Carbon Tax / Carbon Pricing

Explore the benfits of carbon pricing

November 13 2025

Large scale gloabl carbon sequestraton with hemp biochar

Creating 100 million jobs while removing 10 billion tones of CO2 per year

The economic opportunity within the carbon removal opportunity

A new study conducted by SolAbility examines whether hemp cultivation could become one of humanity’s most powerful tool for removing atmospheric CO2 – while simultaneously creating sustainable materials and economic opportunity.

We are currently seeing temperatures on a global scale that were not experienced in the last 125’000 years; CO2 concentration is higher than at any point in the last 3 million years. We urgently need to remove 10 billion tonnes of CO2 annually to limit warming to a somewhat acceptable level.

Current carbon removal technologies face severe limitations: Direct Air Capture costs $600-1,000 per tonne and requires massive energy inputs – and is, after more than 20 years of heavily subsidised research, still in its infancy. Nature-based solutions like forests take decades to mature and remain vulnerable to fire and disease. Hemp biochar offers something different: a solution that works with today’s technology, creates permanent carbon storage, and generates revenue rather than just costs.

Hemp is an highly undemanding crop, does not need fertiliser and is resistant against pest and fungi. It grows in all climates, and reaches a height of up to 4 meters in only 100 days, absorbing 8-22 tons of CO2 per hectare in the process. We already have the technologies (pyrolysis) to produce biochar, construction materials, and textiles from hemp, meaning hemp carbon sequestration could start immediately.

The goal of this study is to examine the feasibility of using hemp to remove the 10 billion tons of CO2 required to keep global heating at an acceptable level. Key results:

Using ~10 billion meadows/grazing land would allow to grow enough hemp to absorb 10 billion toned of CO2 per annum
Deployment to achieve this scale would require 10 years
Total capital investment requirements (including agricultural measurements, transport, processing, R&D) would require U$ 4.8 trillion distributed over 10 years
Hemp carbon sequestration is 10x cheaper than DACCS ($45 vs $600/tCO2)
Yield per hectare of hemp crop: 3-4 tonnes of biochar for permanent carbon sequestration and soil improvement; 2.5-3.5 tonnes of fibre for textiles and composite materials worth $800-2,000 per tonne; and 3.5-5 tonnes of hurds for construction materials and insulation worth $200-500 per tonne
Hemp co-products offset costs (even with price collapse due to increased supply): hemp products could create a market worth several trillion dollars by 2025
Overall pay-back time of the investments is expected to occur after 11 years under the most conservative scenario, and less then 3 years in the most optimistic case
Low energy requirements (feasible with current grid infrastructure)

The full article and report can be accessed here.

Hemp carbon yield potential by country

Potential annual hemp carbon removal (global)

Global deployment of hemp biochar as carbon removal would create 100-150 million jobs globally (taking into account job replacement in agriculture, construction material and textile industries) – one of the largest job creation programs in history. These jobs would primarily benefit rural communities in developing countries where employment is most desperately needed.

Hemp biochar represents more than a climate solution – it’s an opportunity to demonstrate that environmental restoration and economic development can align. By creating value from carbon removal, generating employment for millions, and producing sustainable materials for the growing bio-economy, this approach offers a pathway to both climate stability and shared prosperity.

The full article and report can be accessed here.

The energy transition is now inevitable.

Renewable energy – solar, wind in combination with batteries (and in the future: geothermal energy) are now the cheapest form of energy available.

Modelling future energy demand and supply by extrapolating historic trends shows that there will be enough renewable electricity to replace all fossil energy by 2055 – even without climate related policies. However, a rapid transition to renewable energy could save the global economy 2% of global GNI, or U$ 4 trillion.

That is the good news.
The bad news is: the BAU (“business-as-usual”) approach is not fast enough in the face of accelerating global warming and the associated heat waves, droughts, wildfires, storms and flooding we are now seeing around the globe.

We therefore need to adapt policies to accelerate the inevitable transition to renewable energy – e.g. through fees on CO2.

The full report and modelling analysis is available here: Energy Transition Saving 4 Trillions per Year

Global energy cost rapid renewable transition

November 21 2024

Going all renewable and electric could save U$ 4 trillion per year

World could save U$ 4 trillion per year by going all renewable and electric

The energy transition is inevitable. Renewable electricity from wind and solar is now the cheapest form of energy humanity ever had at its disposal.

Electronic technology – for transport, heating, manufacturing – is much more efficient, cheaper and simpler compared to fossil-powered counterparts.
It is pure economic (renewable electricity is cheaper than oil) and efficiency considerations (electronic machines use far less energy than fossil machines).

Modelling & forecast based on user demand instead od supply considerations

There is a big difference between the energy that we consume, and the energy that we actually use. When driving a car, most of the energy contained in the gasoline is lost as heat. So what we consume is the energy contained in gasoline, but what we actually use – the transport – is only about 22% of the energy that we consume. This is governed by laws of thermo-physics and cannot be improved. It can be improved, however, with different technology: an electric motor has a theoretical energy conversion of 100%, so the energy we consume is almost equal to the energy we use. Switching to electric therefore saves a lot of energy – and with that, money.

The energy transition is now inevitable.

That is the good news. The bad news is – it is not fast enough in the face of accelerating global warming and the associated heat waves, droughts, wildfires, storms and flooding we are now seeing around the globe.

The full report and modelling analysis is available here: Energy Transition Saving 4 Trillions per Year

The four scenarios used in this energy transition modelling

Energy transition scenarios and modelling

A full global transition to renewable energy would cost approximately U$ 53 trillion. The funds for these investments could be raised simply, in three different ways:

Pricing climate emissions, progressively increasing (e.g. starting at U$ 100/tCO2e, increasing by U$ 100 every year, or U$ 150/200). For more information on carbpon or climate pricing, please read here.
Taxing the super-rich (e.g. taxing the income/wealth of the Top 1% at 10%)
Have the central banks loaning the necessary funds (given that they would immediately be re-invested in economic activities, there will be no adverse impact on inflation)
A combination of the above

Investments and cost savings:

Renewable annual cost savings vs business as usual

Cost savings of U$ 75 trillion by 2050

Because renewable energy is cheaper and electric motors and appliances more efficient than combustion engines, going all renewable and electric would have significant cost impacts for the global economy: the savings potential is more than U$ 4 trillion per year. Accumulated, this amounts to more than U$ 75 trillion by 2050.
The faster the investments are made, the higher the financial benefits will be. For more information, download the full modelling report here.

CO2 emissions:

Global energy prices renewable energy in comparision to fossil energy

Net-Zero could be reached in 10 years

Even in a business-as-usual scenario, energy-related CO2 emissions will be eliminated by 2055. Unfortunatelly, that is not fast enough to save humanity from extinction.

By applying a stringent carbon fee with a 50% cash-back element, net-zero could be reached within 10 years. However, this would require global co-ordination and political willingness, both of which appear a remote possibility at the moment.

That is the good news. The bad news is – it is not fast enough in the face of rapidly accelerating global warming and the associated heat waves, droughts, wildfires, storms and flooding we are now seeing around the globe. We are allready seeing feedback loops in full swing – so only the most radical plans are good enough.

We are painfully aware that implementing any of these scenarios would require political courage and willignes as well as global co-ordination, all of which seems nowhere to be detectable at this very moment.

For more information on how radical rationality could solve the probllem of climate change, download the full report here: Energy Transition Saving 4 Trillions per Year

The climate feed-back loops already in play:

November 18 2024

Climate feedback loops…

The Climate Feedback Loops

All the climate feedback loops already underway:

Melting ice sheets and glaciers revealing dark water/ground -> more heat absorption -> more heating
More wildfires -> more CO2 release -> more heating
Biodiversity loss & higher temperatures -> less CO2 absorption -> more heating
Permafrost thawing -> releasing CH4 -> more heating
Higher temperature -> air can hold more water vapour -> less clouds -> less sunlight reflection -> more heating
Higher evaporation -> more H20 in the atmosphere (water vapour is a GHG too) -> more heat trapping -> more heating
Cleaner shipping fuels and less burning coal -> less aerosols -> less clouds -> more heating
Ocean acidification -> less CO2 absorption -> more heating

It is five past twelve to start action on climate change.

We still believe globally-co-ordinated pricing of GHGs is the most efficient, socially just and economically beneficial way to reduce climate emissions, fast.

The Climate Pricing Modelling Report is available here: ClimaTax Report Executive Summary

August 1 2024

How to achieve Net-Zero 2030 in the UK

UK: How to achieve Net-Zero by 2030 and improve the economy

Just Stop Oil is demanding that the UK endorses the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and completely phases pout fossil fuels until 2030. Unfortuntaely, they do not show how to get there.

Climate science would definitely agree with that target –we have been more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels since May 2023, a target that was not supposed to be surpassed if we reach Net-Zero emissions by 2050. Climate change is accelerating and what that means we are experiencing right now: heatwaves, wild-fires, rain bombs, floodings, landslides. The combination of weather extremes will soon have severe impacts on global food production.

According to a recent global survey, 80% of the population want their governments “to do more” about climate change. Most people would happily agree with phasing out fossil fuels sooner than later, provided they still have a heated home and access to transportation. Where we want to go is clear – but how do we get there? Could the UK possibly phase out oil, gas and coal by 2030? Is that technically possible, and economically fesasible? What would be the investment needed for a full transition to a fossil free society by 2030?

In order to demonstrate the economic feasibility of the 2030 Net-Zero transition, the investment needs calculations are based on a 1-1 transition, i.e. generating all current energy needs with renewable electricity, and replacing all fossil fuelled technology (road transport, heating) with electric alternatives (EVs, heat pumps):

Sufficient renewable energy generation (wind, solar) to cover all energy demands by 2030
Extending electric grid capacity
Provision of electricity storage (batteries, pumped storage, chemical storage) to guarantee grid stability
The replacement of all fossil power appliances (heating) with electric heating systems (heat pumps) by 2030
The replacement of fossil-power vehicles with electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030, including the relevant charging infrastructure

At first sight – before taking into account energy cost savings, jobs created, and improved health down the line – the numbers appear quite staggering

Total investment requirements for the energy transition amount to £1’240 billion from 2025-2030.
More than 50% (app- £670 billion) of these investments is required for the replacement of the road transport fleet (cars, trucks, coaches). However, through efficiency gains, smart vehicle sharing, improved public transport systems, and traffic flow management the cost of transport replacement could be reduced by up to 40%
The development of the renewable energy infrastructure, including distribution (grid updates) and storage (batteries) amounts to £410 billion (on top of “naturally” occurring investments)

For details, download the Report here:

Achieving net-zero by 2030

Investements required 2025 to 2030 to achieve Net-Zero by 2030 under a 1-1 scenario (replacement of all fossil infrastructure with electric alternatives). Efficiency gains, smart public transport, upgraded inner cities and shared community transport concepts could significantly reduce the investments required for road transport.

UK energy mix (primary energy) before, during and after the transition to Net-Zero. Note the dip in overall energy conszmption: primary energy refers to the total theoretical energy content of consumed energy. When transforming fossil energy to another form of energy – e.g. the movment of a car – large proportion of the energy is lost in the form of heat. Because electric appliances have a theoretical efficiency grade of 100% electricity to movment, overall energy consumption will be considerably lower than today.

Financing the energy transition

The markets alone will not come up with this kind of capital financing without government intervention. The government therefore needs to raise capital (which in turn will lead to additional private investment. Where should the capital come from?

Carbon pricing at a rate of U$200 equivalent per tCO2e, rising by U$150 every year. Increasing the cost of oil/gas/coal accelerates the diversion of private and institutional capital from fossils to renewables. However, it also initially increases the cost of energy (until the cheaper renewable energy is available). 50% of the carbon pricing revenues are therefore re-distributed per capita on a monthly basis to ensure that the lower income segments have equal or more disposable income at their hands
a border carbon adjustment tariff of 5% to protect the energy intensive sectors of the domestic industries,
a temporary 10% tax on the highest incomes,
a temporary wealth tax on the super-rich,
and a modest Tobin tax on stock trading at 0.1% could raise approximately £1050 billion

These revenues are sufficient to cover 100% of the installation of the renewable energy infrastructure, as well as subsidising 50% of replacement of fossil heating devices with heat pumps, subsidising 30% of vehicle replacement, and a per-capita cash-payment to the people to counterbalance for initially rising energy costs

For details, download the Report here:

Achieving net-zero by 2030

CO2 emissions from energy usage will drop to zero by 2030. Due to technological feasible and economicall viable alternative to the current fuel-powered commercial aviation, avaiation emissions are set to continue for some time after 2030.

Energy costs as percentage of GDP before, during and after the energy transition. Energy costs will rise for the first 2 years before dropping to levels at around 2% from nearly 4% of GDP before the transition. Investments and monthly cash payment per capita are off-setting the temprarely increasing energy cost.

The Benefits

Thanks to the per-capita pay-back scheme, the average citizen would have more disposable income to spend during the transition (despite initially rising energy cost)
The national cost for energy would fall between 1.2% to 1.4% of GDP after the transition, freeing significant resources for other purposes
The availability of cheap energy is making the UK economy more competitive
Most of the costs of the energy transition are investments. A rapid energy transition would have a positive effect on GDP and employment.
It is estimated that the energy transition would create between 1.5 and 2 million new jobs.
Additional benefits, such as better environment, better population health have bot been quantified for the purpose of this study

For details, download the Report here:

Achieving net-zero by 2030

While the carbon-pricing initially affects energy costs, the short-term impacts are more than covered through investments and the cash-back element. The Net-Zero initiative is net positive on the economy and GDP from day one.

Thanks to the money-back component, the average family will have more disposable income at their hands despite initially higher energy costs, benefiting local businesses.

For details, download the Report here:

Achieving net-zero by 2030

(Research conducted by SolAbility Sustainable Intelligence)

Could the UK possibly end oil/gas/coal by 2030? Modelling technology options, cost, and potential finance mechanisms: UK Fossil Free 2030 – Challenges & Opportunities

June 9 2024

Phasing out fossil energy in 10 years

All renewable in 10 years

Ending fossil energy in 10 years.
Reducing the global energy bill by 50%.
Increasing power purchasing parity of the lower 50%.

Good for the Planet. Good for the Economy. Good for the People.

The Global Climate Tax Scheme:

We price CO2, in every country, at the same rate globally, at the point of final sale (of fuels, gas, coal), like a VAT.
The climate tax starts at U$ 100 per ton of CO2 equivalent, increasing by U$100 every year, to give the economy time to adapt
The climate tax is levied, managed and redistributed at the national level
50% of the climate tax revenues are directly re-distributed to the people, in cash, equally per person. More than 50% of the population will have more cash in their hands (even accounting for rising costs), boosting local businesses and the economy
40% invested in the renewable infrastructure – electricity generation, grids, storage, public transport, and the replacement of fossil-fuelled equipment
3% for reforestation, mitigation, and adaption
7% in a global fund in support of the lesser developed and most affected countries

No more oil, gas, coal.

A global climate tax, 50% re-invested in renewable energy infrastructure (generation, transmission, storage, appliances) generates sufficient revenues to replace all fossil energy demand within 10 years. Given that the markets will react to public policies, this target could potentially be achieved even earlier.

The future global energy mix, based on a global climate tax:

“Primary energy consumption” refers to the total energy usage, including losses. Because electric appliances are much more efficient that combustion appliances (e.g. fossil fuel car efficiency grade: 20-25%, EV efficiency grade:80-90%), electrification of the energy will significantly drop primary energy demand.Text content

The simulation is based on least-cost technologies, currently wind and solar PV. Future technological developments could potentially increase the share of utility-scale geothermal and tidal/wave electricity generation.

For more details on the simulation, read the Global Climate Tax Report.

Climate emissions from energy usage:

Emission reduction potential with carbon pricing

Global GHG emissions under different climate tax levels (starting at U$50/tCO2e, increasing U$50 annually; U$100 increasing U$100 annually; U$200, increasing U$150 annually), and business-as-usual.

The pace of the de-carbonisation depends on the level of taxes levied on climate emissions. Simulation of different tax levels and their impacts on energy transition, the economy and the people indicates that an initial tax of U$100/tCO2e in creasing by U$100 every year, seems to be the most promising way, replacing fossil fuels after roughly ten years.

Good for the Economy

Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil energy, and rapid deploymenet will make renewable electricity even cheaper. However, introducing a climate tax will lead to higher energy costs for a short period of time before the higher efficiency and lower cost of renewables drives global energy costs down to less than 50% of current energy cost:

Global energy costs as percent of global GNI under different climate tax levels (starting at U$50/tCO2e, increasing U$50 annually; U$100 increasing U$100 annually; U$200, increasing U$150 annually).

Setting the climate tax per ton of CO2 too high might have a shock impact on the global economy. The simulation shows that a climate tax at U$100/tCO2, and then increasing the rate by U$100 every year, seems the most feasible climate tax level.

However – because the climate tax revenues are directly re-invested into the economy, the overall global economic impact of the climate tax is positive. The additional investment through building a renewable energy infrastructure and the cash-back going into local economies more than offsets the initial higher energy cost.

Climate Tax: Global energy cost and investment impact

The initally rising energy costs are off-set by climate cash-back and investments in the enewable infrastructure. The net impacts of a global climate tax would be economically positive, right from the the initial stage.

Good for the People

Rich people consume more than poor people, including services (heating/cooling, road transport, flying) that consume energy. The more a person consumes, the higher the taxes paid. Vice-versa, for poorer people that consume less energy, the tax burden is smaller.

When the tax revenues are re-distributed per capita, nearly 60% of the population will have more disposable income in their hands than before the climate tax – boosting local businesses and the local economy.

Income change by income group due to the climate tax

Income changes for different income brackets based on a climate tax starting at U$100/tCO2, accounting for increased energy costs and per-capita cash-back. This graph is calculated based on global averages. A break-down by country level is available.

Generally speaking, the income changes for the lower 50% income brackets is higher the lower the current GNI of a country is.

The additional income generated by the climate tax cash-back benefits local small businesses and the local economies.

More details, including detailed simulations of the globally co-ordinated fossile tax can be found here.

What’s at stake

In one word: everything.

Since May 4th, 2023, the ocean temperature has set new records, every single day.

Sea surface temperatures have set daily ecord since May 2023. 71% of our Plant’s surface is water. What happens on the seas happens on land. Data by Copernicus

2023 laready has passed the 2050 goal of staying below 1.5 degrees of warming. The running average of global land temperatures (2m above ground) since May 2023 is more than 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, and we see what is happening: heat, droughts, wild-fires, rain bombs, hail, monster storms, flooding. It is only a question of possibly very short time before we see reduced crop harvests, nearly everywhere, that will only accelerate in the future. Without sufficient food, there is no stable society.

Politics

We have all the technology, the financial means, and the political tools (taxes!) which are needed to transition to a renewable economy.

Unfortunatelly – there is no sign anywhere of a workable plan to make the energy transition happen. Implementing a global climate tax would require governments to come together, to agree, and to implement a common policy. Globally. That is currently not the case.

In order to give us a fighting chance, we need pressure bottom-up (the people) and top-down (businesses) on governments to act on our behalf.

December 1 2023

COP28: Instead of “Somebody” “Should” “Do Something” “Sometime”

Why is nobody even talking about the simple, efficient and effective solution?

For God’s sake. This is not possible. Is it?

We can put a man on the moon. We can talk to someone on the opposite side of this beaitiful planet; we can even see that person, moving, in real time. With less than 200 grams of metal, glass, and plastic in our hands, put together in a particular way by human ingenuity, according to the laws of nature. A mobile phone is applied physics. So is global warming.

Every child shown a visualisation of 2023 climate data against the past can see immediately that something is wrong. It’s simple physics. We can’t make a deal with the laws of nature.

Whether it’s surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, the melting of ice shelfs, or extrem weather events – all climate indicators in 2023 are beyond everything human kind has ever experienced. The earth energy imbalance is the amount of energy (measured in wats per sqm of earth surface) that should, but now cannot radiate back to space because of CO2 and the other so-called “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere that absorb heat energy. This extra amount of energy that cannot escape is now equivalent to 1.35 million Hiroshima Bombs – each & every day. The surplus energy translates into the storms, the hail, the rain bombs, the floodings, the heat waves and droughts we have experienced in 2023, too many to count. As long as we keep burning oil the energy imbalance is increasing – meaning what we are experiencing is only the start.

Our civilisation is not ready for this. It is only a question of time before we’ll see what scientists call “multiple bread-basket failure”: staple food harvests are affected by heat, and/or drought, hail storms, and floodings. We are looking at global food shortages.

We have cheap and efficient technologies – wind, solar, battery costs are coming down rapidly. It is only a question of accelerating the market developments. Making fossils more expensive, renewables even cheaper: taxing fossil fuels. Yet… we seem to be unable to find a common path to replace the 19th century technology of burning oil, with something far more efficient and cheaper we already have: renewable electricity.

Meanwhile, 70’000 people are descending on Dubai for COP28 to squabble over a formulation they will sign before the leave again: should we (who?) at some point (how?) “phase down” or “phase out” oil/gas/coal? There will also be pledges for tripling renewables by 2030. That is nice, but since renewables are now so much cheaper than the fossil 19th-century technology, the market will do that anyway. We all know that that is not enough. Lesser developed countries are calling – rightly so – for more climate loss and damage funding. Unfortunately, that is alienating the “normal” people in the “Noth” and “West” who will be asked to bankroll this funding – people who did not wreck the climate by choice but simply by being born into a system running on fossils, people who have never benefited from the profits generated by and for oil fossil executives and shareholders and oil exporting countries. If that fund is not substantially covered by oil exporting countries and oil companies, it is understandable if other coutries are reluctant to contribute.

Whatever the exact outcomes of COP28 will be: it’s all about pledges that “someone” “should do” “somewhen”.

No how. No plan. No global framework or policy to put pledges into action. No framework for financing the transition that could save us.

The simple solutions are not even on the table: Taxing oil/gas/coal. Worldwide. And then use the revenues as climate cash: cash for the people, and to finance the energy transition.

Carbon Tax / Carbon Pricing

Large scale gloabl carbon sequestraton with hemp biochar

Creating 100 million jobs while removing 10 billion tones of CO2 per year

The economic opportunity within the carbon removal opportunity

Hemp carbon yield potential by country

Potential annual hemp carbon removal (global)

The energy transition is now inevitable.

Going all renewable and electric could save U$ 4 trillion per year

World could save U$ 4 trillion per year by going all renewable and electric

Modelling & forecast based on user demand instead od supply considerations

The energy transition is now inevitable.

The four scenarios used in this energy transition modelling

Investments and cost savings:

Cost savings of U$ 75 trillion by 2050

CO2 emissions:

Net-Zero could be reached in 10 years

Climate feedback loops…

The Climate Feedback Loops

All the climate feedback loops already underway:

How to achieve Net-Zero 2030 in the UK

UK: How to achieve Net-Zero by 2030 and improve the economy

Financing the energy transition

The Benefits

Phasing out fossil energy in 10 years

All renewable in 10 years

Ending fossil energy in 10 years.

Reducing the global energy bill by 50%.

Increasing power purchasing parity of the lower 50%.

Good for the Planet. Good for the Economy. Good for the People.

The Global Climate Tax Scheme:

No more oil, gas, coal.

Good for the Economy

Good for the People

Income change by income group due to the climate tax

What’s at stake

Politics

COP28: Instead of “Somebody” “Should” “Do Something” “Sometime”

Why is nobody even talking about the simple, efficient and effective solution?