(This is the first of a three-article series. Follow these links for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.)

The money raised from a carbon price should not be spent by the government on clean energy infrastructure!  After dealing with “border tax adjustments”, the carbon revenue should be returned to the people on a per capita basis (half for children), to help them pay for clean energy and voluntary efficiency measures. The best way to pay for clean energy infrastructure is by selling the energy produced by that infrastructure.  Like any bank, Government can make loans for self funding infrastructure, or private funds can invest, but sales of energy will pay for everything. 

The main reason for having a Carbon Price is to increase the price of fossil energy up to the price of clean energy, so that clean energy can begin to take over.  I hope to show that it is not appropriate to subsidise clean energy because it lowers the price of all energy – cheaper clean energy means a lower carbon tax to fill the price gap.  Rather than subsidising energy, it is better to maintain a steeper price incentive to reduce energy use, but recycle the carbon revenue equally to the citizens.

On Colombia’s barren eastern plains, the community of Gaviotas has become a rich source of innovative and locally appropriate technologies as it demonstrates the state of mind and ways of living essential for sustainable development.

Tim Kelly has contributed an article entitled The Customer Choice Model of Allocating Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy use and related costs to electricity users.