convert coal plants to natural gas or be expropriated. Tell auto manufacturers to meet ambitious fleet fuel economy targets. If it means the end of giant SUVs and oversized pickup trucks, too bad. Require all flat roofs (warehouses, factories, shopping centres) to be painted white (a little-known but surprisingly effective step - reflects heat to space and reduces A/C energy costs).
If there's going to be a tax, put it on coal, and use it to finish off that industry by encouraging solar/wind/thorium.
Difficult to do, because the left hates it - no taxes to redistribute, and the right hates it - Waaah! Big Gub'ment! Waaah!

May 05, 2019
Difficult to do, because the left hates it - no taxes to redistribute, and the right hates it - Waaah! Big Gub'ment! Waaah!


More like, everyone hates it because such measures would instantly put so many people out of work that it would start a riot and throw over the government. You need a dictatorship to pull off such moves.

May 05, 2019
Eikka - How does building small cars instead of large put people out of work? Can a roof be painted by just thinking about it? Does drilling and piping natural gas employ fewer people than strip mining coal with giant machines? Can a wind turbine or a gas power plant be built, installed, and maintained labor-free?

May 05, 2019
Surprise, surprise. Economists have been prescribing a carbon tax for decades. Unfortunately too many people would rather a global extinction event.

May 05, 2019
Pay now or pay later. Later will be much more expensive.

May 06, 2019
That's good. However, C alone is not responsible for the disaster. Read all non-climate factors destroying the earth in this UN report just released:

https://www.ipbes...ment.pdf

May 08, 2019
Eikka - How does building small cars instead of large put people out of work?


You can't reduce the energy (fuel) consumption of cars arbitrarily low without also making them useless. The quest for ultimate fuel efficiency has side effects: one only has to look at Europe where exceedingly high fuel taxes favor Diesel cars which use less fuel and produce less CO2 - but emit NOx and the filters that would eliminate the pollution are too expensive to implement.

With reduced transportation performance due to overzealous eco-fascism, you get systemic unemployment because your labor mobility suffers - more and more people can no longer work because they can't get from A to B at will.

Direct government intervention can apply ambitious fuel economy targets and make them happen, sure, but they can't dictate physics or make the market operate according to hopes and dreams. Trying to whip that horse to go faster just results in injuries to the horse and slower progress.

May 08, 2019
For another point, forcing the fleet fuel economy up by unilateral government decree would require the government to take on powers that it hasn't got. You would have to set up a command economy, or nationalize the industry. That in turn would result in a situation of an all-powerful state, which would inevitably if not promptly corrupt itself by self-serving tyrants.

For a third point, when you set out to change the system rapidly, people find they have to replace their vehicles. It takes 20 years to replace the fleet through natural replacement, so even if you forced all the manufacturers to only sell small cars today, it would still take 20 years for effect, and people would keep re-furbishing their old vehicles because they don't actually want the small cars. Smaller shops would pop up offering re-built engines and custom spare parts to keep a "shadow fleet" up Cuban style. That's why Europe went with the fuel taxes to force people to have smaller cars.


May 08, 2019
And, with 60-80% of the price of fuel in places like France dictated by the government, the working classes are already in revolt because they find they cannot work when they cannot transport goods and people around on the cheap. They've created a polarized situation where city-dwelling folk who don't produce anything but paperwork and "services" are living on the resources brought in by the people living outside of the cities, who are then taxed excessively by the city-dwelling elites.

The bourgeoisie are pretending to be green by not driving cars, but their wealth and ability to walk to a corner store to buy "fair trade" goods is dependent on the trade, goods and people, brought into their cities - by cars and planes and boats that all consume fuel.

That's why the diesel vehicle bans in Germany tend not to apply to delivery trucks.

May 08, 2019
Also, the European fuel economy/emission standards are double standards that apply differently to trucks and cars. Cars count their CO2/NOx/HC emissions by the kilometer, whereas trucks and other heavy vehicles by the kilowatt-hour - that means the truck can use as much fuel as you want - it only has to be efficient in terms of thermal efficiency. You can have a truck that gets 2 MPG by dragging a ship anchor along the road, as long as its engine is thermally efficient.

Meanwhile, personal vehicles are punished by forcing such low fuel economy targets that they are physically impossible to attain without cheating.

May 11, 2019
Yep, surface transport needs a game-changer . . . methanol, aluminum/air fuel cells, maybe just a lithium battery that lasts the life of the car (and has a bit more range). Any of which can be helped along by government pressure.
In any case, the considerably bigger, and growing part of the problem is coal power. Solar and wind can make some inroads, but baseline power should be converted to gas asap, as a bridge to thorium and fusion.

May 11, 2019
Screw all this crap about cars. The big problem is coal. Once we've done something about the coal we can work on the cars.

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