carbon 它对经济是好事的吗?谁知道carbon tax具体是由哪国又是谁提出的,现在加拿大的carbon tax是多少?还有它对经济具体有些什么影响?你觉得它是好事吗?

carbon 它对经济是好事的吗?谁知道carbon tax具体是由哪国又是谁提出的,现在加拿大的carbon tax是多少?还有它对经济具体有些什么影响?你觉得它是好事吗?
carbon 它对经济是好事的吗?
谁知道carbon tax具体是由哪国又是谁提出的,现在加拿大的carbon tax是多少?还有它对经济具体有些什么影响?你觉得它是好事吗?

carbon 它对经济是好事的吗?谁知道carbon tax具体是由哪国又是谁提出的,现在加拿大的carbon tax是多少?还有它对经济具体有些什么影响?你觉得它是好事吗?
carbon tax具体是什么意思?
carbon tax-碳税是指针对二氧化碳排放所征收的税.它以环境保护为目的,希望通过削减二氧化碳排放来减缓全球变暖.碳税通过对燃煤和石油下游的汽油、航空燃油、天然气等化石燃料产品,按其碳含量的比例征税来实现减少化石燃料消耗和二氧化碳排放.与总量控制和排放贸易等市场竞争为基础的温室气体减排机制不同,征收碳税只需要额外增加非常少的管理成本就可以实现.
由于与全球气候变化联系在一起,碳税在理论上被设定为需要一个全球性的国际管理体制,以实现最优产出,但这并不是必然的.一个国家或地区在确定排放限额及减排目标的情况下,在国家或区域的层面实施碳税具有相当的优越性.例如欧盟就正在讨论实施统一碳税以弥补2005年1月实施的碳排放贸易体系（ETS,Emission Trade System）的不足.
加拿大的carbon tax是多少?
-----加拿大国庆日起每公升油加征2.4分碳税
2008年2月19日,加拿大BC省公布2008年度财政预算案,规定从今年7月起开征碳税,即对汽油、柴油、天然气、煤、石油以及家庭暖气用燃料等所有燃料征收碳税,不同燃料所征收的碳税不同,而且未来5年燃油所征收碳税还将逐步提高.
BC卑诗省政府通过增加碳税一年可增加税收3.38亿加元,并且表示,省政府不会籍由碳税来增加收入,而会通过减税的方式,将碳税的收入还给省民,还希望通过征收碳税减少能源消耗,减少二氧化碳等温室气体排放.

它对经济具体有些什么影响?你觉得它是好事吗?
-----------瑞典经验：碳税降低能耗
4月14日-15日,瑞典环境大臣安德烈亚斯.卡尔格林（Andreas Carlgren）步履如飞,惜时如金.与中国环境部部长进行双边会谈,与中国外交部气候变化谈判特别代表于庆泰大使会晤,出席温家宝总理与瑞典首相的会谈,与中国发改委、建设部高官会谈……
所有这些,都紧紧围绕同一个主题展开：气候变化与中瑞环境技术领域合作.从1990年以来,瑞典成功地在保持经济增长44%的基础上,气体排放降低了9%.“中国对瑞典在环境方面精湛的技术知识有很浓厚的兴趣.”瑞典使馆有关人士透露.
而最引人注目的背景则是：2009年秋季,瑞典将成为欧盟轮值主席国,届时联合国将对一项新的气候协议进行最终定案,中国在此轮谈判中也将成为关键角色.
4月14日上午9点30分-10点30分,安德烈亚斯.卡尔格林百忙中接受了包括本报记者在内的媒体采访.他强调,气候变化是全世界的问题,减排是全世界的责任,谁都无法回避.“我们都在同一条船上.”安德烈亚斯.卡尔格林如是说.
碳税 "不会伤害" 全世界的穷人
------[北京] 征收碳税来对付气候变化不会伤害发展中国家的穷人,这是5月15日公布的一项研究得出的结论.这项研究由印度尼西亚Padjadjaran大学的Arief Anshory Yusuf进行,他在北京举行的每年两次的第27届东南亚经济与环境项目研讨会上宣读了这项研究.
碳税指的是对能源消费征收的各种税收,人们很长一段时间以来认为,碳税是减少能源消费和大幅削减碳排放的有效手段.
然而,此前的研究表明,由于碳税提高了能源的价格,它们对穷人的伤害甚于富人,因为前者用于燃料的支出占其收入更大的比例.
但是Yusuf这项基于印度尼西亚数据的研究表明,就能源消费而言,碳税对农村穷人的影响比对城市富人的影响小得多,因为穷人相比较而言使用了非常少的能源.
穷人实际上还可能从碳税中获益.提高能源价格意味着小农能更好地与利用高能源消耗的机械设备的大型农场竞争,印尼穷人中大多数是这样的小农,他们很少使用机械设备.
这项研究显示,印度尼西亚的国内生产总值可能受到碳税的影响.但是从碳税中获取的收入可以回馈于社会,例如,可以通过削减商品税做到这一点.Yusuf说尽管碳税将对高能耗工业造成影响,但是这并不会对经济造成重大打击,因为它可能鼓励企业使用更有能效的技术.
Yusuf说,这项研究“对于帮助发展中国家设计鼓励碳减排的政策有重要的意义.”
加拿大西蒙·弗雷泽大学公共政策项目主任Nancy Olewiler认为这项研究非常重要,揭示了发展中国家的社会福利和环境目标可以和谐一致.她告诉本网络记者：“这项研究表明,我们越晚采取[针对高能耗行为]的行动,我们的情况就会越糟糕,因为各国正在越来越依赖于大量使用能源.”
Olewiler补充说,还需要在发展中国家进行更多研究来扩展这项研究的应用.
碳税政策必有谁输谁赢
----最近,多伦多大学的一名名誉校长比尔格雷厄姆用一个简单的问题戳穿了自由领导人提出的看似很具吸引力的碳税计划.俗称碳税政策是一种中性政策.“中性财政是什么意思?政策不可能是中性的,必然会产生赢家和输家,谁会赢,谁会输,那谁又去支付税收呢?”
上周,一个很具影响力的智囊团邀请了商界的领袖、银行家、经济学家、能源专家和政治分析家共同参加了一个两小时的工作午餐,来讨论征收碳税这个问题,这并不会损害加拿大的竞争力,也不会加剧区域差异,不会导致联邦与省间的不合,同时也没有引发市民的反对.这是一个富有启发性会议.三个小组成员对使用矿物燃料进行征税的复杂性进行了阐述.会议表示,征税会迫使出口商提高价格,使他们在世界市场上处于不利地位.这对保护本地产业是由帮助的,不过渥太华有可能豁免运往国外的销售品的产品税.
实施碳税收虽然有助于减少环境污染,但是这项措施实施国的企业可能由于这个原因而转移到环境政策宽松的国家,可能将会导致本国资金的外流.并且,对从环境政策宽松的国家进口产品采取什么样的税收增加措施,目前也还没有形成定论.
对环境污染征税的措施对工业区的伤害十分的严重,相对于一些高科技产业,工业区的污染气体排放量要高上许多.此项政策甚至可能对其正常的经营状况都造成影响.
相关分析家表示：碳税收带给市场的将是一塌糊涂,虽然保护了环境,但是对于工业来说,不得不减少生产量,才不至于超出政府给其的碳排放量,并且还造成产品成本上升,真的是一塌糊涂.
在这个问题上,到底谁是赢家呢?政府口口声声说会把收到的碳税的每一分都回报给人民,但是这笔账谁又能算得清,多数人们感觉到的只是对自身财富的剥削而已.
环球能源网认为,真正解决问题的办法也是有的,那就是进行工业改革,花费巨资清洁大气,减少贫困,提高生产技术,减少生产污染.这样做,更多的人民就会觉得自己才是真正的赢家.从技术上说,征税碳不可能是透明的,政治单方面的言辞,不受约束.
未经许可,不得转载；如转载必须标明“原文转自环球能源网”,否则将追究其法律责任
来源：环球能源网-独立的能源资讯媒体；专业的能源研究服务平台(http://oilgas.worldenergy.com.cn/)
作者：xuhong
原文：碳税政策必有谁输谁赢(http://oilgas.worldenergy.com.cn/show.php?itemid-39082/page-1.html)
南非欲征收碳税应对气候变化
------
南非政府日前对外宣布了一套积极应对气候变化的方案,其中包括向排放二氧化碳的工业企业征税的计划.
据法新社消息,南非环境部长马蒂努斯·范·施高维克(Martinus Van
Schalkwyk)在宣布该方案时指出:"现在情况已经很清楚了,只有发达国家和发展中国家共同采取行动,我们才能阻止气候危机的恶化."
南非提出的这一套包括节约能效的计划已经被内阁通过,但仍待议会的最终商议.而财政官员们还在探索施加碳税的方法.
联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会已经指出,气候变化已是不容置疑的事实,而且人类活动造成气候变化的可能性超过90%.人为产生的温室气体在1970年到2004年间增加70%,每年排放的二氧化碳当量从287亿吨增长到490亿吨.
南非2003年的二氧化碳排放量约为4.46亿吨,据该国环境部预测,南非在2025年的二氧化碳排放量将增加到5.5亿吨.范·施高维克指出,温室气体排放量的增加最晚在2020到2025年也必须停止,并维持10年,随后排放量需要大幅下降.他说:"我们的目标是,与工业革命前的水平相比,将全球温度的上升范围控制在2度以内."
南非提出的这一计划受到了商业和环保主义者共同的欢迎,认为是南非在应对气候变化过程中做出的重大举措.倡导可持续发展的国家商业计划首席执行官安德烈·弗雷(Andre
Fourie)说:"现在正是合适的时机让南非的私营业主与政府形成伙伴关系,在解决和应对气候变化问题上做出表率.不采取行动所付出的代价要远远超过应对气候变化的成本."
南非的电力行业主要依赖燃煤,于是电力行业就成为了该国温室气体排放的大户.南非国有的南非电力公司Eskom的90%的发电量来自燃煤机组.在未来的八年内,该公司还计划修建三家燃煤电厂.
政府方案中还包括采用更严格的热效率和火电厂排放标准,使发电更清洁.政府还提议采用税费系统,鼓励清洁能源的生产.另外,政府也提出通过提高强制性燃油经济性和采用混合动力车来减少交通排放.
开普敦大学气候变化系教授哈拉德·温克勒(Harald
Winkler)说:"我们的单位排放量比很多发达国家要高.这是由于我们依赖以煤炭为基础的能源体系.我们的分析显示,为碳定价能对排放产生最有效的影响.通过采用价格信号,我们给经济发展中所有的参与者发出讯息,让他们改变行为."(王淏)
发改委专家称中国征收碳税暂不现实
----“中国短期内不会通过碳税、碳定价来促进温室气体减排”,9月25日在上海召开的“贸易、气候变化和全球竞争力”国际研讨会上,国家发改委能源研究所姜克隽研究员表示,限制排放在中国将主要通过有关能效、可再生能源发展等政策得到实施.
姜克隽还透露,国家发改委能源所正在考虑一项政策建议：让更多的中外城市“结对”——比如天津和墨尔本——促进减排.“我们特别鼓励那些欠发达城市加入其中”.
征收碳税暂不现实
近年来,随着全球气候变化的形势日益严峻,气候问题也越来越多地与贸易问题联系在一起.欧洲议会就曾通过决议,要求欧洲委员会考虑对非《京都议定书》成员国的出口品加征关税.布鲁塞尔欧洲政策研究中心董事托马斯·布鲁尔指出,虽然这一动议最终未获实施,但它反映了相当一些国家的担心,即他们的国际竞争水平会受挫于非协议国家的低能源价格.因此碳税等所谓“绿色壁垒”被不断地带入有关国际贸易的讨价还价中.
由于温室气体CO2排放量的增加是导致气候变迁的重要原因,有观点认为,征收碳税可使人们节约能源,减少排放,从而促进环境保护.丹麦是世界最早征收碳税的国家,在1991年通过征收碳税议案,其税率由高至低分别为：交通事业、住商用电、轻工业、重工业.
但“现在考虑征收碳税是不现实的”,姜克隽直截了当地说.据了解,早在2002年,中国国家统计局和挪威统计局就曾联合做过一个课题：《征收碳税对中国经济与温室气体排放的影响》.研究表明,征收碳税将使中国经济状况恶化,但二氧化碳的排放量将有所下降.“虽然从长远看,征收碳税的负面影响将会不断弱化,但是对中国这样一个发展中国家,通过征收碳税实施温室气体减排,经济代价十分高昂.”姜克隽说.
他表示,近期内中国限制排放,将主要通过有关能效、可再生能源发展、核能发展的国内政策,以及国内可持续发展和能源安全计划得到实施.事实上,中国在这方面也付出了长期努力.
2004年11月,中国节能中长期专项规划开始实施,预计到2010年节能总量达4亿吨标准煤；2005年中国颁布《可再生能源法》,要求2020年实现可再生能源占能源总量15%的能源发展目标；2007年6月,《应对气候变化国家方案》出台,中国承诺会严肃完成全部目标.这是发展中国家的第一次突破,具有里程碑意义.
对此,国际贸易和可持续发展中心总裁梅林德说“最重要的是采取行动,节能减排不能等待”.
此外,上海市政府发展研究中心的郭爱军等专家指出,碳税的征收是一柄双刃剑,它与国际贸易自由化的趋势是背道而驰的.
减排量换技术
为了降低排放量,必须获取新的技术.目前在可再生能源领域,国际上已有好几个实施技术转让的项目.
《京都议定书》第12条创制了“清洁发展机制”(CDM).此外,还有一些重要的双边项目有相关安排.2003年,中国与美国成立了气候变化工作组,寻求在许多领域的合作研究；2005年中国与欧盟建立了伙伴关系,重点探寻零排放量的煤炭技术,其中第一阶段英国起了主要作用.
毋庸讳言,发展中国家在获取新技术的过程中往往遭遇壁垒,尤其是知识产权.斯坦福大学法学院的约翰·巴特教授认为,就技术带来的好处而言(即降低二氧化碳排放量或是提供发达国家排放信用),对中国采取知识产权壁垒其实没有必要.
清华大学全球气候变化研究所副所长刘德顺教授指出,发展中国家想要完全以减排信用来换取新技术也不现实.他建议,应该大力发展“技术转让型CDM”,“减排量信用加上市场,来换取发达国家的技术”,刘德顺说.
梅林德向本报表示：“可以避免西方‘先污染,后治理’的老路,这不是不能做到的事情.政府需要意识到,制定较高的环保标准今后会得到高效利用的巨额回报.要对外国投资者提高环保门槛,中国有巨大的市场,政府可以同外国投资者谈判,以市场和廉价劳动力来交换最好的技术.不要担心投资者会走掉,他们总会回来的.最初,他们会拿着好技术来投资,你们提高环保门槛,也许会吓走一部分人,但中国的市场是如此巨大,很多人还会回来,接着磨嘴皮子,你们不要答应.最后,他们会带着最好的技术来中国.印度的新德里走的就是这条路.10年前,那里有两家欧洲和一家日本汽车厂家,政府为了吸引投资对汽车行业降低环保门槛,慢慢地,当地居民发现患呼吸道疾病、肺癌的比例越来越高,最终居民抗议政府提高环保标准,政府迫于压力制定了汽车排放的国家标准.如今,投资者对印度市场仍然趋之若鹜.”
这一设想得到了诸多与会者的认同.梅林德表示,节能减排最重要的是行动,中国已经开始了可贵的努力,不过要做的事情还有很多.特约记者 陈浩 本报记者 李芃

carbon tax烟尘排放税，又叫碳税（台湾的说法）。
Background
In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality because it has a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction.

全部展开

carbon tax烟尘排放税，又叫碳税（台湾的说法）。
Background
In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality because it has a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction.
To confront parties with the issue, the economist Arthur Pigou proposed taxing the goods (in this case fossil fuels) which were the source of the negative externality (carbon dioxide) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the goods' production to society, thereby internalizing the costs associated with the goods' production. A tax on a negative externality is termed a Pigovian tax, and should equal the marginal damage costs.
A carbon tax is an indirect tax — a tax on a transaction — as opposed to a direct tax, which taxes income. As a result, some American conservatives have supported such a carbon tax because it taxes at a fixed rate, independent of income, which complements their support of a flat tax.[2]
Prices of carbon (fossil) fuels are expected to continue increasing as more countries industrialize and add to the demand on fuel supplies. In addition to creating incentives for energy conservation, a carbon tax would put renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal on a more competitive footing, stimulating their growth. Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker suggested (February 6, 2007) that "it would be wiser to impose a tax on oil, for example, than to wait for the market to drive up oil prices."[3]
[edit] Social cost of carbon
Main article: Economics of global warming
Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of damages and benefits from climate change across the globe, the social cost of carbon (SCC), expressed in terms of future net benefits and costs that are discounted to the present, are now available. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$–10 per tonne of carbon (US$–3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)[4]
One must be very careful when comparing weights of carbon versus carbon dioxide, since carbon comprises only 27.29% (12.0107 / [12.0107 + 2 × 15.9994]) of the mass of carbon dioxide. In simple terms, there are only 27 tonnes of carbon in 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
In an October, 2006, report entitled the Stern Review by then HM Treasury official and former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, he states that climate change could affect growth which could be cut by one-fifth unless drastic action is taken.[5] Stern has warned that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.[6] Stern’s report[7] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The report has had significant political effects: Australia reported two days after the report was released that they would allot AU$60 million to projects to help cut greenhouse gas emissions.[8] The Stern Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere.[9][10]
According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s.[11] A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared "Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now."[12] It noted that weather risks for UK households and property were already increasing by 2–4% per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. As a result insurance premiums are rising. In the UK the insurance industry normally offers insurance against natural disasters, however there is a risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some, and it has been mooted that cover may be withdrawn in some areas entirely unless there is government backing.[13]
In the U.S., according to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.[14] Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade.[15] These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.
[edit] Border Issues
Concerns have been raised about carbon leakage which is the tendency for energy-intensive industries to migrate from nations with a carbon tax to those nations without a carbon tax where some of the receiving nations might be less energy-efficient. A possible antidote is for carbon-taxing countries to levy carbon-equivalent fees on imports from non-taxing nations.
[edit] Petroleum (motor gasoline, diesel, jet fuel)
Many OECD countries have taxed fuel directly for many years for some applications; for example, the UK imposes duty directly on vehicle hydrocarbon oils, including petrol and diesel fuel. The duty is adjusted to ensure that the carbon content of different fuels is handled with equivalence.[16]
While a direct tax should send a clear signal to the consumer, its use as an efficient mechanism to influence consumers' fuel use has been challenged in some areas:[17]
* There may be delays of a decade or more as inefficient vehicles are replaced by newer models and the older models filter through the 'fleet'.
* There may be practical political reasons that deter policy makers from imposing a new range of charges on their electorate.
* There is some evidence that consumers' decisions on fuel economy are not entirely aligned to the price of fuel. In turn, this can deter manufacturers from producing vehicles that they judge have lower sales potential. Other efforts, such as imposing efficiency standards on manufacturers, or changing the income tax rules on taxable benefits, may be at least as significant.
* In many countries fuel is already taxed to influence transport behavior and to raise other public revenues. Historically, they have used these fuel taxes as a source of general revenue, as their experience has been that the price elasticity of fuel is low, thus increasing fuel taxation has only slightly impacted on their economies. However, in these circumstances the policy behind a carbon tax may be unclear.
Some also note that a suitably priced tax on vehicle fuel may also counterbalance the "rebound effect" that has been observed when vehicle fuel consumption has improved through the imposition of efficiency standards. Rather than reduce their overall consumption of fuel, consumers have been seen to make additional journeys or purchase heavier and more powerful vehicles.[18]
[edit] Calculation
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (May 2008)
Some states in the USA are considering the imposition of fuel taxes. One calculation method is as follows: According to the EIA, emissions total about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of petroleum (2.4 kilograms per litre, 2.4 kg/L), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 ($110 per tonne of CO2) would translate to a tax of about $1.00 per gallon ($0.26 per litre). To be precise: Emissions are 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon of motor gasoline, 22.384 pounds of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel, and 21.095 pounds of CO2 per gallon of jet fuel (2344.3 g CO2 per L of motor gasoline, 2682.2 g CO2 per L of diesel fuel, and 2527.7 g CO2 per L of jet fuel).[19] So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $0.978 per gallon of motor gasoline, $1.119 per gallon of diesel fuel, and $1.055 per gallon of jet fuel ($0.258 per litre of motor gasoline, $0.296 per litre of diesel fuel, and $0.279 per litre of jet fuel). At a price between $2.50 and $5.00 per gallon, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise fuel prices by 40–20%.
For the purpose of looking at electricity generation, emissions total about 155 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs (66.6 g/MJ), so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 ($110 per tonne of CO2) translates to a tax of about $7.75 per million BTUs ($7.35 per GJ). To be precise: The emissions are 156.425 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs from motor gasoline, 161.386 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs from diesel fuel, and 156.258 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs from jet fuel (67.2506 g of CO2 per MJ from motor gasoline, 69.3835 g of CO2 per MJ from diesel fuel, 67.1788 g of CO2 per MJ from jet fuel).[19] So a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $7.82 per million BTUs of motor gasoline, $8.07 per million BTUs of diesel fuel, and $7.81 per million BTUs of jet fuel ($7.41 per gigajoule (GJ) from motor gasoline, $7.65 per GJ from diesel fuel, $7.41 per GJ from jet fuel).
[edit] Natural gas
According to the EIA, emissions total 120.6 pounds of CO2 per thousand cubic feet, i.e., 60.3 tons per million cubic feet, so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $6.03 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas.[19] At a price of between $4 and $10 per thousand cubic feet, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 would raise natural gas prices by 60–150%.
For the purpose of looking at electricity generation: emissions total 117.08 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs,[19] so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of $5.854 per million BTUs.
[edit] Coal
According to the EIA, emissions per ton of coal range from 1.40 tons of CO2 to 2.84 tons of CO2, depending on the type of coal (1.40 for lignite, 1.86 for subbituminous, 2.47 for bituminous, and 2.84 for anthracite, to be precise),[19] so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of between $140 and $284 per ton of coal, depending on the type ($140 for lignite, $186 for subbituminous, $247 for bituminous, and $284 for anthracite). The price of coal delivered to electric utilities nationwide averaged $27.34 per ton in 2004;[20] for that price, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 means a price increase of 500–1,000% depending on the type (512% for lignite, 680% for subbituminous, 903% for bituminous, and 1039% for anthracite).
Because of the differences in the carbon content of different types of coal, it is easier to do the calculations in terms of BTUs rather than tons of coal. So: Emissions per million BTUs range from 205 to 227 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs (215.4 for lignite, 212.7 for subbituminous, 205.3 for bituminous, and 227.4 for anthracite, to be precise),[19] so a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates to a tax of about $10 per million BTUs, depending on the type of coal ($10.77 for lignite, $10.635 for subbituminous, $10.265 for bituminous, and $11.37 for anthracite).
[edit] Electricity
The impact of a carbon tax on electricity prices depends on the amount of CO2 generated along with the electricity, and that depends on the type of fuel used and the efficiency ("heat rate") of the generator. At 100% efficiency, 3413 BTU = 1 kW·h.
In terms of fuel use, note from above that CO2 emissions per million BTUs (293 kW·h) range from 117.08 pounds of CO2 for natural gas and about 155 pounds of CO2 for petroleum to between 205 and 227 pounds of CO2 for coal, and that a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 therefore translates into a tax per million BTUs that ranges from $5.854 per million BTUs for natural gas and about $7.75 per million BTUs for petroleum to between $10.27 and $11.37 per million BTUs for coal. For comparison purposes: in 2005, fuel prices to electricity generators per million BTU were $7.70 for oil, $8.18 for natural gas, $1.53 for coal, and $0.48 for nuclear.[21][22] Current electricity prices are in the neighborhood of $0.08 per kW·h.
Old-style generators have a heat rate in the ballpark of 10,000 BTUs per kW·h.[23][24] At that heat rate, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates into a tax of $0.05854 per kW·h for natural gas, about $0.0775 per kW·h for petroleum, and between $0.1027 and $0.1137 per kW·h for coal. As noted above, current electricity prices are in the neighborhood of $0.08 per kW·h.
New-style combined-cycle gas turbines currently (2005) use 6,572 BTUs per kW·h (51.93% efficient), a number that is expected to decline to 6,333 by 2015.[22] At these heat rates, a tax of $100 per ton of CO2 translates into a tax of $0.0385 per kW·h for natural gas using 2005 technology and a tax of $0.0371 per kW·h for natural gas using 2015 technology and considering only emissions at the generator.
New-style combined-cycle coal gasification units curr