In the mid-2018 elections, the Americans took part in at least seven countries. These measures aimed to impose tax on carbon emissions from the share of electricity from renewed energy.
Campaigns that defeat the energy and climate policy initiatives are funded by major oil and gas companies and utility companies. In almost every case they won. At the same time, the voter has chosen a lot of politicians, who promised to reduce the flow of the country's gateway. These leaders may potentially carry out other policies.
Just as the majority of environmental economists think that strong policy will help in climate change. And, I think the market-based policy, as carbon tax, is the best way to do it. But after the 2018 mediation, you may need supporters of this policy to support politicians instead of implementing them rather than trying to change the initiative of ballot papers.
There is no national rule
Since the climate change is a global issue, it may seem strange that the American states, countries and cities have to falsify their policies. In other countries, national priority is usually preceded by this priority.
But the federal government failed to address climate change, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has effectively imposed the greenhouse gas reserves over the last decade due to the "resignation" of the Supreme Court that these emissions are contaminated,
After the Congress failed to make a comprehensive climate legislation, Barack Obama's administration, he explained to the deputies and relied on the executive order to create a clean energy plan that regulates carbon dioxide.
But President Donald Trump, who recently said about climate change, is "not aware that he is manmade" and that he thinks he's "changing back", finally ended all federal climate action to dismantle a clean power plan and decisive to pull Paris climate deal.
Many countries fill the vacuum of this climate management. For example, by 2045, California becomes fully neutral in carbon.
But every state is moving rapidly in this direction, climate activists fear. Voter-oriented initiatives are one way out of this problem. These measures are taken by a simple building: Maybe citizens should be provided with a ballot paper to force state policymakers and legislators to regulate the measures that could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which result in climate change.
As an economist, I see pollution as a classic case of market failure. If the government does not regulate carbon pollution, the market produces too much. Because excess pollution will help climate change, this will eventually cause economic damage.
Moreover, there is a strong economic argument prepared in favor of policy like Washington carbon tax. Some economists call this type of policy a "market-based policy" as a "management and control" policy, rather than a renewable portfolio, with state mandates to utilize unlimited proportions of renewable energy such as solar, etc. Wind power.
For the purpose of reducing this pollution, market-based policies, economists generally agree, can achieve lower value than command-and-control policies because the market-based policy is strictly strict.
There are two main ways that Massachusetts, New York and other countries are trying to reduce the carbon footprint to solve this problem. The first is market-based policy: capital and trading, otherwise known as emissions trading systems. Also emissions traders know that this approach is the total emission permitted on a complex level, and then emits emissions from factories, utilities and other monitors through a free or auction.
The second is stronger through renewable portfolio standards. Once the states reach the mark, they can make more ambitious goals. When the government fails to do so or take other steps to prevent climate change and environmental protection from the risks associated with fossil fuel, it is one work to have a voter.
It does not always work.
Indeed, Arizona voters rejected measures for their 2018 ballots that increased their renewable energy target by 50 percent to 15 percent by a huge margin.
A similar event was won in Nevada. But until it comes into force, in 2020 the voter should be approved for the second time.
Most likely, the voters in Washington refused to make the country's first state tax carbon emissions.
This bulletin initiative, which got acquainted with carbon bills, was unable to support a majority of Washington's voters. This voter rejected another carbon tax event in 2016.
All energy fees are not sold. Portland, the Oregon voters, has chosen to create a 1% payout for the total receipts of new large retail sales. Increase in income will contribute to the Clean Energy Fund, which will be used to achieve the goal of reducing emissions reduction.
Other efforts could have regulated fossil fuel in the ballot box. The Florida voters changed their state constitution to abolish offshore oil drilling and strengthen the ban on state books. And California have protested against the gas tax rate revocation.
But the firades have denied the chance to force their state's new oil and gas projects to be deployed in homes, schools and hospitals in the occupied 2,500 feet.
What could be more effective than winning the concrete changes in the ballot box? Choose leaders are prone to make these changes once they are in the office. And some newly elected governors have vowed to support policies that will reduce carbon emissions
Colorado Governor Jared Polis, for instance, overcame 100% of renewable energy renewable energy by 2040. JB The pricker Illinois, Tony Eversi, Wisconsin, Greene Whitmore in Michigan and Steven Sisoloki in Nevada.
Jait Mills aims to reduce carbon emissions from the country by 2030. Michel Lujan Grissam has constantly voted Environmental legislation in New Mexico.
At the federal level the change may be the same. But many new congressmen who won the first election in 2018, including New York Alexandria Ocioio-Cortez, Shaun Casten, Illinois and Virginia Elina Luria, Reduce oil, gas and coal consumption. The Democratic Party plans to restore a special committee that focuses on climate change, officially controlling the house.
These new MPs will be more positive about climate change than their predecessors when the president is the priority.
Taxes and caps are different on carbon production, but calibration is the same challenge