Carbon tax in France, here we go again ... Ecolomania?

[Did67]

Did67, I'm a million times in agreement with you !!

Friendly. I felt a little Martian on this thread and wondered if I was going to stop posting !!!

(But I'll be so happy that a million people once agree with me!)

[bamboo]

Did67, I'm a million times in agreement with you !!

Friendly. I felt a little Martian on this thread and wondered if I was going to stop posting !!!

(But I'll be so happy that a million people once agree with me!)

I too agree with you!
I already said it and will repeat it a million times
But actually, everyone does not agree here ...

[Did67]

For electricity it will be necessary to take into account the share of fossil energy used to produce electricity.

Jancovici is more radical: for there to be a good reduction of our energy consumption (thus isolation, less agitation, to consume local, etc ..) and not transfer to a less taxed energy (in this case the electricity ), it defends carbon taxation of electricity.

I share his opinion.

[Christophe]

Just about electricity: a small town in the USA is an example!

The carbon tax? A success in Boulder, a small town in Colorado

While in France, the introduction of a carbon tax is causing fierce debates, the municipality of Boulder, Colorado, has quietly doubled the amount of its own. At the heart of a country not very sensitive to ecology and a nation allergic to taxes, [b] this city of 100 inhabitants, nestled at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, was the first in the world to implement , in 000, a local "climate-energy contribution".

(...)

The carbon tax has been approved at 60%. All of the big decisions in Boulder have been community driven. "

(...)

Unlike the federal state, Boulder adhered to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires it to drop 20% its CO2 emissions by 2012. Here, electricity consumption, produced by coal and gas plants, generates the bulk of emissions. The carbon tax is therefore calculated in proportion to the electricity bill and levied by the operator XCel Energy, which transfers it to the city.

Residences, businesses, industries: all subscribers pay. The only way out: "If the consumer asks to receive a share of electricity from renewable sources, which is a little more expensive to purchase, he does not pay a tax on this green energy", specifies Jonathan Koehn, responsible for the environment in the city. The average cost until now has been $ 16 per year for a household, $ 45 for a business. We'll have to double the stake.

Suite and source http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2 ... _3244.html

Another one of which I made a subject because it is so "good": https://www.econologie.com/forums/cce-vive-l ... t8336.html

[jlt22]

Hi,

A good way to recover your carbon tax while saving energy

http://www.idelux.be/servlet/Repository?IDR=6443

[nonoLeRobot]

Finally a journalist who reflected 2 second before writing:

Why a carbon tax well done could benefit the most modest:
http://www.marianne2.fr/Taxe-carbone-la ... 82019.html

[Christophe]

Of course Nono but in your hypothesis there is "well done" ... THAT IS ZE PROBLEM!

If you had not seen this one: https://www.econologie.com/forums/cce-vive-l ... t8336.html ?

jlt22 the .pdf Idelux (they are the ones who manage our park to contain here) is excellent, I will put it in the downloads of the site! Ay: https://www.econologie.com/le-gaspillage ... -4138.html

[Christophe]

Still some analyzes but in video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeZoCFm4iSE (it's a little politis ... anyway )

A funny thing found on the same site: http://www.politis.fr/article7967.html

[C moa]

Read this morningif it is confirmed, as well as saying that it is a tax that on the one hand will certainly not serve to change our behavior to better consume our energy and secondly that will serve no purpose at all.

The idea of ​​a carbon tax is well TAXER much that pollutes a lot (in terms of CO2 of course) and TAXER little one that pollutes little and not TAXER who does not pollute ....

Typically, a person who owns a large house with little insulation and who is heating up with oil or natural gas is more taxed than someone who has a well-insulated house with geothermal energy and someone who has a passive house is not taxed.
The same reasoning can be followed for transport or business.

Outside here, it has nothing to do with creating a TAX which is offset by a tax deduction or even a tax credit. Explain to me how in this context, we will encourage people to change their behavior ??

@nono: I agree that for once there is a journalist who has a little more thought than the others to write his article, it remains nonetheless that on the bottom the form of this tax is a beautiful bullshit. Explain to me what can be done with a green check of 70 € ??? When it comes to changing your boiler / chimney, do an insulation from the outside .... It's a little take people for cons not?

Personally, I invested a lot in insulation and other and suddenly I reduced my LPG consumption by 60% in two years. But it cost me xxxxxx X 70 €.

What is needed is really very cheap energy taxing today (natural gas, electricity) to really change.
For example, I was startled to discover that there is little to replace single glazing in apartments of 70 years by double glazing (I mean not even a double glazing IR) gave a return on investment of 17 years. .. because they were heated by natural gas.

In this case, you really have to be motivated to replace these windows. In my case, heated with LPG (so indexed on crude), I have a return on investment of 4 5 years.

[C moa]

I particularly like the small insert on xavier Bertrand:

The contradictions of Xavier Bertrand

The carbon tax continues to provoke debate and controversy. Until Xavier Bertrand, the secretary general of the UMP, say everything and its opposite in less than forty-eight hours. On Wednesday 2 September, the former Labor Minister was the guest of RMC. He said: "The carbon tax will not be another tax. I am not playing with words."
Two days later, Friday September 4, the same Xavier Bertrand gave an interview to Le Figaro, in which he said: "We will be in the direction of history. I will not play with words: the energy contribution is a tax, I assume it. "

And his bullshit ?? He assumes it ??