A ConocoPhillips refinery in Wilmington, California.
Jonathan Alcorn | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The world needs to reduce carbon levels, and one way is through a carbon tax, a strategy the U.S. has been debating for decades.
With urgent calls to lower greenhouse gas emissions globally, putting a price on carbon was one of the major points of discussion among world leaders at the COP26 conference in Glasgow earlier this month. Consensus on a global carbon price is growing, according to Lord Greg Barker, executive chairman at EN+ and co-chair of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition.
“We need countries to come together to agree on international standards in order to make that big shift to the low carbon economy,” Barker told CNBC in an interview from COP26 last week. ”It would be much better for the world if there was a common carbon price.”
As of now, Barker says there are 69 countries with a carbon price ranging from $1 to $139 per metric ton. The U.S. is not one of them.
Barker told CNBC most economists agree that carbon pricing is the most effective tool there is to transition to a low carbon economy. Carbon pricing shifts the liability for the consequences of climate change to the polluters who are responsible, according to the World Bank.
The Biden administration has outlined $555 billion in spending to confront climate change, though the plan does not address carbon pricing. The bill does include a proposed methane fee incentivizing oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions.
A policy to apply a carbon tax was considered as a “plan B” during negotiations over the current climate package, according to the New York Times, after Biden’s clean electricity program was cut from the spending bill last month.
If the U.S. administration can’t get behind the rest of the world on carbon pricing, there are other ways to follow through with the initiative, says Barker, such as regulations, taxes, and emissions trading.
The U.S. has considered carbon import fees and emissions trading that would apply to carbon-intensive products imported to the country. “But carbon import fees only make sense if you have some kind of domestic U.S. carbon policy,” says Richard Newell, president of Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy and environment research organization.
He thinks a price on carbon ultimately is achievable as part of U.S. policy as the world grapples with the seriousness of climate change and turns more to financial incentives to reach a low-carbon ecosystem that supports the entire economy.
The Biden administration has a government-wide plan addressing how climate change could affect all sectors of the U.S. economy. The plan was part of a larger agenda to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and transition to a net-zero emissions economy.
“There is also going to be a desire to raise revenue to deal with climate change, and for other public purposes, and carbon pricing does all those things,” Newell said. He added that while an economy-wide carbon fee would be the best solution, the administration could start by applying carbon fees to individual sectors.
As the U.S. decarbonizes areas like the power sector and automotive sector, Newell says pressure on government regulation will intensify. “There will be an increasing recognition that to really decarbonize the economy, across all sectors, there is going to be a need for some comprehensive policies,” he said.
“There has been a significant shift across the country in terms of the seriousness with which people and legislators are confronting climate change,” Newell said. ”And that will continue to build beyond the focus on particular sectors.”
The debate over a carbon pricing mechanism right now takes place at a time of rising concerns about inflation and prices at the gas pump that have led to discussions about whether the government should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The methane fee sparked a debate with some worrying that raising the price of methane would increase electric and heating costs for individual consumers.
Fears of rising prices for low-income households and increasing costs for businesses will need to be considered.
“If politicians are smart and anticipate that they need to compensate, say families that might see their bills go up as a result of a carbon price, you can drive [carbon pricing] through,” Barker said.
In a plan put together by the Climate Leadership Council, a climate advocacy group co-founded by former Secretary of State James Baker, who served in the Bush and Reagan administrations, the idea isn’t to fund government efforts to fight climate. The Climate Leadership Council’s plan outlines that revenue collected from a carbon fee is “to be returned to American households,” said Carlton Carroll, Climate Leadership Council spokesperson.
“Nothing would do more to accelerate innovation and invest all citizens in a clean energy future than an economy-wide carbon fee, with corresponding dividends for the American people,” Carroll said.
The group’s carbon dividends plan cites four major benefits to consumers, including an increase in household disposable income nationwide.
Increasing carbon pricing could be done by taxing greenhouse-gas intensive goods and services, like gasoline, or by taxing carbon emitters individually. The Climate Leadership Council is among groups advocating for pricing carbon-intensive goods as part of a U.S. climate plan, “because it will go further, faster than any other single climate policy intervention,” says Carroll, “while also driving innovation throughout the economy and making families better off financially.”
Historically, there has been some bipartisan support for a carbon tax. The first carbon pricing proposal was introduced in 1990, and there have been several other propositions since. Though none have passed, Newell said the most recent carbon pricing proposal in Biden’s social safety and climate plan piqued the interest of Congress far more than anticipated.
The carbon tax proposed as part of the Build Back Better plan would impose a $20 fee per metric ton of carbon.
“I would say there was a surprisingly strong interest in a carbon fee as part of the ongoing budget reconciliation process,” Newell said.
But Mindy Lubber, CEO of sustainability investment organization Ceres, told CNBC earlier this year that while a carbon tax is one way to prevent the U.S. from being locked into a fossil fuels economy and spur the development of new energy and transportation systems, it has proven controversial in the past, and is a complicated policy tool, making it harder for all sides to reach agreement on, especially in a Senate where the votes are so tight.
A carbon tax could be closer than some people think, says Flannery Winchester, spokeswoman for the progressive Citizens Climate Lobby. ”It has gone from a hopeful idea to one that is on the verge of becoming a reality,” she said.
The White House and 49 senators were on board with a carbon tax, but not the key vote from West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.
“But there is clearly a lot more consensus than there’s ever been that this policy is effective for meeting America’s climate goals,” Winchester said.
Yes, Virginia, there are still great EV lease deals to be had in December. Hyundai continues to offer EV leases for under $200 a month, and the BMW i4 can be leased for the same price it was when the federal tax credit was still in effect. With 2025 models disappearing fast, this might be your last shot to snag a year-end lease deal on an EV. Check out the standouts below.
Hyundai IONIQ 6 (Source: Hyundai)
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 lease from $189/month
The 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 remains a fantastic deal: the IONIQ 6 SE Standard Range can be leased from $189 per month for 24 months with a $3,999 due at signing (12,000 miles per year). Its effective cost is just $356, and this month’s IONIQ 6 SE lease includes $13,000 in lease cash that you can’t get elsewhere. The offer is good until January 2.
Our friends at CarsDirect report that the SEL trim is actually a better deal at $239 with $3,999 at signing, with an effective cost of $406. Even though its MSRP is over $7,700 higher than the SE, it’s just $50 more a month to lease. The SE Standard Range has a range of 240 miles, whereas other styles have a range of up to 342.
As usual, offers vary according to location, and this is a regional offer based in California.
Believe it or not, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 SE Standard Range RWD, which starts at $44,200, can still be leased through January 2 for $189 a month for 36 months (10,000 miles per year) with $3,999 due at signing. That works out to an effective monthly cost of about $300.
The IONIQ 5 SE RWD Standard Range offers an EPA-estimated 245 miles of range, and this particular offer is available in the Los Angeles and greater California metro areas (I’ve seen it at dealers in Carlsbad and Santa Monica, for example). And if you’re tempted by an upgrade, the SEL RWD trim is just $50 more per month under the same terms.
In several regions, the 2026 Subaru Solterra Premium can be leased for $299 per month for 36 months, with a down payment of $2,799 due at signing, resulting in an effective monthly cost of $377. That makes it $95 per month cheaper to lease than a 2026 Toyota bZ, which is $472. (These figures are for California.)
A $500 loyalty discount is available to returning lessees. It doesn’t require a trade-in and can be transferred to household members. If you factor in the loyalty discount, the Solterra’s effective cost drops to $363. The offer ends January 2.
Subaru’s advertised lease prices are based on 10,000 miles a year, but that’s changeable. However, a larger mileage allowance will lower the EV’s residual value, making it more expensive.
The 2025 Ford Mustang Mach-E can still be leased for $219 per month for 24 months with a $4,499 due at signing (10,500 miles per year) until January 5. In this configuration, the Mach-E has a range of up to 300 miles.
This is a regional offer for California, but the great deal isn’t limited to just that state. The example includes a total of $8,750 in lease cash; however, the catch is that if you opt for the lease cash, you have to decline the free home charger with installation or Ford’s $2,000 public charging credit.
Remarkably, the 2025 BMW i4 is still leasing for the same price as it was when the federal tax credit was still in effect. In many regions, the eDrive40 can be leased for $399 for 36 months with $4,999 due at signing (10,000 miles per year). Its effective cost is just $538 per month, which is impressive when you consider that the i4’s retail price is over $60,000.
The offer, available until January 2, includes a $7,500 lease credit, and a $1,000 loyalty discount is also available for returning lessees. With the loyalty bonus, the i4’s effective monthly cost could be as low as $510.
In this configuration, the i4 has an EPA-estimated range of 318 miles. As before, BMW’s lease includes two years or 1,000 kWh of free charging with Electrify America.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Kia now has one of the most affordable electric SUVs in Canada. The EV5 is now on sale, starting at $43,495 CAD.
Kia opens EV5 orders in Canada
The EV5 is the electric SUV we want in the US, but we will likely never see it. After opening online orders on December 4, Kia revealed prices for the entire 2027 EV5 lineup.
Surprisingly, buyers can choose from nine trims, with prices ranging from $43,495 CAD for the base Light model to $61,495 CAD for the flagship AWD GT-Line Limited edition.
Outside of the Light trim, all EV5 variants are offered with front-wheel or all-wheel drive. Upgrading to AWD costs an extra $2,500 CAD.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Likewise, all EV5 trims, except the Light variant, are powered by an 81.4 kWh battery, providing up to 460 km (285 miles) of driving range. The entry-level Light uses a 60.4 kWh battery, good for a driving range of up to 335 km (208 miles).
All EV5 models come with a built-in NACS port, nearly 30″ of screen space in a curved panoramic display, heated front seats, and Kia Connect with OTA updates.
The interior features Kia’s new Connect Car Navigation (CCNC) infotainment system with dual 12.3″ driver display and touchscreen navigation screens, plus a 5″ climate control screen. The setup includes wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay capabilities.
Kia grouped the EV5 trims into tiers based on what buyers are looking for. As expected, the Light FWD trim is the best value for your money.
For those looking for a little more driving range, the Wind FWD offers up to 460 km range, while the Wind AWD is built for Canada’s harsh winters. Both include a heat pump as standard.
The Kia EV5 (Source: Kia)
2027 Kia EV5 prices and range by trim
Kia said the EV5 Land Rover trim is the best option if you’re looking for a little more out of the interior. The Land Rover trim adds a memory function to the driver’s seat, a heated steering wheel, a panoramic sunroof, a smart power tailgate, and 19″ wheels.
And then there’s the EV5 GT-Line, for those looking for added performance, a sporty new look inside and out, and driver-assistance features like lane-change assist.
2027 Kia EV5 trim
Starting Price (CAD) (FWD/AWD)
Battery
Target Range (FWD/ AWD)
Selling Points
Light traction
$43,495
60.4 kWh
335 km
Entry-level price, standard battery life
Wind
$47,495 / $49,995
81.4 kWh
460 km / 415 km
Long-life battery, heat pump
Land
$49,995 / $52,495
81.4 kWh
460 km / 415 km
Panoramic roof, smart tailgate, V2L
GT-Line
$55,495 / $57,995
81.4 kWh
460 km / 410 km
HDA2, FCA 2, ventilated seats, sporty style
GT-Line Limited
$58,995 / $61,495
81.4 kWh
460 km / 410 km
Head-up display, RSPA 2, Harman Kardon, digital key
Kia EV5 prices and range by trim in Canada
The EV5 is now available to order in Canada, outside of the entry-level FWD Light variant, which is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2026.
Despite the wait, Kia claimed the 2027 EV5 is going on sale as “Canada’s most affordable electric SUV,” starting $43,495.
For those in the US, don’t get your hopes up. Kia said the EV5 will be sold exclusively in Canada for the North American market.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Multiple outlets are reporting on Donald Trump’s apparent effort to change US regulations to bring tiny Japanese kei cars to the US, but there’s little reason to think that effort will be serious.
Convicted felon Donald Trump has directed former reality TV contestant Sean Duffy to examine how kei cars, a category of Japanese microcars, could be brought to the US, calling them “cute.”
The statement was made yesterday at the announcement of a fuel efficiency rollback, which will raise your fuel costs by $23 billion and is explicitly intended to make cars bigger and less efficient.
And so, simply by reading the preceding two sentences, you should understand how unserious this effort is. At the same moment that a new proposal was announced to reduce fuel efficiency targets by a third, the same person who is trying to increase your fuel costs and make cars bigger and less efficient apparently also wants tiny efficient vehicles in the US. How does that make sense?
Advertisement – scroll for more content
If Trump did know anything about how the auto industry works, he would not speak about making cars smaller at an event to announce rules explicitly intended towards making cars bigger – these are not compatible thoughts, and betray a lack of understanding of the reason he was even in the room to begin with.
Further, in addition to yesterday’s effort to remove CAFE rules, the EPA is currently trying to roll back President Biden’s improved exhaust standards which included a recognition of vehicle sizes becoming too large and a desire to reduce SUV/truck market share, and Mr. Trump is trying to place a 15% tariff on all Japanese goods, meaning higher prices for Americans if these cars were to come to the US.
Thinking more deeply about the reason why Mr. Trump might have mentioned kei cars to begin with, it is likely related to his recent trip to Japan. He went to Japan to negotiate an end to the unwise tariffs that he himself announced on one of America’s closest trading partners (despite that he does not have the Constitutional authority to apply them).
During that trip, he seems to have seen the tiny cars for the first time (or the first time he can remember, given his senility), and been enamored by them. So, he said yesterday (while flanked by Duffy, who showed apparent surprise as the flippant statement came out of his mouth):
“They’re very small, they’re really cute, and I said ‘How would that do in this country?’… But we’re not allowed to make them in this country and I think you’re gonna do very well with those cars, so we’re gonna approve those cars.”
-Donald Trump, upon witnessing a type of vehicle he should have known of by now, having spent 79 years globetrotting around this Earth, so how can he just be seeing this for the first time except if he’s senile.
Now, technically, here he says he wants the US to build the cars here, rather than import them from Japan. Kei cars are very popular in Japan, but rarer in other countries. Some other countries do have their own small cars similar to kei cars (for example, China’s 115-inch Wuling Mini EV), but Japan is where these vehicles have traditionally held the highest share.
New Wuling Hongguang Mini EV (Source: China’s MIIT)
There are various reasons for this, but one of them is due to the high density of Japanese cities. Kei cars are very space efficient for cities that are obsessed with space efficiency in a way that simply is not the case in the US.
Japanese cities are also connected by efficient, fast and reasonably-priced bullet trains, so getting from one side of the country to the other is easy to do without having to stuff the whole family into a vehicle that is under 134 inches long. And the regulatory regime in Japan has been built around kei cars, giving them certain advantages to incentivize their use.
Mitsubishi eK X EV
Meanwhile, it’s nigh-impossible to convince any manufacturer to even build a sedan, hatchback or small SUV for the US, or to build any small-displacement vehicle. So this would require a massive change in consumer tastes, which of course manufacturers haven’t been particularly interested in leading, given they’ve been pushing SUVs for decades now.
That said, one of the reasons manufacturers have pushed SUVs is due to regulations which treat them more favorably than smaller vehicles. If those regulations were changed – and that’s what Trump and Duffy have floated – it could open the doors for smaller cars.
But there’s little reason to think either of them are serious about this, given the amount of work that would have to be done to change regulations, and given the work they’re currently doing to change the regulations in the exact opposite direction.
At a minimum, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) would have to change significantly. This is the set of rules governing safety requirements for all motor vehicles, with requirements for various vehicle classes that have been built and tweaked over time. And these requirements are tailored to how we build roads, infrastructure, and signage in this country, which differs from how these things are done in Japan or Europe or China.
While an effort to harmonize FMVSS and infrastructure standards with other countries would be admirable and has been desired for a long time in the auto industry, the enormity of the undertaking is much greater than a single flippant comment (from someone who probably doesn’t even know what FMVSS stands for).
And in fact, US regulations already do allow for exemptions to many regulations for low volume vehicles. So it already is possible to build small cars in the US, at least if you build fewer than 2,500 per year. So a startup focused on tiny cars could already get started here, and could have been selling kei-like cars all along (say, TELO, for example… but even they are offering a 152in truck, a foot and a half longer than a kei car, and with 500hp, about 8x more than a kei car).
TELO’s tiny truck next to a full size Dodge RAM
But why haven’t manufacturers made these cars already, then?
Again, going back to the above, regulations and manufacturers have both pushed vehicle sizes larger and larger, and consumer tastes have happily followed, with US drivers wasting more and more money and space on larger and more polluting vehicles.
There is a perception that these larger vehicles are safer (even though they aren’t, and we are currently nearing an all-time high in pedestrian fatalities), so if vehicles keep getting bigger as a result of regulations allowing them to, US consumers will be afraid to buy a car that’s even smaller than the smallest available today. And yesterday’s proposed rule explicitly claims, in its third paragraph, that smaller cars are undesirable for this reason (without recognizing that it’s actually the larger cars that are responsible this problem).
Kei cars are also typically less powerful than the average American car, which even Duffy claimed himself, saying “are they going to work on the freeways? Probably not” (even though most vehicles use about ~20hp to sustain highway speeds).
And given that the American consumer has been sold the dream of buying a vehicle not for what it will be used for, but for every conceivable purpose they could ever dream of using any vehicle for, it seems unlikely that many will line up for a car that they have been told can’t even get on the freeway.
After all, Smart cars did exist in the US, as have various other small vehicles, but they’ve always been marginalized, because the whole culture, manufacturing base and regulatory regime around cars and roads has been built to advantage large vehicles, not small ones.
So despite that microcar enthusiasts like myself want to see tiny cars in the US, the idea that manufacturers will suddenly scale up production of these vehicles in the US seems extremely unlikely without a concerted effort to show that they are welcome here and that there will be a market for them.
And I’m not convinced that concerted effort will be undertaken by people who are currently undertaking a concerted effort to do the exact opposite, and by someone who seems to change his mind with whatever stupid nonsense he happened to see 12 seconds ago on fox. Companies don’t build manufacturing facilities based on the whims of an idiot, they do so with clear and consistent policy that they can be certain will last through a vehicle model’s development and sales timeline (typically around ~14 years from start of development to end of production).
So I don’t think this is going to happen. Prove me wrong, I will be happy to eat crow here.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.