Emily Cunningham

Thanks for the correction. The point remains that fossil fuel companies knew about the harms and continued anyways. BP fought against climate legislation in my state (USA) during our mid term election.https://twitter.com/emahlee/status/1162666818038722560 …

Worth digging deeper than headline. I understand BP lobbied against ineffectual elements of the state’s carbon tax. It excluded the 6 main carbon emitters & also had a carbon price too low to drive the needed change. Correct carbon taxation is good!

I personally worked on 1631 so it is much deeper than the headline for me. It was a revolutionary piece of legislation even with its shortfalls. When asked if BP would oppose legislation if it included the emitters and more taxation, they were speechless. No answer.

Agree it was a positive effort and well done on contributing to it but the whole set up on levels of carbon taxation needs equivalence otherwise it simply risks cross border leakage. Unilateral approaches run the risk of virtue signalling

I don't understand what you mean... what needs equivalence? What is cross border leakage?

Equivalent global pricing. Without that countries or individuals can simply secure cheaper energy by going to a place with zero or minimal tax.

Ah, well Washington doesn't have an income tax, yet we aren't over flooded with people from other states. I also remember reading a study about a tax in NY for the wealthy. Showed they wouldn't up and leave NY because other things tied them to home/place other than $$.

Worth reading the commentary on taxation from BP - it’s quite informative. It’s absolutely the way to drive a change in consumption. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/our-role-in-advancing-the-energy-transition/carbon-pricing.html …