Emily Cunningham

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 …

I have often thought that tobacco was a useful analogue with carbon emissions. In this case I think BP have a point. What was the logic in excluding Boeing, Alcoa - I suspect that is a good example of xborder leakage. Tho even more amazing to me was not including Centralia.

The current state of the world that BP played an active role in distorting, "perfect" climate legislation isn't possible. Imperfect compromises had to be made. Overall, this legislation would have been incredibly effective, (which is why BP fought us so hard).