and that's it, you're up to date. i've next planted a asks if carbon taxes are the solution to limiting carbon emissions. and david levitz, thanks for watching and hope to see you soon. here on the dance could be green. very green. all this blue b s. white wine to some lovely red. definitely pull just the yellow if that's what you present. purple apples, very special bunch of georgia, choose your favorite color. we are all set and we're watching closely in the we can use

a story behind the news. we wrote about unbiased information for 3 nights the vis piece of ancient plan, samantha take started an error or last missing majorly. without planning of course, the most logical way of stopping that is binding less of this and other fossil fuels. but that's what's happening nearly fast enough into the carbon tax and alluringly simple. i do. just put the price tag on carbon emissions that are destroying our planet. the more you pollute, the more you pay, leading and theory to less pollution and making clean alternatives more appealing. almost 30 countries worldwide have a form of it. so can the common tax stop us from polluting?

but 1st things 1st, why are we focusing on carbon? or that's because as soon as we've done this, it becomes the biggest trouble amaica. when you band co dom it's vast amounts of c, o 2. the same goes for oil and gas. carbon emissions from fossil fuels are by far the biggest pollutant that's responsible for climate change. this is regular air and this is what we're doing to all atmosphere right now. and once we turn on our son, this one starts eating up much quicker. a little bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is great because carbon dioxide is really, really good at absorbing and radiating the heat that gets reflected from the surface. it's what makes our planet warm enough to live on. but we're taking a little bit too far with all of this. we're blowing more of the stuff into the air almost every year. the only 2 dips you can see here,

the 2009 financial crisis and the curve at 19 pandemic. not exactly intentional, i'm pretty catastrophic of the context ideally would change that makes things that polluted a lot more expensive so that people will buy or use less of it. and then time this will make clean if acknowledge is cheaper and more attractive. it's so appealing because it seems so simple and logical fit drives the lowest cost ways of reducing emissions. simon, to do the works for the canadian government. it's had a former federal carbon tax since 2019. and it just sort of sends abroad signal to the marketplace that pollution shouldn't be free and, and then it kind of lets all of the actors decide for themselves how best that works in, in their businesses and in their lives. $27.00 countries in many more regions and cities have a carbon tax. it all started on surprisingly with the scandinavians,

finland, norway, and sweden, as well as poland, 1st introduced carbon taxes in the early ninety's. since then, many countries have joined the club. but the reality of a carbon tax is more complex than some economists might think. and then many different ways to tax carbon emissions. you can text the entire economy or just a specific set. some taxes only target companies of a certain size. a lot of the carbon taxes worldwide taxes on fossil fuels. that means fossil fuel fans must pay for every lita or cubic meter of oil, gas and coal they extract. but in many cases, the additional cost is passed onto the consumer, incentivizing them to use less of it. the next question is what to do with all the money you just collected. one way is to reduce other taxes in sweden. one is called this the green tax shift. this is christy on to him on he advised the swedish

government on tax policies for 10 years. one use an increase in environmental takes ation to reduce the taxes on labor that would be considered to be a growth enhancing reform. switzerland uses 2 thirds of its revenue to reduce health insurance and social security payments and invest the rest into low emission effect as canada takes it one step further. revenue we collect from that federal fuel charge. the vast majority of that is returned directly to individuals and households. true lump sum payment since it was really designed to help with the affordability of carbon pershing overall. and that's the idea of redistribution doesn't have to stay within one country. if it was spread out globally, the ritual nations could give the collective taxes to the countries of the global south, which i'm much less responsible for climate change. but i hit the hardest as

a global common tax would make that possible. a good idea in theory, but if you've ever heard anything about climate negotiations, you know that getting everybody to agree to a set tax rate is going to be really difficult for. there is another way of pricing common that needs to be mentioned. it's called emissions trading. this means putting a cap on the amount of c o $27.00 industries kind of meant a company that exceeds the limit must by extra allowances or will face penalties if a company and it's less, they can sell those allowances to other companies. this is suppose to ensure that the entire industry stays within the designated limits. a, d u, for example, as a system like this in place. the same goes for china, indonesia and mexico. together carbon taxes and emissions trading systems already cover around a quarter of a carbon emissions worldwide. so that's the theory. do they work in practice? there many,

many studies out there that try to answer this question. jessica green looked at $37.00 of them for her own way to study carbon pricing is both emissions trading systems and carbon taxes are associated with small reductions in emissions. 0 to 2 percent to be exact. not a lot, but not nothing either. in single regions. it can be significantly more like in british columbia, canada, where according to this study, emissions fell by 5 to 15 percent and 7, yes. the same goes, if you look at single industries, this study estimated that the carbon tax may have reduced u. k. power sector emissions by up to 26 percent whether a carbon tax works or not depends on how high it is. that means how much money it has to pay tongue limited carbon dioxide and metric ton of c o. 2 is what the one

way slide from new york to paris and it's the passenger or the emissions produce driving some 4000 kilometers with an average calm or binding of a 900 of these cold pretense r a guar. i have the highest carbon tax rate in 2023, followed by many european countries. but the tax rate rapidly falls to less than $20.00 for many nations. most carbon taxes are set up to become more expensive with time to the task. future investment economist and policy makers have for 40 years to find out how expensive a carbon tax has to be to work. but they agree on one thing. the price is right now, the salt too low. a carbon tax is due to only take effect upwards of 60 to a 100 euro is baton. meaning right now most countries are not taxing carbon enough, add tools. another worry about putting a price on carbon is that if $1.00 country decides to introduce attacks, the companies will just go abroad. one of the ways to prevent that is good all

terrace. that's what the you is doing. if you want to import carbon intensive goods like cement are in and steel or electricity, for example, you need to pay a carbon terrace. there also proposals to expand that idea further. the countries that introduce a way of pricing common, whether it's a tax or emissions trading could form a group that then gets better trade conditions. these so called climate clubs could incentivize other countries to join in and stop putting a price on emissions. so basically there is been opening, so you with both offer the, the air at candlestick. arguably the biggest titles are as political positions, not going to win elections by raising or even introducing new taxes. quite the opposite. the low prices of that we see for both carbon taxes and each uses is a feature. it's not above politicians, the policy makers are afraid to make carbon emissions more expensive because they

will be punished at the polls. one way around that is to reduce other expenses so i can sweetness or switzerland. and the other is tax rebates. like in canada, sitting the price of calvin lowered fast and then only gradually increasing. it is also cheap. but even then carbon taxes can be extremely contentious, as seen here in canada. even still countries like indonesia, morocco and send a go, a planning or considering a carbon tax, brazil, malaysia, vietnam nigeria and others are doing the same with emissions trading systems. overall, the share of emissions covered by common pricing has been rising steady. li if you're talking to a developing country, maybe a national carbon tax wouldn't allow the country to develop. it's not as difficult to implement as an emission trading system. if you're talking about more developed

countries, i would say that their emission trading system might be more repeating. the question is whether an acting a carbon tax or setting up a trading system is, was a political fight. and the bureaucratic effort that comes with it that may depend a lot on the country and opinions are split on this. sometimes those, those political and communications challenges can seem, can seem overwhelming by them. i think indicate in context we can, we can show that we've been able to implement an effective functioning system. i think we're going to dedicate time and resources to finding the climate crisis. and we need to do it in ways that are direct government interventions through things like technology, standards, subsidies incentive, the types of a green industrial policy that we're increasingly seeing and europe is off the considering all of the above the country still does decide to go with the common tax, they are

a few things to consider. overall carbon tax rates need to be said higher than they are right now. low income households must be protected from the not going to affect . you need to find a way to make it appealing to citizens through rebates or tax breaks elsewhere, industries of the how to move abroad. and i'm not that exposed to international competition like transportation, for example. easier to target 1st. a carbon tax is by far not as simple and effective as it sounds at 1st and it can be more trouble than it's worth it alone. one solve the problem. but putting a price on pollution is a step in the right direction. the 0 going to have a common tax. please have a sign in the common sense to describe repos videos like this every friday. the the other

buys on buying european in t v. authoritarian regime exports boil and gas to the european union and offers generous gifts to the politicians. are they really being paid to turn a blind eye to systemic human rights violations. corruption in europe. the next on d, w. eco, africa, and i, rubies here. and it's making people say, it's important for us to begin collecting this data to be able to compare it and see whether there's any health impact and this little device as opposed to how we quoted this, a low cost for you to monitor. does it more the co advocate

in 16 minutes on dw, the try see everything is connected mapped out shows the geopolitical reality. beyond the board is what makes things the way they are. all the solutions mapped out, navigating a changing world. now on youtube, march 1st around lunch, and then just go see a quote. you can make sure sure. go you. so yes, sisters have been in a coma that was caused by persecution and flight for con dreams of another world.

the boss starts june, 1st d, w, the i 0 by john a former soviet republic bounded by the caspian sea. the country's people and media are routinely suppressed then yet the country is becoming increasingly important for europe due to its considerable gas and oil reserves. punk shrub came here as an election observer on behalf of the council of europe. it was the 1st election.