'A predictable price on carbon' - Macleans.ca

‘A predictable price on carbon’


Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, calls for a price on carbon as part of an agenda to deal with climate change.

The world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth. Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5 percent fall in emissions by 2020. Countries spend more than $500 billion annually in fossil-fuel subsidies and an additional $500 billion in other subsidies, often related to agriculture and water, that are, ultimately, environmentally harmful. That trillion dollars could be put to better use for the jobs of the future, social safety nets or vaccines.

With the legislative path seemingly blocked, Barack Obama is believed to be preparing to use the EPA’s regulatory authority to enact new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.


‘A predictable price on carbon’

  1. Mr Kim will NOT be getting on Mr Harper’s Christmas next card list…a lump or coal or glob of bitumin for him i think. He’s probably a socialist anyway…or he will be soon.

  2. Hard to operate a business if you don’t know what your costs will be. Harper should know that.

  3. Total B.S. The World Bank, the IMF and the UN are all one and the same. I just read my local regional government’s Local Action Plan on Climate Change where they state thousands of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing..blah…blah. I don’t think there are thousands of climate scientists. They’ve also picked up the extreme weather meme. I felt like going through the presentation with a red pen.

  4. The fossil fuel industry isn’t subsidized. It is one of the most heavily taxed industries. The so-called “subsidies” are just really just transfers from the established producing highly profitable parts of the industry to the risky exploration and development part of the industry, transfers forced by government.

    These forced transfers, which are just a small fraction of the overall taxation of the industry, facilitate more stable pricing and employment in the industry.

    Without these forced transfers, the established producing part of the industry would be much more just rentier oriented, and consumer prices would have to be much much higher to drive the risky exploratory part of the industry. There would be much more boom/bust and volatility in the commodity pricing than there already is.

    Commodity prices are set the cost to produce of the marginal barrel of oil, or the marginal ton of ore. Transfers from the producing side to the exploratory side, i.e. the so-called subsidies, reduce this marginal cost and stabilize the employment levels in the exploratory side.

    • This is a bogus argument. So the subsidy to banks in the form of implied government guarantees is not a subsidy because banks also pay lots of tax (as do their overcompensated employees)? And car manufacturers are not subsidized because they pay tax?

      The price of oil is not set in Canada. Why should we be subsidizing fossil fuel exploration to lower prices for consumers in America, China, Europe, etc? We are a net producer of fossil fuels; high prices are in our interest.

  5. 15 years later and the left and right still haven’t identified the problem nor the solution.
    Big surprise!
    Don’t let me disturb your asinine arguments!