Carbon tax

A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon emissions from producing goods and services. Carbon taxes are intended to make visible the hidden social costs of carbon emissions. They are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by essentially increasing the price of fossil fuels. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivizes making them less carbon-intensive.^[1] When a fossil fuel such as coal, petroleum, or natural gas is burned, most or all of its carbon is converted to CO₂. Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. This negative externality can be reduced by taxing carbon content at any point in the product cycle.^[2][3][4][5]

A carbon tax would add a fee for the carbon dioxide emitted from this coal-fired power plant in Luchegorsk, Russia.

In its simplest form, a carbon tax covers only CO₂ emissions. It could also cover other greenhouse gases, such as methane or nitrous oxide, by taxing such emissions based on their CO₂-equivalent global warming potential.^[6]

Research shows that carbon taxes do often reduce emissions.^[7] Many economists argue that carbon taxes are the most efficient (lowest cost) way to tackle climate change.^[8][9] As of 2019^[update], carbon taxes have either been implemented or are scheduled for implementation in 25 countries.^[10] 46 countries have put some form of price on carbon, either through carbon taxes or carbon emission trading schemes.^[11]

Some experts point out that a carbon tax can negatively affect public welfare, tending to hit low- and middle-income households the hardest and making their necessities more expensive (for instance, the tax might drive up prices for, say, petrol and electricity^[12]). Alternatively, the tax can be too conservative, making "comparatively small dents in overall emissions".^[13] To make carbon taxes fairer, policymakers can try to redistribute the revenue generated from carbon taxes to low-income groups by various fiscal means.^[14][15] Such a policy initiative becomes a carbon fee and dividend, rather than a plain tax.^[16]

A carbon tax as well as carbon emission trading is used within the carbon price concept. Two common economic alternatives to carbon taxes are tradable permits with carbon credits and subsidies.

Purpose

Further information: Climate change and Climate change mitigation

Carbon dioxide is one of several heat-trapping greenhouse gases (others include methane and water vapor) emitted as a result of human activities. The scientific consensus is that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of climate change,^[17] and that carbon dioxide is the most important of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases.^[18] Worldwide, 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced by human activity annually.^[19] The physical effect of CO₂ in the atmosphere can be measured as a change in the Earth-atmosphere system's energy balance – the radiative forcing of CO₂.^[20] Different greenhouse gases have different physical properties: the global warming potential is an internationally accepted scale of equivalence for other greenhouse gases in units of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Carbon taxes are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing prices of the fossil fuels that emit them when burned. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivizes making them less carbon-intensive.^[1]

Economic theory

See also: Economic analysis of climate change

History and Rationale

A carbon tax is a form of pollution tax.^[21] David Gordon Wilson first proposed this type of tax in 1973.^[22] Unlike classic command and control regulations, which explicitly limit or prohibit emissions by each individual polluter,^[23] a carbon tax aims to allow market forces to determine the most efficient way to reduce pollution.^[24] A carbon tax is an indirect tax—a tax on a transaction—as opposed to a direct tax, which taxes income. Carbon taxes are price instruments since they set a price rather than an emission limit.^[25] In addition to creating incentives for energy conservation, a carbon tax puts renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal on a more competitive footing.

In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality, a negative effect on a third party not directly involved in a transaction, and is a type of market failure. To confront the issue, economist Arthur Pigou proposed taxing the goods (in this case hydrocarbon fuels), that were the source of the externality (CO
₂) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the goods to society, thereby internalizing the production costs. A tax on a negative externality is called a Pigovian tax, which should equal the cost.^[26]

Within Pigou's framework, the changes involved are marginal, and the size of the externality is assumed to be small enough not to distort the economy.^[27] Climate change is claimed to result in catastrophe (non-marginal) changes.^[28][29] "Non-marginal" means that the impact could significantly reduce the growth rate in income and welfare. The amount of resources that should be devoted to climate change mitigation is controversial.^[28] Policies designed to reduce carbon emissions could have a non-marginal impact, but are asserted to not be catastrophic.^[30]

Design

The design of a carbon tax involves two primary factors: the level of the tax, and the use of the revenue.^[31] The former is based on the social cost of carbon (SCC), which attempts to calculate the numeric cost of the externalities of carbon pollution. The precise number is the subject of debate in environmental and policy circles. A higher SCC corresponds with a higher evaluation of the costs of carbon pollution on society. Stanford University scientists have estimated the social cost of carbon to be upwards of $200 per ton.^[32] More conservative estimates pin the cost at around $50.^[33][34]

The use of the revenue is another subject of debate in carbon tax proposals.^[31] A government may use revenue to increase its discretionary spending, or address deficits. However, such proposals often run the risk of being regressive, and sparking backlash among the public due to an increased cost of energy associated with such taxes.^[35] To avoid this and increase the popularity of a carbon tax, a government may make the carbon tax revenue-neutral.^[36][37] This can be done by reducing income tax proportionate to the level of the carbon tax, or by returning carbon tax revenues to citizens as a dividend.^[38]

Carbon leakage

Carbon leakage happens when the regulation of emissions in one country/sector pushes those emissions to other places that with less regulation.^[39] Leakage effects can be both negative (i.e., increasing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions) and positive (reducing the effectiveness of reducing overall emissions).^[40] Negative leakages, which are desirable, can be referred to as "spill-over".^[41]

According to one study, short-term leakage effects need to be judged against long-term effects.^[42]: 28 A policy that, for example, establishes carbon taxes only in developed countries might leak emissions to developing countries. However, a desirable negative leakage could occur due to reduced demand for coal, oil, and gas in developed countries, lowering prices. This could allow developing countries to substitute oil or gas for coal, lowering emissions. In the long-run, however, if less polluting technologies are delayed, this substitution might have no long-term benefit.

Carbon leakage is central to climate policy, given the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework and the review of the European Union's third carbon leakage list.^[43]

Border adjustments, tariffs and bans

Policies have been suggested to address concerns over competitive losses experienced by countries that introduce a carbon tax versus countries that do not.^{[44][45][46]: 5} Border tax adjustments, tariffs and trade bans have been proposed to encourage countries to introduce carbon taxes.

Border tax adjustments compensate for emissions attributable to imports from nations without a carbon price. An alternative would be trade bans or tariffs applied to such countries. Such approaches could be inadmissible at the World Trade Organization. Case law there has not provided specific rulings on climate-related taxes.^[47] The administrative aspects of border tax adjustments have been discussed.^[48]

Impacts

Positive impacts

Research shows that carbon taxes effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.^[7][49][50] Most economists assert that carbon taxes are the most efficient and effective way to curb climate change, with the least adverse economic effects.^{[51][52][53][9][54][55]}

One study found that Sweden's carbon tax successfully reduced carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 11%.^[49] A 2015 British Columbia study found that the taxes reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 5–15% while having negligible overall economic effects.^[50] A 2017 British Columbia study found that industries on the whole benefited from the tax and "small but statistically significant 0.74 percent annual increases in employment" but that carbon-intensive and trade-sensitive industries were adversely affected.^[56] A 2020 study of carbon taxes in wealthy democracies showed that carbon taxes had not limited economic growth.^[57]

Carbon taxes appear to not adversely affect employment or GDP growth in Europe.^[58] Their economic impact ranges from zero to modest positive.^[58]

Negative impacts and trade-offs

A number of studies have found that in the absence of an increase in social benefits and tax credits, a carbon tax would hit poor households harder than rich households.^{[59][60][61][62]} Gilbert E. Metcalf disputed that carbon taxes would be regressive in the US.^[63]

Carbon taxes can increase electricity prices.^[12]

There is a debate about the relation between carbon pricing (like carbon emission trading and carbon tax) and climate justice. Carbon pricing can be adjusted to some principles of climate justice like polluters pay.^[64] Many proponents of climate justice object to carbon pricing. To close the gap between the two concepts, carbon pricing could put a cap on emissions, remove pollution from underserved communities, and justly divide revenues.^[65]

Support and opposition

Since carbon taxation was first proposed, numerous economists have described its strengths as a means of reducing CO2 pollution. This tax has been praised as "a far better way to control pollution than the present method of specific regulation."^[66] It has also been lauded for its market based simplicity. This includes a description as "the most efficient way to guide the decisions of producers and consumers", since "carbon emissions have an 'unpriced' societal cost in terms of their deleterious effects on the earth's climate."^[67]

However, carbon taxes have been opposed by a substantial proportion of the public. They have also been rejected in several elections, and in some cases reversed as opposition increased. One response has been to specifically allocate carbon tax revenues back to the public in order to garner support.^[68] Citizens' Climate Lobby is an international organization with over 500 chapters.^[69] It advocates for carbon tax legislation in the form of a progressive fee and dividend structure. NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has also spoken in favor of a revenue neutral carbon fee.^[70]

Since 2019 over 3,500 U.S. economists have signed The Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends.^[71] This statement describes the benefits of a U.S. carbon tax along with suggestions for how it could be developed. One recommendation is to return revenues generated by a tax to the general public. The statement was originally signed by 45 Nobel Prize winning economists, former chairs of the Federal Reserve, former chairs of the CEA, and former secretaries of the Treasury Department.^[72][73] It has been recognized as a historic example of consensus amongst economists.^[74]

Ben Ho, professor of economics at Vassar College, has argued that "while carbon taxes are part of the optimal portfolio of policies to fight climate change, they are not the most important part."^[75]

Public perception

In some instances knowledge about how carbon tax revenues are used can affect public support. Dedicating revenues to climate projects and compensating low income housing have been found to be popular uses of revenue.^[76] However, providing information about specific revenue uses in countries that have implemented carbon taxes has been shown to have limited effectiveness in increasing public support.^[68]

A 2021 poll conducted by GlobeScan on 31 countries and territories found that 62 percent on average are supportive of a carbon tax, while only 33 percent are opposed to a carbon tax. In 28 of the 31 countries and territories listed in the poll, a majority of their populations are supportive of a carbon tax.^[77]

Alternatives

Carbon emission trading

Main article: Carbon emission trading

Carbon emission trading (also called cap and trade) is another approach. Emission levels are limited and emission permits traded among emitters. The permits can be issued via government auctions or by offered without charge based on existing emissions (grandfathering). Auctions raise revenues that can be used to reduce other taxes or to fund government programs.^[78] Variations include setting price-floor and/or price-ceiling for permits.^[25] A carbon tax can be combined with trading.^[42]

A cap with grandfathered permits can have an efficiency advantage since it applies to all industries. Cap and trade provides an equal incentive for all producers at the margin to reduce their emissions. This is an advantage over a tax that exempts or has reduced rates for certain sectors.^[78]

Both carbon taxes and trading systems aim to reduce emissions by creating a price for emitting CO₂.^[79] In the absence of uncertainty both systems will result in the efficient market quantity and price of CO₂.^[79][80] When the environmental damage and therefore the appropriate tax of each unit of CO₂ cannot be accurately calculated, a permit system may be more advantageous.^[80] In the case of uncertainty regarding the costs of CO₂ abatement for firms, a tax is preferable.^[80][79][81]

Permit systems regulate total emissions. In practice the limit has often been set so high that permit prices are not significant.^[79] In the first phase of the European Union Emissions Trading System,^[82][79][81] firms reduced their emissions to their allotted quantity without the purchase of any additional permits.^[79] This drove permit prices to nearly zero two years later, crashing the system and requiring reforms that would eventually appear in EUETS Phase 3.^[79][83]

The distinction between carbon taxes and permit systems can get blurred when hybrid systems are allowed. A hybrid sets limits on price movements, potentially softening the cap. When the price gets too high, the issuing authority issues additional permits at that price. A price floor may be breached when emissions are so low that no one needs to buy a permit.^[84] Economist Gilbert Metcalf has proposed such a system, the Emissions Assurance Mechanism,^[85] and the idea, in principle, has been adopted by the Climate Leadership Council.^[86]

James E. Hansen argued in 2009 that emissions trading would only make money for banks and hedge funds and allow business-as-usual for the chief carbon-emitting industries.^[87][88]

Carbon offsets and credits

This section is an excerpt from Carbon offsets and credits.[edit]

Renewable energy projects, such as these wind turbines near Aalborg, Denmark, constitute one common type of carbon offset project.^[89]

Carbon offsetting is a carbon trading mechanism that enables entities to compensate for offset greenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credit or offset credit, which account for the net climate benefits that one entity brings to another. After certification by a government or independent certification body, credits can be traded between entities. One carbon credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂e).

A variety of greenhouse gas reduction projects can qualify for offsets and credits depending on the scheme. Some include forestry projects that avoid logging and plant saplings,^[89][90] renewable energy projects such as wind farms, biomass energy, biogas digesters, hydroelectric dams, as well as energy efficiency projects. Further projects include carbon dioxide removal projects, carbon capture and storage projects, and the elimination of methane emissions in various settings such as landfills. Many projects that give credits for carbon sequestration have received criticism as greenwashing because they overstated their ability to sequester carbon, with some projects being shown to actually increase overall emissions.^{[91][92][93][94]}

Other types of taxes

Further information: Energy tax and Carbon fee and dividend

Two related taxes are emissions taxes and energy taxes. An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge, or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas,^[8] while an energy tax is applied to the fuels themselves.

In terms of climate change mitigation, a carbon tax is not a perfect substitute for an emissions tax.^[95] For example, a carbon tax encourages reduced fuel use, but it does not encourage emissions reduction such as carbon capture and storage.

Energy taxes increase the price of energy regardless of emissions.^[95]: 416 An ad valorem energy tax is levied according to the energy content of a fuel or the value of an energy product, which may or may not be consistent with the emitted greenhouse gas amounts and their respective global warming potentials. Studies indicate that to reduce emissions by a certain amount, ad valorem energy taxes would be more costly than carbon taxes.^[5] However, although greenhouse gas emissions are an externality, using energy services may result in other negative externalities, e.g., air pollution not covered by the carbon tax (such as ammonia or fine particles). A combined carbon-energy tax may therefore be better at reducing air pollution than a carbon tax alone.^{[citation needed]}

Any of these taxes can be combined with a rebate, where the money collected by the tax is returned to qualifying parties, taxing heavy emitters and subsidizing those that emit less carbon.

Because carbon taxes only target carbon dioxide, they do not target other greenhouse gasses, such as methane, which have a greater warming potential.^[15]

Petroleum (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) taxes

Many countries tax fuel directly; for example, the UK imposes a hydrocarbon oil duty directly on vehicle hydrocarbon oils, including petrol and diesel fuel.

While a direct tax sends a clear signal to the consumer, its efficiency at influencing consumers' fuel use has been challenged for reasons including:^[96]

• Possible delays of a decade or more as inefficient vehicles are replaced by newer models and the older models filter through the fleet.
• Political pressures that deter policymakers from increasing taxes.
• Limited relationship between consumer decisions on fuel economy and fuel prices. Other efforts, such as fuel efficiency standards, or changing income tax rules on taxable benefits, may be more effective.
• The historical use of fuel taxes as a source of general revenue, given fuel's low price elasticity, which allows higher rates without reducing fuel volumes. In these circumstances, the policy rational may be unclear.

Vehicle fuel taxes may reduce the "rebound effect" that occurs when vehicle efficiency improves. Consumers may make additional journeys or purchase heavier and more powerful vehicles, offsetting the efficiency gains.^[97]

Comparison of alternatives

A 2018 survey of leading economists found that 58% of the surveyed economists agreed with the assertion, "Carbon taxes are a better way to implement climate policy than cap-and-trade," 31% stated that they had no opinion or that it was uncertain, but none of the respondents disagreed.^[53]

In a review study in 1996 the authors concluded that the choice between an international quota (cap) system, or an international carbon tax, remained ambiguous.^[95]: 430 Another study in 2012 compared a carbon tax, emissions trading, and command-and-control regulation at the industry level, concluding that market-based mechanisms would perform better than emission standards in achieving emission targets without affecting industrial production.^[98]

Implementation

Emissions trading and carbon taxes around the world (as of 2021)^[99]

  Carbon tax implemented or scheduled

  Carbon emission trading implemented or scheduled

  Carbon emission trading or carbon tax under consideration

Both energy and carbon taxes have been implemented in response to commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.^[5] In most cases the tax is implemented in combination with exemptions.

Indirect carbon prices, such as fuel taxes, are much more common than carbon taxes. In 2021, OECD reported that 67 of the 71 countries it assessed had some form of fuel tax. Only 39 had carbon taxes or ETSs. However, the use of carbon taxes is growing more quickly. In addition, several countries plan to further strengthen existing carbon taxes in the coming years, including Singapore, Canada and South Africa.^[100]

Current carbon price policies, including carbon taxes, are still considered insufficient to create the kinds of changes in emissions that would be consistent with Paris Agreement goals. The International Monetary Fund, OECD, and others have stated that current fossil fuel prices generally fail to reflect environmental impacts.^[100]

Europe

Further information: Climate change in Europe

In Europe, many countries have imposed energy taxes or energy taxes based partly on carbon content.^[5] These include Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. None of these countries have been able to introduce a uniform carbon tax for fuels in all sectors.^[101] Denmark is the first country to include livestock emissions in their carbon tax system.^[102]

During the 1990s, a carbon/energy tax was proposed at the EU level but failed due to industrial lobbying.^[103] In 2010, the European Commission considered implementing a pan-European minimum tax on pollution permits purchased under the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in which the proposed new tax would be calculated in terms of carbon content.^[104] The suggested rate of €4 to €30 per tonne of CO₂.^[105]

Americas

Costa Rica

In 1997, Costa Rica imposed a 3.5 percent carbon tax on hydrocarbon fuels.^[106] A portion of the proceeds go to the "Payment for Environmental Services" (PSA) program which gives incentives to property owners to practice sustainable development and forest conservation.^[107] Approximately 11% of Costa Rica's national territory is protected by the plan.^[108] The program now pays out roughly $15 million a year to around 8,000 property owners.^[109]

Canada

Main articles: Carbon pricing in Canada, Quebec carbon tax, and British Columbia Carbon Tax

In the 2008 Canadian federal election, a carbon tax proposed by Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, known as the Green Shift, became a central issue. It would have been revenue-neutral, balancing increased taxation on carbon with rebates. However, it proved to be unpopular and contributed to the Liberal Party's defeat, earning the lowest vote share since Confederation.^{[110][111][112][113]} The Conservative party won the election by promising to "develop and implement a North American-wide cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015".^[114]

In 2018, Canada enacted a revenue-neutral carbon levy starting in 2019,^[115][116] fulfilling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's campaign pledge.^[116] The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act applies only to provinces without provincial adequate carbon pricing.^[116]

As of September 2020, seven of thirteen Canadian provinces and territories use the federal carbon tax while three have developed their own carbon tax programs.^[117]

In December 2020, the Federal Government released an updated plan with a CA$15 per tonne per year increase in the carbon pricing, reaching CA$95 per tonne in 2025 and CA$170 per tonne in 2030.^[118]

Quebec became the first province to introduce a carbon tax.^[119][120] The tax was to be imposed on energy producers starting 1 October 2007, with revenue collected used for energy-efficiency programs. The tax rate for gasoline is $CDN0.008 per liter, or about CA$3.50 per tonne of CO
₂ equivalent.^[121]

United States

Further information: Climate change in the United States, Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States, and Climate change policy of the United States

Estimated effect of a carbon tax on sources of United States electrical generation (as of 2012)

A national carbon tax in the U.S. has been repeatedly proposed, but never enacted. For instance, on 23 July 2018, Representative Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) introduced H.R. 6463,^[122] the "MARKET CHOICE Act", a proposal for a carbon tax in which revenue is used to bolster American infrastructure and environmental solutions.^[123] The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, but did not become law.^[124]

A number of organizations are currently advancing national carbon tax proposals. To address concerns from conservatives that a carbon tax would grow government and increase cost of living, recent proposals have centered around revenue-neutrality.^[125][36] The Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), republicEn^[126] (formerly E&EI), the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), and Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD) support a revenue-neutral carbon tax with a border adjustment. The latter two organizations advocate for a specific framework called the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan, which has gained national bipartisan traction since its announcement in 2017.^[127][128] The central principle is a gradually rising carbon tax in which all revenues are rebated as equal dividends to the American people.^[129] This plan is co-authored by (and named after) Republican elder-statesmen James Baker and George Shultz.^[130] It is also supported by companies including Microsoft, Pepsico, First Solar, American Wind Energy Association, Exxon Mobil, BP, and General Motors.^[131][132]

See also

• Congestion pricing
• Fossil fuel subsidies
• Meat tax
• Polluter pays principle

References

1. Akkaya, Sahin; Bakkal, Ufuk (1 June 2020). "Carbon Leakage Along with the Green Paradox Against Carbon Abatement? A Review Based on Carbon Tax". Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia. 20 (1): 25–44. doi:10.2478/foli-2020-0002. ISSN 1898-0198. S2CID 221372046. Archived from the original on 29 August 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
2. Bashmakov, I.; et al. (2001). "6.2.2.2.1 Collection Point and Tax Base". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). Policies, Measures, and Instruments. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: GRID-Arendal website. Archived from the original on 28 December 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
3. "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment". Congressional Budget Office. 22 May 2013. Archived from the original on 29 September 2017. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
4. Kalkuhl, Matthias (September 2013). "Renewable energy subsidies: Second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation?" (PDF). Resource and Energy Economics. 35 (3): 217–234. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.01.002. hdl:10419/53216. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 August 2018. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
5. Bashmakov, I.; et al. (2001). "Policies, Measures, and Instruments". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
6. "Costs and Benefits to Agriculture from Climate Change Policy". www.card.iastate.edu. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 19 August 2019.
7. "Carbon Taxes: What Can We Learn From International Experience?". Econofact. 3 May 2019. Archived from the original on 7 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
8. Gupta, S.; et al. (2007). "13.2.1.2 Taxes and charges". Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.). Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 29 October 2010. Retrieved 18 March 2010.
9. "ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS". clcouncil.org. 2019. Archived from the original on 18 January 2019. Retrieved 18 February 2019.
10. World Bank Group (6 June 2019). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (Report). hdl:10986/31755. p. 24, Fig. 6
11. World Bank Group (6 June 2019). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019 (Report). hdl:10986/31755. p. 21
12. Stanley Reed (22 September 2021). "Here's What's Behind Europe's Surging Energy Prices". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 September 2021. Retrieved 24 September 2021. High carbon taxes are also stoking power prices
13. "What Is A Carbon Tax?". www.weforum.org/. Archived from the original on 1 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
14. IPCC (2001). 7.34. In (section): Question 7. In (book): Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)). Print version: Cambridge University Press, UK. This version: GRID-Arendal website. p. 122. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 29 March 2011.
15. "What a carbon tax can do and why it cannot do it all". blogs.worldbank.org. 19 January 2022. Archived from the original on 17 July 2023. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
16. "Powering America Forward to Clean Energy". Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Archived from the original on 10 July 2021. Retrieved 8 July 2021.
17. Leshner, Alan I.; Sietter, Keith; Arnold, Douglas N.; et al. (21 October 2009). "Letter to U.S. Senators from 18 scientific organizations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 November 2009.
18. IPCC (2007). "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report" (PDF). International Panel Climate Change. p. 14. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 February 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
19. "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects". United States Geological Survey. Archived from the original on 30 January 2016. Retrieved 10 August 2009.
20. Forster, P.; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; et al. (2007). "2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing". In Solomon, S. D.; et al. (eds.). Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 29 October 2010. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
21. Groosman, Britt. "2500 Pollution Tax" (PDF). Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Edward Elgar and the University of Ghent. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 December 2001. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
22. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (5 November 2013). "Emeritus: David Wilson was an early proponent of the concept of energy-use fees". Phys.org. Archived from the original on 14 February 2021. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
23. Greenbaum, Allan (2010). Environmental Law and Policy in the Canadian Context. Concord, Ontario: Captus Press. pp. 240–241. ISBN 978-1-55322-171-5.
24. MacGuineas, Maya. "There's a blatantly obvious way for the US to fight climate change and pay for new infrastructure: a carbon tax". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 15 September 2022. Retrieved 15 September 2022. A carbon tax would regulate pollution far more efficiently than the mounds of regulations and restrictions on the books.
25. Hepburn, C. (2006). "Regulation by prices, quantities or both: an update and an overview". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 22 (2): 226–247. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grj014. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2009.
26. Helm, D. (2005). "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy" (PDF). The Economic and Social Review. 36 (3): 205–228. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 October 2023. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
27. Helm, Dieter (2005). "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy" (PDF). The Economic and Social Review. 36 (3). ISSN 0012-9984. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
28. Helm, D., ed. (2005). Climate change Policy: A Survey. In: "Climate Change Policy" (PDF). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928145-9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2009.
29. Stern, N. (2007). 2.6 Non-marginal policy decisions. In: Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication ed.). Print version: Cambridge University Press. Pre-publication version: HM Treasury website. pp. 34–35. Archived from the original on 9 March 2010. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
30. Helm, D. (2008). "Climate-change policy: why has so little been achieved?". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 24 (2): 211–238. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grn014. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2009.
31. Gleckman, Howard. "How Should The U.S. Spend Carbon Tax Revenue?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
32. University, Stanford (12 January 2015). "Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say". Stanford News. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
33. "The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds » Yale Climate Connections". Yale Climate Connections. 30 July 2020. Archived from the original on 19 November 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
34. "Social Cost of Carbon: What Is It, and Why Do We Need to Calculate It?". State of the Planet. 1 April 2021. Archived from the original on 8 September 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
35. "France protests: Fuel tax rises in 2019 budget dropped". BBC News. 5 December 2018. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
36. Cecco, Leyland (4 December 2018). "How to make a carbon tax popular? Give the proceeds to the people". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
37. Meyer, Robinson (13 November 2019). "How to Cut U.S. Carbon Pollution by Nearly 40 Percent in 10 Years". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
38. Cumbers, John. "This Climate Bill Would Actually Send Checks To Americans. Can It Help Save The Planet And Grow Our Economy?". Forbes. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
39. Barker, T.; et al. (2007). "11.7.2 Carbon leakage. In (book chapter): Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
40. Barker, T.; et al. (2007). "Executive Summary. In (book chapter): Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 31 March 2010. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
41. IPCC (2007). "Glossary A-D. In (section): Annex I. In (book): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)". Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. Retrieved 18 April 2010.
42. Goldemberg, J.; et al. (1996). Introduction: scope of the assessment. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce et al. Eds.). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A. PDF version: IPCC website. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
43. Marcu, Andrei (December 2013). Carbon Leakage: An overview (PDF) (Report). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 November 2020. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
44. Gupta, S.; et al. (2007). "13.3.3.4.3 Coordination/harmonization of policies. In (book chapter): Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 29 October 2010. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
45. Farrahi Moghaddam, Reza; Farrahi Moghaddam, Fereydoun; Cheriet, Mohamed (2013). "A modified GHG intensity indicator: Toward a sustainable global economy based on a carbon border tax and emissions trading". Energy Policy. 57 (June): 363–380. arXiv:1110.1567. Bibcode:2013EnPol..57..363F. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.012. S2CID 154257615.
46. Condon, Madison; Ignaciuk, Ada (1 June 2013). "Border Carbon Adjustment and International Trade: A Literature Review". OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers. Archived from the original on 18 January 2021. Retrieved 30 November 2020.
47. Pauwelyn, Joost (2012). "Carbon Leakage Measures and Border Tax Adjustments Under WTO Law". SSRN 2026879.S2CID 154066670
48. Ireland, Robert. "Implications for Customs of climate change mitigation and adaptation policy options: a preliminary examination" (PDF). World Customs Journal. 4 (2): 21–36. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2011.
49. Andersson, Julius J. (November 2019). "Carbon Taxes and CO₂ Emissions: Sweden as a Case Study". American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 11 (4): 1–30. doi:10.1257/pol.20170144. ISSN 1945-7731.
50. Murray, Brian; Rivers, Nicholas (1 November 2015). "British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax: A review of the latest "grand experiment" in environmental policy". Energy Policy. 86: 674–683. Bibcode:2015EnPol..86..674M. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.011. ISSN 0301-4215.
51. "Carbon Taxes II". igmchicago.org. Archived from the original on 26 November 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
52. "Carbon Tax | IGM Forum". Archived from the original on 26 November 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
53. "Climate Change Policies". igmchicago.org. Archived from the original on 18 November 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2019.
54. Zhang, Kun; Wang, Qian; Liang, Qiao-Mei; Chen, Hao (1 May 2016). "A bibliometric analysis of research on carbon tax from 1989 to 2014". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 58: 297–310. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.089. ISSN 1364-0321.
55. Loewenstein, George; Ho, Emily H.; Hagmann, David (2019). "Nudging out support for a carbon tax". Nature Climate Change. 9 (6): 484–489. Bibcode:2019NatCC...9..484H. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0474-0. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 182663891.
56. Yamazaki, Akio (1 May 2017). "Jobs and climate policy: Evidence from British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 83: 197–216. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2017.03.003. ISSN 0095-0696. S2CID 157293760.
57. Driscoll, Daniel (January 2020). "Do Carbon Prices Limit Economic Growth?". Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 6: 237802311989832. doi:10.1177/2378023119898326. ISSN 2378-0231.
58. Metcalf, Gilbert E.; Stock, James H. (2023). "The Macroeconomic Impact of Europe's Carbon Taxes". American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. 15 (3): 265–286. doi:10.1257/mac.20210052. ISSN 1945-7707. Archived from the original on 30 June 2023. Retrieved 30 June 2023.
59. Callan, Tim; Lyons, Sean; Scott, Susan; Tol, Richard S. J.; Verde, Stefano (1 February 2009). "The distributional implications of a carbon tax in Ireland" (PDF). Energy Policy. 37 (2): 407–412. Bibcode:2009EnPol..37..407C. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.034. hdl:10419/50117. ISSN 0301-4215. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 November 2017. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
60. Berry, Audrey (1 January 2019). "The distributional effects of a carbon tax and its impact on fuel poverty: A microsimulation study in the French context". Energy Policy. 124: 81–94. Bibcode:2019EnPol.124...81B. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.09.021. ISSN 0301-4215. S2CID 158913661.
61. Renner, Sebastian (1 January 2018). "Poverty and distributional effects of a carbon tax in Mexico" (PDF). Energy Policy. 112: 98–110. Bibcode:2018EnPol.112...98R. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.011. ISSN 0301-4215. S2CID 54517573. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
62. Mathur, Aparna; Morris, Adele C. (1 March 2014). "Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader U.S. fiscal reform". Energy Policy. 66: 326–334. Bibcode:2014EnPol..66..326M. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.047. ISSN 0301-4215. S2CID 13852853.
63. Metcalf, Gilbert E. (1 June 2019). "The distributional impacts of U.S. energy policy". Energy Policy. 129: 926–929. Bibcode:2019EnPol.129..926M. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.076. ISSN 0301-4215. S2CID 159432258.
64. Gajevic Sayegh, Alexandre. CLIMATE JUSTICE AND CARBON PRICING (PDF). Department of Philosophy University College London. Retrieved 13 March 2024.
65. K. Boyce, James; Ash, Michael; Ranalli, Brent (28 February 2023). "Environmental Justice and Carbon Pricing: Can They Be Reconciled?". Global Challenges. 7 (4). Bibcode:2023GloCh...700204B. doi:10.1002/gch2.202200204. PMC 10069313. PMID 37020631.
66. Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose (1990) [1980]. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (1st Harvest ed.). New York: Harcourt. pp. 213–218. ISBN 978-0-156-33460-0.
67. Tyson, Laura (28 June 2013). "The Myriad Benefits of a Carbon Tax". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 9 July 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2013.
68. Mildenberger, Matto; Lachapelle, Erick; Harrison, Kathryn; Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle (February 2022). "Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing". Nature Climate Change. 12 (2): 141–147. Bibcode:2022NatCC..12..141M. doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01268-3. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 246243241.
69. "Citizens' Climate Lobby Chapters". Citizens' Climate Lobby. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
70. Adler, Ben (23 July 2015). "James Hansen's new climate study is terrifying, but he still has hope". Grist. Archived from the original on 4 February 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
71. "All Signatories". Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends. Archived from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
72. "Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends". The Wall Street Journal. 16 January 2019. Archived from the original on 7 June 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
73. Dlouhy, Jennifer (16 January 2019). "From Greenspan to Yellen, Economic Brain Trust Backs Carbon Tax". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
74. "History is Made – The Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends". www.historyismade.org. Archived from the original on 23 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.
75. "Prioritising innovation: the case against the carbon tax". impact.economist.com. Archived from the original on 17 July 2023. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
76. Maestre-Andrés, Sara; Drews, Stefan; Savin, Ivan; van den Bergh, Jeroen (2 December 2021). "Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 7017. Bibcode:2021NatCo..12.7017M. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27380-8. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 8640071. PMID 34857763.
77. Miller, Robin (5 November 2021). "New Global Poll Shows Growing Public Support for a Carbon Tax". GlobeScan | Know your world. Lead the future. Archived from the original on 17 July 2023. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
78. Smith, S. (11 June 2008). "Environmentally Related Taxes and Tradable Permit Systems in Practice". OECD, Environment Directorate, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. Archived from the original on 19 January 2022. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
79. Jacobsen, Mark. "Environmental Economics Lecture 6–7." UCSD Econ 131. Econ 131 Lecture, 20 October 2016, San Diego, UCSD.
80. "Which Is Better: Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade?" Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics, 21 March 2014, London School of Economics/GranthamInstitute/faqs/which-is-better-carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/.
81. "Cap and Trade vs. Taxes." Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 24 October 2017, www.c2es.org/document/cap-and-trade-vs-taxes/.
82. "EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)." Icapcarbonaction.com, International Carbon Action Partnership, 10 October 2017, icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems[]=43
83. "EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)." Icapcarbonaction.com, International Carbon Action Partnership, 10 October 2017, icapcarbonaction.com/en/?option=com_etsmap&task=export&format=pdf&layout=list&systems[]=43.
84. Burtraw, Dallas; Palmer, Karen; Kahn, Danny (1 September 2010). "A symmetric safety valve". Energy Policy. Special Section on Carbon Emissions and Carbon Management in Cities with Regular Papers. 38 (9): 4921–4932. Bibcode:2010EnPol..38.4921B. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.068. ISSN 0301-4215.
85. "An Emissions Assurance Mechanism: Adding Environmental Certainty to a Carbon Tax". Resources for the Future. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
86. "The Four Pillars of Our Carbon Dividends Plan". clcouncil.org. 20 February 2017. Archived from the original on 11 October 2019. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
87. James Hansen. Storms of My Grandchildren Bloomsbury, London 2009 ISBN 978-1-4088-0744-6 p. 241.
88. Randerson, James (2 January 2009). "Nasa climate expert makes personal appeal to Obama". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 5 September 2013. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
89. Hamrick, Kelley; Gallant, Melissa (May 2017). "Unlocking Potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017" (PDF). Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace. p. 10. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 August 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
90. Haya, Barbara K.; Evans, Samuel; Brown, Letty; Bukoski, Jacob; Butsic, Van; Cabiyo, Bodie; Jacobson, Rory; Kerr, Amber; Potts, Matthew; Sanchez, Daniel L. (21 March 2023). "Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols". Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 6. Bibcode:2023FrFGC...6.8879H. doi:10.3389/ffgc.2023.958879. ISSN 2624-893X.
91. Greenfield, Patrick (18 January 2023). "Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
92. Blake, Heidi (16 October 2023). "The Great Cash-for-Carbon Hustle". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
93. Greenfield, Patrick (24 August 2023). "Carbon credit speculators could lose billions as offsets deemed worthless". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
94. Masie, Desné (3 August 2023). "Are carbon offsets all they're cracked up to be? We tracked one from Kenya to England to find out". Vox. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
95. Climate change 1995 : economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge [England]; New York: Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [by] Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8 – via Internet Archive.
96. "The cost and effectiveness of policies to reduce vehicle emissions" (PDF). OECD ITF Joint Transport Research Centre. 1 February 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2016.
97. "Oil dependence : Is transport running out of affordable fuel?" (PDF). OECD ITF Joint Transport Research Centre. 16 November 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2010.
98. Lu, Yujie; Zhu, Xinyuan; Cui, Qingbin (2012). "Effectiveness and equity implications of carbon policies in the United States construction industry". Building and Environment. 49. Elsevier Ltd.: 259–269. Bibcode:2012BuEnv..49..259L. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.10.002.
99. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2021, World Bank, 25 May 2021, doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1728-1, ISBN 978-1-4648-1728-1, archived from the original on 16 July 2021, retrieved 7 July 2021
100. World Bank (May 2023). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2023. Pages 17-18. ISBN 978-1-4648-2006-9.
101. Andersen, Prof. Mikael Skou (2010). "Europe's experience with carbon-energy taxation". Sapiens. 3 (2). Archived from the original on 26 August 2011. Retrieved 24 August 2011. See. Burgers, Irene J., and Stefan E. Weishaar. Designing Carbon taxes is not an easy task: legal perspectives. No. 559. WIFO Working Papers, 2018.
102. Tais Gadea Lara (9 July 2024). "What the world can learn from Denmark's carbon tax on agriculture". Devex. Retrieved 27 July 2024.
103. Pearce, D. (2005). "The United Kingdom Climate Change Levy: A study in political economy" (PDF). OECD Environment Directorate, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 May 2011. Retrieved 30 August 2009.
104. Kanter, James (22 June 2010). "Europe Considers New Taxes to Promote 'Clean' Energy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 March 2019. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
105. Kanter, James (22 June 2010). "Europe Considers New Taxes to Promote 'Clean' Energy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 March 2019. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
106. Meyer, Peter (2010). "United States. Costa Rica: Background and U.S. Relations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 August 2011.
107. Costa Rica: Experts warn about the dangers of missing environmental targets (PDF), 8 October 2009
108. "Costa Rica: Background and U.S. Relations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2010.
109. "Costa Rica aims to win "carbon neutral" race". Reuters. 24 May 2007. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
110. Bryden, Joan (20 October 2008). "Liberals cast themselves in leader's light". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012.
111. Bilton, Chris (7 January 2009). "Green shifting right?". Eye Weekly. Archived from the original on 1 May 2011.
112. Reid, Scott (26 December 2009). "The good, the (mostly) bad, and the faint signs of hope". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 8 March 2009.
113. Findlay, Martha Hall. After the Green Shift Archived 27 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine. The Globe and Mail. 19 January 2009.
114. "Case of the Conservatives' carbon amnesia". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 10 February 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
115. Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act Archived 5 January 2019 at the Wayback Machine, in force since 21 June 2018 (page visited on 26 October 2018).
116. Nuccitelli, Dana (26 October 2018). "Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 29 November 2018. Retrieved 26 October 2018.
117. "Carbon Pricing in Canada (Updated 2020)". energyhub.org. 24 September 2020. Archived from the original on 29 October 2020. Retrieved 27 September 2020.
118. "A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AND A HEALTHY ECONOMY" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 August 2021. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
119. "Quebec to collect nation's 1st carbon tax". cbc.ca. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
120. "Quebec Government to Implement Carbon Tax" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2014.
121. "Where Carbon Is Taxed". www.carbontax.org. Archived from the original on 23 February 2017. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
122. H.R. 6463 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6463 Archived 20 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine
123. Curbelo, Carlos (16 August 2018). "H.R.6463 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): MARKET CHOICE Act". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 20 November 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
124. Curbelo, Carlos (16 August 2018). "Actions - H.R.6463 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): MARKET CHOICE Act". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
125. "Revenue-neutral carbon tax: The climate policy that could appeal to conservatives » Yale Climate Connections". Yale Climate Connections. 12 July 2019. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
126. "republicEn - Home of the EcoRight". republicEn. Archived from the original on 24 March 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
127. Halstead, Ted (April 2017), A climate solution where all sides can win, archived from the original on 17 October 2021, retrieved 17 October 2021
128. "GOP senior statesmen making push for a carbon tax". Associated Press. 8 February 2017. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
129. "The Four Pillars of the Carbon Dividends Plan". Climate Leadership Council. 4 March 2021. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
130. "The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends". Climate Leadership Council. 5 February 2017. Archived from the original on 17 October 2021. Retrieved 17 October 2021.
131. Roberts, David (22 June 2018). "Energy lobbyists have a new PAC to push for a carbon tax. Wait, what?". Vox. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2019.
132. "Founding Members". Climate Leadership Council. Archived from the original on 10 October 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021.