A Quote by Bill McKibben

A price on carbon sufficient to keep 80% of current reserves underground, rebated directly to citizens. — © Bill McKibben
A price on carbon sufficient to keep 80% of current reserves underground, rebated directly to citizens.
Although population and consumption are societal issues, technology is the business of business. If economic activity must increase tenfold over what it is today to support a population nearly double its current size, then technology will have to reduce its impact twenty-fold merely to keep the planet at its current levels of environmental impact. For example, to stabilize the climate we may have to reduce real carbon emissions by as much as 80 percent, while simultaneously growing the world economy by an order of magnitude.
hen the price of carbon reaches $100 a tonne, then it will become an economically viable business proposition to start taking CO? out of the atmosphere and sequestering it underground.
A cap on carbon is important because it sets a specific goal for reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050.
Note, besides, that it is no more immoral to directly rob citizens than to slip indirect taxes into the price of goods that they cannot do without.
We hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is.
Clearly the price considered most likely by the market is the true current price: if the market judged otherwise, it would quote not this price, but another price higher or lower.
Our criteria is that it's okay to invest in companies so long as they stop lobbying in Washington, stop exploring for new hydrocarbons, and sit down with every one else to plan to keep 80 percent of the reserves in the ground.
Many scientists and economists also say putting a price on carbon through carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade is necessary.
There's no free lunch. If you want an industrial economy, you need energy. If you want energy, it will produce pollution. You can have it in two forms. You can have it dissipated in the atmosphere - like carbon dioxide - which then you cannot recover, or you can have the waste concentrated in one small space like nuclear. That is far easier to deal with. The idea that you can be able to create renewable energy at a price anywhere near the current price for oil or gas or coal is a fantasy.
Natural gas is a very flexible source of energy that can help us bridge the gap between our current high-carbon economy and our zero-carbon future.
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints.
In this age of electronic money, investors are no longer seduced by a financial 'dance of a thousand veils.' Only hard and accurate information on reserves, current accounts, and monetary and fiscal conditions will keep capital from fleeing precipitously at the first sign of trouble.
When you think about the current present value of the fossil fuel reserves that are on the books, the current fossil fuel companies, the last time that that much wealth was at stake was when the South fought the Civil War.
Going to war accelerated the move from indirect to direct rule. Almost any state that makes war finds that it cannot pay for the effort from its accumulated reserves and current revenues. Almost all war-making states borrow extensively, raise taxes, and seize the means of combat - including men - from reluctant citizens who have other uses for their resources.
If we change the way the electricity sector operates, we can bring down our levels of carbon pollution, and continue the crucial task of tackling climate change. Putting a price on carbon would do this.
My whole goal in this industry nowadays is to keep doing the underground stuff, but to be able to add vocals that are sexy and underground.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!