More

Cap-And-Trade Tax Hailed As Best Source For Funds To Address Climate Change: UN Panel

CHARLES J. HANLEY   11/ 5/10 02:01 PM ET   AP

Co2

UNITED NATIONS — A high-level U.N. panel on Friday outlined potential sources, including levies on international flights, to raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to cope with climate change and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The greatest contributions would come from private investment and from "carbon pricing," either a direct tax broadly on emissions of carbon dioxide or a cap on emissions coupled with trading in emissions allowances, the advisory group of global political and financial leaders said in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The United States has been a major holdout, however, against such carbon pricing plans, and Tuesday's Republican victory in the U.S. House guarantees none will be enacted for at least two years.

Asked about the impact of the U.S. election, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, co-chair of the U.N. panel with Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, noted that its report is based on projections to 2020.

"I believe that many things might happen in American politics in a period of 10 years," Stoltenberg told The Associated Press.

At last December's climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, developed nations, led by U.S. President Barack Obama, agreed to set a goal of $100 billion in annual climate finance by the year 2020.

In scores of developing nations in a warming world, money will be needed to build coastal protection against rising seas, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, and improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming.

It also will help them move to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power, and away from the fossil fuels whose emissions are blamed for global warming.

"It is challenging but feasible to meet this goal," the panel said of the $100 billion target.

The 21 members of the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, appointed by Ban last February, included White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers, financier George Soros, President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana, French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde and Mexican Finance Minister Ernesto Cordero Arroyo.

Their report will be discussed at the U.N. climate conference of environment ministers opening Nov. 29 in Cancun, Mexico.

Last year's Copenhagen conference failed to produce a long-hoped-for international agreement mandating significant emissions reductions among industrialized nations, and possibly some more advanced developing nations, beyond 2012. That year marks the expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which mandated only modest reductions and which the U.S. rejected.

Financial help for developing countries is considered essential for reaching a global deal that also envisions reining in their emissions. The current fiscal crises among industrialized nations will complicate negotiations at Cancun and beyond, however.

To generate revenues for climate causes, the high-level panel said, a "carbon price" must be set at $20-25 per ton. Such a price can be established through straight taxation on emissions tonnage from power plants and other industrial sources, or through a system of auctioning off emissions allowances that then can be traded among industrial emitters. Either route would make it profitable for enterprises to minimize their emissions, and would produce revenue.

The panel estimated either approach might produce $30 billion a year by 2020 for a climate fund. The European Union, under the Kyoto Protocol, already has a carbon trading system, with the per-ton price currently in the $20-25 range.

The advisers saw these other possible revenue sources:

--A tax or trading system for fuel emissions of international airliners and merchant ships, or a fee on air tickets, with a potential for $10 billion a year.

--A levy on foreign-exchange transactions; $10 billion.

--Removal of government subsidies of fossil fuels, with the money redirected to a climate fund; $10 billion.

--Stepped-up grants and loans from the World Bank and similar institutions; net gain of $11 billion.

--Private investment in developing countries' climate projects, partnering with international aid; up to $20 billion.

The panelists acknowledged likely political difficulties in enacting transportation and foreign-exchange levies on a global scale, but U.N. chief Ban said their vision was both "financially feasible and politically viable."

"The advisory group has given us a path," he said. "It is now up to governments to consider the options and to act."

---

On the Web: http://www.un.org/climatechange/agf

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

UNITED NATIONS — A high-level U.N. panel on Friday outlined potential sources, including levies on international flights, to raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to ...
UNITED NATIONS — A high-level U.N. panel on Friday outlined potential sources, including levies on international flights, to raise up to $100 billion a year in new money for poorer countries to ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:23 PM on 11/08/2010
UN panel bought by Bankers! Creating the largest new derivatives market in history is insane after the crash we have just been through. Tax pollution: carbon and curies. It's like paying your trash pickup bill. Have the republic do it, so that that cost are predictable. remove fossil and nuke subsides and order green upgrades for all gov buildings. Don't go through the banks, they would rather gamble. Directly order the upgrades with a bias for small businesses. That will solve the energy, jobs and economy problems.
05:02 PM on 11/08/2010
Population growth is a key element of global warming so perhaps a tax on each child over two per family.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RichieB
Science is true whether you believe it or not
11:28 AM on 11/09/2010
It may come to that eventually. But it will be hard to enforce in the undeveloped countries that have the highest birth rates.
photo
Blacksheep1
Deprogramming the left, one fact at a time..
02:49 AM on 11/08/2010
Just watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1NbmXs
02:49 AM on 11/08/2010
Hell, let dirty business thrive!...As long as they are willing to pay the tax for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James Michael Gregg
Liberal in Sacramento
11:24 PM on 11/07/2010
So long as the taxes are in the form of taxation on big businesses only with penalties for increasing the cost of goods for consumers
10:56 PM on 11/07/2010
not that many rank and file progressive support cap and trade. If they know anything about it all, it's more likely that they support the Cantwell-Collins cap and dividend bill, which gets no media treatment nor air time in congress.

Why is that?

Because it's basically legit. BTW, Collins is a Repub.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
08:06 PM on 11/07/2010
The greens have to change there way of thinking to get Cap & Trade to pass. They have to co opt the Tea Party movement and promise jobs! Not like California, Americans have watch as California has become the leader in the use of green energy and an unaccustomed leader in unemployment! California's average industrial electric rate is greater than $0.12/kwh while the rest of the nation's average is $0.07/kwh! Americans see green energy as expensive and will cost them their job and they voted this way! To pass Cap & Trade I would point out that China is bringing on line two coal generating plants a week with only 1 in 4 with any pollution controls! I would point out how many more developing nations are bringing on line more fossil fuel generating plants and how this is bad for them and for us! I would push the new congress to impose GREEN TARIFFS on imports made using fossil fuels and I would throw in GREEN TARIFFS on imports from nations destroying rain forest! Once Americans workers see they will compete on equal footing in energy they will support Cap & Trade! Now many will say what about the U.S. past use of fossil fuels? Funny, they are usually the same nations that have destroyed much of their own rain forest in the last 30 years! The problem with this approach is getting it past Wall-Mart's desire for cheap products and the oil industry. GOOD LUCK!
06:36 PM on 11/07/2010
Why call it a TAX? DOA.

Change it to "CASH for TRADE" get a cool logo and let small low carbon footprint business know how much money they can make. It is a real problem but selling a tax of any kind is not likely.
05:55 AM on 11/07/2010
It is called income redistribution, but now on a global scale. You must have a reason to do it. Progressives in the US call it "fair share" and they are the only ones that know what is "fair". AGW, a concept with about the same level of reality, is the reason the wealthy nations should be taxed to distribute their wealth to the poor nations.

Acceptance of this removes all need for personal and country-wide charity.
02:12 PM on 11/07/2010
97% of climate experts claim that we have to act. Your invoking the big bad wolf isn't going to change any of it.
04:04 PM on 11/07/2010
You are selling yourself short. Someone else, this morning said it was 99+%

I am still waiting for that person's cogent explanation of the Vostok Ice Core data.

So maybe it is 97% now
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RichieB
Science is true whether you believe it or not
11:41 AM on 11/09/2010
If one was getting on a jet to fly cross country and the pilot came on and announced that there is a 97% chance that the jet will crash but you are welcome to fly on if you wish - who in their right mind would say "I'll take that 3% chance that we make our destination"? Denying global warming is just as rediculous as that.
05:07 PM on 11/07/2010
Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mountainweb
Conservative Commonsense
11:26 PM on 11/06/2010
Yet another plan for government to steal money from the average worker and waste it. The climate has always been changing, the change is NOT man made. Putting at tax on people has no effect except to make governments more money.
photo
BlueGreen55
Capitalism w/o Morals is like Faith w/o Works-dead
10:59 AM on 11/07/2010
And you are truly ignorant of any FACTS about Climate Change. The Climate is Changing and these changes ARE man-made. Shouting they are not doesn't change it.

Go post on FOX and leave us be.
05:16 PM on 11/07/2010
Shouting they are has about the same effect
photo
Blacksheep1
Deprogramming the left, one fact at a time..
02:45 AM on 11/08/2010
Listen to logic, and take your own advice-They tricked you and you fell for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1NbmXs

If you want to keep giving the green industry your hard earned money, by all means continue to do so, just don't make me hand over mine.....
photo
Blacksheep1
Deprogramming the left, one fact at a time..
02:49 AM on 11/08/2010
Agreed, this makes the point very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1NbmXs
09:53 PM on 11/06/2010
Cap and trade is a Rothschild’s outfit…they are behind that turkey and we should have nothing to do with it or them ever…
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marcar72
07:26 PM on 11/06/2010
You think the economy is in bad shape now just take more of average guys monies and watch the economy tank .
02:54 PM on 11/06/2010
Cap and Dividend!!!!!!!!!!!!! not Cap and Trade. Cap and dividend is a simple, market-based way to reduce CO2 emissions without reducing household incomes. It caps fossil fuel supplies, makes polluters pay, and returns the revenue to everyone equally.
Five top reasons for Cap and Dividend

1. It gets the job done.
2. It’s simple.
3. It’s fair.
4. It’s progressive.
5. It’s market-based. Read

http://www.capanddividend.org/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
10:49 PM on 11/06/2010
LOL - the snake oil salesman comes in many forms
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hatrickpenry
stepping on academia nuts
11:22 PM on 11/06/2010
And ,.. if you call NOW ,... I'll double the offer,.. 2 SCAM-Wow's for the price of 4.
10:50 AM on 11/06/2010
The correct answer is no. Not when those monies go to companies like Al Gores that produce nothing. How about tax credits being increased for developing and those using new technology?
photo
Blacksheep1
Deprogramming the left, one fact at a time..
02:47 AM on 11/08/2010
For a better understanding of not giving your money to con-men, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1NbmXs