As climate change policy takes shape, will the U.S. ever put a price on carbon?

Published

4 years ago

November 15, 2021

admin

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.

Environment

Eat Culver’s frozen custard + fast charge your EV in Wisconsin

Published

2 hours ago

September 17, 2025

admin

Eat Culver's frozen custard + fast charge your EV in Wisconsin

Zero 60, an EV charge point operator on the ChargePoint network, is bringing fast charging to a Culver’s in the Northwoods of Wisconsin. The company, founded by Faith Technologies Incorporated (FTI), will install a renewable-powered charging station in Rhinelander.

The new site sits along a state-designated Alternative Fuel Corridor at Culver’s on 620 W. Kemp St. It will feature four 160-kilowatt charging ports, giving EV drivers in northern Wisconsin reliable fast charging well beyond the state’s urban hubs.

The project is backed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s first round of funding from the Wisconsin Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (WEVI) program. Wisconsin wants to ensure EV drivers can confidently travel north, knowing they won’t be stranded without chargers.

“Partnering with a well-known brand like Culver’s gives us a unique opportunity to combine Midwest hospitality with clean, convenient charging,” said Wade Leipold, executive vice president of FTI. “We’re proud to support Wisconsin’s efforts to build a robust, future-ready charging network that serves communities and travelers alike.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Zero6 Energy is financing, owning, and operating the station, while FTI is handling the engineering, design, installation, and ongoing maintenance. Zero 60 already operates nine charging sites and has plans for many more across the US, with the first wave of stations installed in New York, California, Colorado, and Wisconsin, and more currently being developed in other states.

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.

Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

Tesla is trying to hide 3 Robotaxi accidents

Published

2 hours ago

September 17, 2025

admin

Tesla is trying to hide 3 Robotaxi accidents

Tesla is attempting to conceal the details of three separate accidents involving its Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, despite having only two months of service with a small fleet.

Due to the Standing General Order 2021-01 (the “SGO”), automakers are required to report to NHTSA crashes involving their autonomous driving and advanced driver assistance systems within five days of being notified of them.

We have previously reported on Tesla leading crashes for level 2 driver assistance systems by thousands of reported crashes, but the automaker never reported any automated driving crashes because it never had any system that would qualify as a level 3-5 SAE automated driving system, despite the name of its “Full Self-Driving” software package.

This has changed with the launch of Tesla’s limited Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Now, Tesla has reported its first three accidents involving an “automated driving system” through its new Robotaxi effort:

Report ID	Same Incident ID	Model	Model Year	Incident Date	Incident Time	Roadway Type	Injury Severity*
13781-11507	346e79b6abcc2ca	Model Y	2026	JUL‑2025	03:45	Street	Property Damage. No Injured Reported
13781-11459	8578fbc6ef74c60	Model Y	2026	JUL‑2025	12:20	Street	Minor W/O Hospitalization
13781-11375	b5d3e7bb23a3388	Model Y	2026	JUL‑2025	15:15	Intersection	Property Damage. No Injured Reported

All the accidents happened in July, during Tesla’s first month of operating its Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas.

There was at least one injury reported for one of the crashes, but Tesla lists it as “minor”. None of the accidents is being investigated by authorities based on the information Tesla has released.

Tesla hasn’t released many details about its Robotaxi effort, but the automaker is estimated to have only about 12 vehicles in its Robotaxi fleet in Austin as of July, and it was offering rides to only a limited group of users, mostly Tesla influencers and shareholders who are disincentivized from criticizing the company.

As it does with its ADAS crash reporting, Tesla is hiding most details about the crashes. Unlike its competitors, which openly release narrative information about the incidents, Tesla is redacting all the narrative for all its crash reporting to NHTSA:

It makes it hard to get any context about the accident and assess the level of responsibility for the automated driving system.

Unlike competitors, such as Waymo, Tesla’s Robotaxi still uses a “safety monitor” who sits in the front seat with a finger on a kill switch ready to stop the vehicle. Despite this added level of safety, Tesla is evidently still experiencing crashes.

CEO Elon Musk has claimed that Tesla would remove the safety monitor by the end of the year and deliver on its “full self-driving” promises to customers, but he has never shared any data proving that Tesla’s automated driving system is reliable enough to achieve that.

NTHSA is also investigating Tesla for misreporting its crash data.

Electrek’s Take

The facts are that Tesla has never released any significant data to prove that its system is reliable. Never.

The only data Tesla has shared is the cumulative mileage driven by the fleet on Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, but that’s with a human driver at the wheel at all times.

Tesla never shared disengagement data despite publicly claiming multiple factors of improvement in miles between disengagements.

How can you trust a company that operates like that?

Furthermore, it redacts the most critical details of crashes involving its driver-assist and automated driving systems.

That’s not the type of opacity I want to see from a company deploying potentially dangerous, yet also potentially lifesaving, technology.

Unfortunately, I’ve lost hope of regulators doing anything about this any time soon. It will likely take more tragic accidents for them to act.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Environment

Toyota’s new app rewards EV and PHEV drivers for charging, since it doesn’t happen enough

Published

3 hours ago

September 17, 2025

admin

Toyota's new app rewards EV and PHEV drivers for charging, since it doesn't happen enough

Toyota introduced a new “science-backed” app that rewards EV and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) drivers for charging their vehicles. Why? Because, according to Toyota’s own research, PHEV drivers don’t plug in often enough.

Toyota develops an app to reward EV drivers for charging

Hybrid vehicles and Toyota are nearly synonymous at this point. Toyota launched the Prius, the first mass-produced hybrid vehicle, back in 1997.

Just under three decades later, the Prius is now in its fifth generation, and Toyota offers over 16 hybrid vehicles, two PHEVs, and one all-electric model in the US (two, if you include the Lexus RZ).

Although Toyota is committed to offering vehicles across all powertrain options (EV, PHEV, and hybrid), the company believes it has found another way to cut emissions.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The Toyota Research Institute’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) division developed an app, Charge Minder, that “applies behavioral science to EV charging.” It basically turns the charging experience into a game with rewards for charging streaks and “encouraging messages.”

The app also includes education quizzes to teach you more about your vehicle and when the best time is to charge up for maximum cost savings.

Toyota-PHEV-charging-app — Toyota’s new ChargeMinder app rewards EV and PHEV drivers for charging (Source: Toyota)

Toyota’s research found that, in the US, “behavioral interventions increased charging by 10% for plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) drivers.” Satisfaction among the PHEV drivers rose 16 percentage points, bringing it to 100%

In Japan, PHEV and EV drivers shifted to charge during peak renewable charge times by 59%, which Toyota said added nearly 30 hours of daytime charging per vehicle, per day.

“This research and development shows how science-based behavioral interventions can both help us reduce carbon emissions as much as possible, as soon as possible, and increase customer satisfaction,” Dr Gill Pratt, chief scientist and CEO of the Toyota Research Institute, said.

[embedded content]

Toyota’s app (ChargeMinder) integrates over a dozen science-backed “interventions” that are designed to promote better charging habits.

Electrek’s Take

It’s no secret that Toyota is sticking to its roots and will continue to offer PHEVs and hybrids, alongside all-electric vehicles, for the foreseeable future.

Most PHEVs nowadays offer between 20 and 50 miles of electric driving range, which is plenty for most daily commutes. However, there’s one issue. PHEV drivers are not plugging in as they should and are primarily using them as traditional gas-powered vehicles.

A report from the European Commission last year found that PHEVs pollute more than they are promoted, largely because drivers are not plugging them in.

New findings from earlier this month revealed that carmakers are misleading buyers about PHEVs, with real-world emissions that are multiple times higher than what they are documented to be.

Can Toyota’s app really help cut emissions? Maybe a little, but battery electric vehicles EVs are still the most effective way to truly make a difference and pave the way for sustainable transportation.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.