Ian Parry September 17, 2014
Ian Parry, the Principal Environmental Fiscal Policy Expert in the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF, writes that as the world struggles to develop a climate strategy, there is a need for an approach that builds on national self-interest and spurs a race to the top in low-carbon energy solutions.
He reports IMF findings that carbon pricing is practical, raises revenue that permits tax reductions in other areas, and is often in countries’ own interests.
William Nordhaus January, 2015
International approaches to climate change have basically failed so far.
The reason for this failure, Yale Professor William Nordhaus argues, is that international agreements have not been able to deal effectively with the problem of free riders. It is time for a new model for international climate change treaties. Nordhaus proposes the idea of climate clubs. A climate club would encourage participation by penalizing non-participants, allowing members to charge tariffs on all imports of non-participating nations. “Think of the treaty as a club”, says Nordhaus. “It’s a voluntary agreement, where members get certain benefits, for a certain cost.”
Considering a Carbon Tax: Frequently Asked Questions.
The Center for Energy and Climate Economics at Resources for the Future has compiled a collection of Frequently Asked Questions to help decision makers understand climate policy challenges and assess the costs and benefits of possible solutions.
This collection of Frequently Asked Questions addresses the important design elements and potential economic impacts of a carbon tax policy. The questions were compiled by RFF experts in response to questions and issues raised in extensive dialogues with policymakers, industry stakeholders, and academic experts. The answers were developed by RFF experts, reflecting their individual research and informed opinions that do not necessarily reflect the views of RFF as an organization.
World Bank 2012
Sustained growth is necessary to achieve the urgent development needs of the world’s poor; there is substantial scope for growing cleaner without growing slower.
Green growth is necessary, efficient, and affordable. It is the only way to reconcile the rapid growth required to bring developing countries to the level of prosperity to which they aspire with the needs of the more than 1 billion people still living in poverty and the imperative of a better managed environment. Green growth is a vital tool for achieving sustainable development. But sustainable development has three pillars: economic, environmental, and social sustainability. We cannot presume that green growth is inherently inclusive. Green growth policies must be carefully designed to maximize benefits for, and minimize costs to, the poor and most vulnerable, and policies and actions with irreversible negative impacts must be avoided.
Valedictory Remarks by Ernesto Zedillo Yale University, former President of Mexico. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2009
Climate change can be slowed, its effects mitigated and — up to a point — societies can adapt to it. But all of this requires effective and practically unprecedented international cooperation. It is about time for all states to accept that it is in their national interest to construct such cooperation by means of the pertinent rules and incentives.
Excellencies, Dear Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very honored to again be part of this unique forum which has become a guidepost for the analysis and debate of some of the crucial challenges faced by humanity at large. This year’s central topic, Towards Copenhagen: An Equitable and Ethical Approach, is undoubtedly of enormous pertinence. The fine contributions and rich debates that have taken place over the last three days should be considered seriously by those charged with political responsibility to make the Copenhagen meeting a successful one. The contributions of this conference are particularly relevant in light of the fact that at this moment the prospects for a successful outcome at Copenhagen, frankly stated, are not very promising. My own reading of where the process of consultations and negotiation stands is not optimistic. As suggested at the Poznan conference of last December, there has been little movement forward and deadlocks on the crucial issues are still pervasive. Admittedly, that there hasn’t been much progress towards Copenhagen shouldn’t be surprising.