Subscribe for 12 months with recurring billing - $199

Buy 12 months of subscription time - $199


Search Uranium Stocks
Uranium Price
Our RSS Feed

Uranium Updates

Enter your email address:

Follow Us on Twitter
« The future of nuclear energy | Main | UK nuclear power stations 'could be forced to close' after Brexit »

A carbon tax can help keep nuclear energy in the picture


For years, economists, politicians and pundits have been debating the pros and cons of using a “carbon tax” to combat climate change.  In its simplest form, the tax would be a per-ton levy on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power stations and industrial boilers that are fueled by coal, oil or natural gas.

Those in favor argue that by adopting such a tax we could rid ourselves of dozens of burdensome regulations and mandates that inhibit investment and economic growth. Unlike the distorting effects of regulation, a tax on emissions would give companies flexibility to come up with their own cost-effective strategies for reducing CO2.  Indeed, virtually all of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory oversight over carbon emissions could eventually be eliminated as well as President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

Opponents of a carbon tax make two basic arguments.  The first is that a “tax is a tax,” and consumers and businesses who will ultimately bear the burden are already over-taxed.  The second, and more salient argument against a carbon tax, is the difficulty in estimating the “social cost of carbon (SCC),” a necessary first step in determining the level of the tax.  In theory, this term represents the economic cost caused by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions or its equivalent. Currently set at $36 per ton by the EPA, the social cost of carbon underpins justifications for policies dealing with everything from power plants to car mileage to refrigerator efficiency.  In reality, the SCC is a malleable concept driven largely by analysts’ initial assumptions and the choice of model utilized to generate dollar estimates.

read more.....

No rate hikes in the near future should have sent gold higher, but it didnt, gold dropped....

If you would like to know which stocks we are buying and selling please join us atStock Trader our premium investment service.

Subscribe for 12 months with recurring billing - $199

Buy 12 months of subscription time - $199

If you are new to investment in the precious metals sector then you can subscribe of our FREE newsletters regarding gold stockssilver stocks and uranium stocks, just click on the links and enter your email address and we will email you our articles along with other interesting posts.

Please remember to check your spam folder once you have subscribed to ensure that our verification email has not gone astray and you are getting our emails.





Winners of the GoldDrivers Stock Picking Competition 2007 



 Follow us on TWITTER @goldprices



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>