Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Carbon tax? How about a Carbon Dividend?
Edward Ing, Vote for Tomorrow (Green Party of Canada)
Forget about a carbon tax, how about a carbon dividend? Stephane Dion seems to be having quite a bit of trouble explaining the carbon tax scheme. The calm atmosphere of summer barbeques is a more appropriate setting for discussing this than the heated climate of an election campaign. The scheme seems too complex.
So I am going to see if we can get something simpler and more rewarding put on the table.
The big picture of the scheme is like this:
Whoever burns carbon ends up putting money into a national pot. At the end of the year the pot gets divided up and we get a share — the dividend. That is it, that is all…
(21 September 2008)
US companies see climate risk, but lack plan
Timothy Gardner, Reuters
NEW YORK – US companies judge climate change a risk to their business, but lag global companies in setting targets to cut emissions, according to a global survey.
“We’re seeing the US play catch up here, but they’ve got a way to go,” Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which administers the annual survey, said in an interview ahead of the formal release of the 2008 CDP survey in New York on Monday.
Dickinson said the gap demonstrates the difference between the climate culture of companies in Europe and the United States.
The European Union has had mandatory greenhouse emissions caps since 2005, while the United States, historically the world’s top greenhouse gas polluter, has no federal limits on the gases blamed for warming the planet.
About 81 percent of US companies responding to this year’s survey, or about 255 companies, perceived climate change as a risk. Yet only 33 percent of US respondents had greenhouse gas reduction targets in place.
“They are not listening to themselves,” Dickinson said…
(23 September 2008)
McCain and Obama supporters largely agree on approaches to energy, climate change
WorldPublicOpinion.org
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds the majority of supporters of John McCain and Barack Obama largely agree on how to deal with both the country’s energy needs and the problem of climate change.
Asked whether the government should require utilities to use more alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, even if this increases costs in the short-run, three-quarters (75%) of Obama voters and three-fifths of McCain voters (60%) say that it should.
Presented two competing arguments, both Obama and McCain supporters reject the argument that making a major shift to alternative energy sources “would cost so much money that it would hurt the economy.” Very large majorities in both the Obama (83%) and McCain (73%) camps instead support the argument that “with the rising cost of energy, it would save money in the long run.”
Supporters in both camps strongly favor a greater emphasis on increasing energy efficiency. Asked if the government should require businesses to use energy more efficiently, even if it might make some products more expensive, 71 percent of Obama supporters support this action, as do 55 percent of McCain supporters. Overall, 61 percent of Americans would favor the government requiring businesses to do this.
However, when it comes to levying “an extra charge for the purchase of models of appliances and cars that are not energy efficient,” a bare majority of Obama supporters (52%) are in favor while 58 percent of McCain supporters are opposed…
I’m not sure how much we really learn from this since people often give very contradictory answers depending on how a question is framed and whether a measure will hit someone’s pocket book directly.-SO
(23 September 2008)
