Charles and I created the Carbon Tax Center because prompt and effective action to reduce carbon emissions is imperative to slow and then stop the world from hurtling towards a climate disaster. We are convinced that a carbon tax is essential to reduce U.S. emissions quickly and steeply enough to prevent atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from reaching an irreversible tipping point. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is doing practically nothing and most of the proposals for action do not go far enough. We want CTC to serve the climate advocacy community. Please tell us what you think about our web site, what you like, what you want to change, etc. We’ll listen and respond.
Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably
Carbon Tax Center
Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably
Joseph Guse says
This website is a great idea. I’ve been telling people for years that most important thing an individual can do for the environment is to write your congressman and senators and tell them you support pollution taxes. Now that a consensus is at last forming that global warming is a problem and that controlling CO2 emissions is the solution, I now fear that legislators will implement something terribly inefficient and unjust. I sincerely hope that your recommendations of a broad CO2 tax and either payroll tax relief or simple rebates to each household can take center stage. Elegant, efficient and just. Heaven knows that utilities and manufacturers will be making their best efforts to frame the debate and I doubt that any of those adjectives will describe their recommendations. A. Joseph Guse, Department of Economics, Washington & Lee University
Jurgen Hissen says
I love that there’s a site like this! I decided to look up the URL because I thought there had to be something (and I was going to aquire it if there wasn’t!)
I would suggest that the battle for carbon taxes is a global one, so I’d very much appreciate a Canadian section to this site. As you probably know, Canada is a net exporter of fossil fuels, so the political turmoil surrounding carbon taxation is especially sinister. In the 80s, we had a particularly flamboyant prime minister who tried to put a tax on carbon (which is mostly dug up in Alberta) as a way of sharing that province’s wealth with the rest of the country. Hence, there’s a bit of unease and suspicion surrounding the concept. It’s a challenge we must overcome.
My impression is that many industry groups oppose carbon taxes in favour of regulatory measures because carbon taxes would actually work and are also harder to corrupt. The depth of my devotion to the concept of carbon taxes is difficult to exaggerate.. I’m always ranting about it at work, and I’ve written numerous letters to MPs requesting it. It seems that to get things done in a democracy, you really need to convince the electorate… and this site might be just the thing.
Thank you!
Dan says
Joseph – Thanks! Please help us spread the word.
Jurgen – Thanks for your comment. The optimal carbon tax would be global, but global is way beyond our resources. Realistically, we have to start at the national level here in the United States, perhaps even working on model carbon taxes at the state level. We just don’t have the resources to tackle Canada at this time. Do you have a report on the carbon tax issue in Canada that we could post on our "Reports" page?
Larry Grob says
Dan and Charles:
Thank you for this site. Now, we’ve simply got to direct more eyeballs to it. Not an easy challenge, but I’ll certainly do what I’m able and hope others will as well. I first came across it when prompted by a mention on the Environmental Economics blog, which as a non-economically-savvy sustainability advocate I try to follow.
I’ve found the notion of taxing carbon interesting since reading some of Hawken/Lovins’ writings in Natural Capitalism. One way or another, we’ve got to get there.
Best wishes for success,
Larry Grob
theunlikelyactivist.com
Dan says
Larry – Thanks for the help. We appreciate your helping get the word out.
A P Mikula says
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Make no mistake, this is a shameless and clever grab for power over the economies of the world. And how better to disguise that confiscatory fleecing and control but by intimating that there is a (false) global disaaster in the offing all caused by mans irresponcible actions. BALDERDASH!!!!!! Weather patterns over the centuries have shown periods of colder and warmer times, all occuring in the abscence of human influence. Multiple ice ages intersperced with periods of global warming. Greenland-now a block of ice was once"green" and the earth much much warmer than it is at present. Global change is inevitable but not necessarily predictable. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" or to be duped as "usefull idiots" to do the bidding of their own enslavement. That is the goal of the globalist, the socialist , the liberalist the New World Order crowd. Cradle to grave CONTROL. Taxation, loss of liberties. NO THANKS. People need to be more discerning and to recognize good from evil. Never take these issues. at face value. They’re like onions, the more layers you peel, the more it STINKS.
Dan says
A P Mikula – I have the feeling we are not likely to have a productive conversation or find common ground. I’d suggest that you might want to actually read the material on our web site, but I expect that you would not be interested in doing so. Thanks for your thoughts.
Jeff says
Hi – re the Canadian context and carbon taxes – I’ve been exploring this a bit and posting about it on my weblog – http://www.canadiancarboncontrol.blogspot.com. I’ve dug up a few analyses of the potential use of a carbon tax in Canada, particularly from the 1990s when the issue was first being looked at post-Rio. There has also been extensive work by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca) on green fiscal policy and economic instruments for controlling carbon emissions more recently. I haven’t yet reviewed their documents but I believe they are some of the most thorough recent public analyses of the issue.
In terms of the federal political parties, the two biggest mainstream parties (Liberals and Conservatives) have both said emphatically that carbon taxes are off the table. The third national party, the New Democrats, don’t include a carbon tax in their green plan. The Green Party (intersting but marginal since it holds no seats) includes a revenue-neutral carbon tax as part of its platform but doesn’t discuss it in detail.
Mark Zierten says
Re: "Greenland" we should remember that this island had never more than a few small fjords that were free of ice almost a thousand years ago. From a public policy standpoint, a carbon tax may be regressive in its initial impact (the consumer of carbon-based fuel), but it can be mitigated by some of the benefits that might be directed to low income families and individuals. Since some of the negative effects (besides global warming) of CO2, CO, smog and other pollutants are health-related, the carbon tax could very well be the way to pay for universal health care in this country. I would also like to hear from you about how we might be able to incorporate an emissions-trading mechanism into the carbon tax. Industry, it now seems, is interested in a mandatory program that would provide them with certainty and flexibility to respond. It seems to me that it is unwise for government to try to pick winners and losers in technology. There are just too many imponderables. Better to set reasonable and attainable goals, standards and tax rates and turn the private sector (more or less) loose. Mark Zierten, Los Angeles, CA
Lewis Lehe says
This is a great idea. I’ve been behind it for about a year now, and written several columns in my college newspaper about it. I’m glad there’s finally a website I can point people to. I just hope that the American people can mature a little when it comes to words like tax. I recommend emphasizing the revenue-shifting aspect.
kc says
doesn’t matter to me whether global warming is an event that would have occured entirely without human influence; what DOES matter is all the other negative ramifications of pollution, which are more than enough to justify a carbon tax, imo.
Dan says
Jeff – Thanks for the update on Canada. Did the two mainstream consider a revenue neutral carbon tax?
Mark – I’m curious why you think it would make sense to incorporate an emissions trading mechanism into a carbon tax. Are you suggesting that a cap-and-trade program should be incorporated
into a blended approach or are you suggesting that a carbon tax would
be better for some sectors and a cap-and-trade for others? We have serious questions about the efficacy and equity of a
cap-and-trade program and believe that a carbon tax is the most
transparent, universal, equitable, understandable and immediate measure
for creating incentives to reduce carbon emissions.
Lewis – Thanks. Send us a column or two when you get a chance – to info@carbontax.org.
KC – OK, but given the role that humans have played, all the more reason for a carbon tax.
Mark Zierten says
Dan – Its not that I’m wedded to a cap and trade approach so much as a way to harness the power of the market to speed up the process; a carrot and stick approach. Let’s see if we can find some incentives, too.
Dan says
I agree that we need incentives. A carbon tax provides a very effective incentive for individuals and businesses to invest in any measure to reduce energy use that costs less than the tax that is avoided by the reduced energy use.
Masha says
very nice blog
Zigfield Stone MBD says
I guess as there are fewer tax dollars collected from smokers as cigarette sales decline that money will have to be made up for somehow huh? I propose that a Twinkie and ice cream tax also be imposed!!!
Casey C says
Point Carbon had an article today about Colorado and Montana possibly considering joining the Western Regional Climate Initiative. Anyone else have another source for this info? I don’t have subscription to Point Carbon. Thanks
Glenn says
Dan,
I think it is important for everyone in this debate to keep in mind that the 800lb. gorilla in the room is population growth. The world population is increasing by over 200,000 people per DAY! Sustainability is a critical issue for our energy and our environmental future.
To the naysayers, why not have a "no regrets" approach?
Gary says
Great site! I’ve been a carbon tax for quite awhile and spend a great deal of time on the internet researching global warming/energy issues. I only came across your site this week via a link in a Mensa blog. Perhaps your site could be linked through emailings from algore.com or environmentaldefense.org. I’ll do my best to post a link whenever I can.
Any kind of tax is a tough sell in this country. I am an advocate of exactly the type of tax you advocate, but I was trying to imagine myself as someone coming to this site and not understanding terms like “upstream” and “tax shifting”. I imagined that what I would want to know would be how this would directly effect my financial situation and if it would be effective at solving the climate crisis. A short, prominent statement on the home page stating the plan’s effectiveness and the net cost to the average tax payer would, I think, engage more people to read further.
I think the carbon tax should also include a tax on the methane produced by ruminants as the contribution is huge. Many argue that methane produced by ruminants will eventually break down to CO2 and is from plant material and thus composed only of carbon in the natural carbon cycle. However…methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas and takes many years to breakdown. We cannot ignore the positive climate feedbacks that will occur due to temporary methane in the atmosphere and the taxing of livestock methane should be implemented. Livestock could be taxed at “heads per year”. Reductions in “head” taxes could be made comensurate with the use of technologies such as supplementation and feedstock engineering designed to reduce gut gasses as well as manure collection for methane fuel production.
Keep up the good work! I’ll be making a donation next month.
Bill Young says
Great site. I’ve been looking for something like this for a long time. I cannot take any politician seriously on global warming, who is not targeting a carbon tax. Everything else is a distraction.
&Eye says
A few weeks ago I posted a calm and even toned message stating that ice core sample data all shows that Carbon Dioxide concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes by some 500 to 1000 years. Science clearly shows that CO2 does not cause warming–warming causes more CO2. My post was deleted from your site. Is this how you deal with valid scientific criticism? Deleting it from your site? :
Gary says
To &Eye
It was probably deleted because this is a site that proposes sensible solutions to a serious global issue that has been confirmed by the vast majority of scientists worldwide. You would probably be more happy at a skeptic’s site where you and your misinformed wacko nutjob buddies can spew nonsense all day….
twh says
Gary Gary Gary shame on you. This is a forum where we debate. Don’t do the misinformed wacko nut job on any one. Because for your self you could fall into that misinformed wacko nut job nonsense. Yes we need to take care of this planet. And we (the human race) haven’t helped with global warming. And as we (the human race) keep cutting down trees.( When was the last time you planted a tree) helps take co2 out of the air. But mother nature has more to do with global changes. As a scientist would claim, the millions of years earth has been here, its gone through a lot of changes. There has been ices ages and warm ages, areas have gone from topical to frozen. Do believe that the north Arctic region was once a tropical area. So did co2 have something to do with it or was it mother nature that did it. I can’t say wasn’t there. I do know that I’m tired of taxes, don’t get me wrong I believe you have to pay some taxes. what bothers me is that we keep getting taxed more. And the taxes that we pay are being misused, missed place,or lost.(Example 10 billion dollars in Iraq has been missed place or lost, can’t be accounted for. Because the government can’t find it. Or are the rich getting richer from it.) (Just think could give everyone in the united states a million dollars and by them a house.)Yes the carbon tax sounds good and it, might work as long as everyone on EARTH does it. What I would like to know, where does the money go and how will it be used. Will the rich profit from it, will it be misused and will nonprofit organizations, profit from it. hope my debate doesn’t get deleted because I’m some type of misinformed wacko nutjob who spews nonsense all day.
Dan says
&Eye,
Stating that "science clearly shows that CO2 does not cause warming" is not "valid scientific criticism," particularly in light of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released yesterday. See today’s New York Times and the IPCC’s summary of the report.
Gary,
Thanks. You are certainly correct regarding the science, see paragraph above, and the purpose of the Carbon Tax Center web site.
twh,
Regarding your comments about the science, see above. Regarding your questions about the carbon tax, most of the answers are on our web site. We propose a revenue neutral tax with the carbon tax revenues used to reduce payroll taxes or simply rebated to all Americans. Click here for more information. Regarding your point about the benefit of a tax that is applicable world-wide, an international carbon tax would be preferable to a national carbon tax, in order to avoid leakage/border problems, but a national carbon tax is certainly preferable to any other policy that has been proposed. We’ll be addressing the issue in more detail in the future.
the Wind Rider says
More stupidity on the left. Why do you want a carbon tax? How would you figure consumption rates? Moreover, pollution DOES NOT cause Global Warming. It simply makes life miserable for those of us with asthma. Clearly, GLOBAL WARMING is caused by the sun for currently every planet in our solar system is slowly warming as is evidenced by NASA studies on the surface on Mars.
So, tell me, how would you impose a "carbon" tax on poor nations such as Belize or Kenya who can barely feed their populace’s? There isn’t a way. How would you enforce it..Through the feckless UN? Won’t work from a practical point of view. So how do we police our planet?
First, we must admit Global Warming is NOT caused by mankind!! Pollution is. Second, real controls must be put in place for those who do pollute. No AMNESTY can be furnished by buying carbon credits. That is useless!! My cousin ALGORE, is wrong in his premise. I’ve taught World Geography and climate change. The two largest volcanic eruptions of the past 135 years Mt. Krakatoa in 1883 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 caused changes to the Global Climate. But did it WARM!! NO, it cooled because the sun was not able to press through.
Third, does cutting down of Rain Forests effect our atmosphere? Probably so because of the oxygen produced by the trees. Answer..Plant more trees in this jungle areas and keep third-world wannabes from tearing up the land. It is simple from an ecological premise. Why are large chemical companies allowed to dump their waste in our wilderness and ruin the food chain starting with the drinking water? Do you guys ever think of this? Probably not..
How come in my home area of Eastern Tennessee known as Sweet Possum Valley the drinking water has gone bad from strip mining of coal on the nearby mountain? How come a "carbon" tax wasn’t passed for bums like these guys who get away with polluting my family’s drinking water? Do you guys think about things like this?
Obviously NOT!! But, in all seriousness. It is time to address pollution. I’ve gotten sicker over the years in my allergies and asthma because of the filth. It’s really gross to wake up in the morning and find soot all over the car or see an orange sun from pollution. It’s truly disgusting.
Carbon tax is a joke. We need to police our own country before worrying about the world. EPA needs far more power in enforcement and companies truly need technical guidance from an authoritative source in helping them clean up the meses they’ve made.
Just a few thoughts from a cousin of Al Gore, George W. Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin, Lamar Alexander, Congressman Jim Cooper and others.
Analysis is needed on the varied pollutants and what specific pollutants are doing the evil deed. I invite anyone to write to me for a good debate and discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Wind Rider at powhatanman_ministryconsul@yahoo.com
Andrew Chalnick says
Dan I asked a relative of mine who is quite bright and
well educated but not fluent in environmental issues to take a look at the site
(and the powerpoint) and let me know what she thinks. She was confused by the idea of a carbon tax
and what it would mean to her. I think
we cant take for granted that the concepts in the powerpoint are not easily
understood by people who are not familiar with the economic principles supporting it, even those who are trying sincerely to understand it (you wont be
able to help some of those who have posted on this blog who dont even bother
to try and understand it, and I wouldnt try).
I think a very simple example would help, something like:
Suppose that in 2008 the federal government expects to
collect $100 billion in social security taxes (a real number here would help)
and enacts a carbon tax that is expected to result in collections of $10 billion
(again, a real number would help here), then each person that pays social
security tax would receive back 10% of any such taxes paid. The government would be net flat. So, if you expect to make $100K in 2008 and
pay social security taxes of $8000, you would receive a refund of $800 on those
taxes. You should also expect to pay
more in 2008 for things like natural gas, electricity, gasoline and products
which use or consume fossil fuels owing to the carbon tax. The incremental amount you pay may be more or
less than $800 depending upon whether your use of fossil fuels and products
which use or consume fossil fuels is more or less than the average American. Because of the carbon tax, you (and everyone
else) would have an incentive to change behavior and use less fossil fuel. For instance, you might decide to drive a
more fuel efficient car, or drive less, or take a train. Solar panels might suddenly make more
economic sense. Using less fossil fuel
will help avoid planetary disaster and make the world cleaner and safer for you
and your children.
&eye says
regarding the science of global warming… go study the ice core sample data. you will see quite clearly that Carbon concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes by some 500 to 1000 years. there is certainly a correlation, but the causation is opposite of the commonly held misconception. more temperature equals more carbon dioxide. not the other way around. carbon dioxide does not drive climate, and it never has in the history of the planet. furthermore, carbon dioxide makes up 0.4% of our atmosphere and is the LEAST effective greenhouse gas. human beings annual output only accounts for 1% of the world’s total volume of CO2.the "consensus" by the IPCC is a fallacy. they included all the names of every scientist who they asked to review their paper regardless of whether these scientists approved of the findings or not…another fallacy is confusing carbon dioxide with pollution. if you wanted to tax corporations for emitting mercury, arsenic, fluoride, etc, i’d be all for it. because these things are actually harmful to people and our environment. the misunderstandings of climate science becoming common belief is one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in the history of mankind. study the ice core sample data yourself, and you’ll see that it’s all bunk. temperature changes PRECEDE carbon dioxide concentration changes by 500 to 1000 years. carbon dioxide does not drive climate. the "science" that would have you believe it does it not science, it’s politics.
PTL says
While I agree that global warming is a concern, I don’t see how a carbon tax can be neutral. Invariably, we have to rely on our politicians to use these taxes for the purpose intended however, their track record on finding ways to work around and divert taxation to some pet projects of theirs is a matter of record. Furthermore, it’s the middle class and poor who will end up on the short end of the stick as usual. The rich, celebs, executives and business owners and their tax lawyers will figure out a way to avoid paying their share while maximizing the credits they receive. The same goes for trading carbon credits.
Now if there was a tax on those who produce more carbon than the mean average in any group, with no loopholes, then such a tax might work.
CJ says
Personally, I think you people are full of it. I wonder if the Martian government is going to initiate a ‘carbon tax’ on their home planet, because a little research will show that the Red Planet is also undergoing a shift to a warming pattern as well. Wonder what is causing it there? Defective flux capacitors on their hyperdrive ships?Give me a break. For all those buying into this psuedo claptrap masquerading as science, be sure to get in line for your Verichip while you’re at it.
Gary says
PTL: You missed the concept. Payroll taxes would be decreased (and adjustments would occasionally be needed) to make room for the increased revenue generated by carbon taxation. The carbon tax revenue would pay for the same stuff that the payroll taxes that were lowered were paying for…not for special “carbon projects” or environmental programs. Sure, tax revenue would be wasted, but not any more than it already is now. No one would be able to weasel out of paying carbon taxes because it would be imbedded in everything that is fossil fuel intensive, as the actual taxation would be on crude, coal and natural gas when it comes out of the ground. The tax is passed on to YOU in the form of higher gas prices, “dirty electricity” prices and residential natural gas prices. YOU PAY the tax when you fill up your car, heat your home or use electricity. YOU REDUCE your tax when you make choices about your lifestyle, such as buying a hybrid, insulating your house, using CFLs, choosing “green electricity”, investing in solar panels, etc. Big and small business reduces their tax when they make energy saving choices. And this is a completely different concept than carbon credits.
Bill Allen says
I saw interview with Mr. Rosenblum on PBS NewsHour last night. He made excellent case for a carbon tax. This makes much more sense to me than the cap-and-trade system that was presented the night before.
Eric says
what do they plan on using the money generated from this tax for?
Gary says
PTL, The system is not going to throw people on the street. There will be safety valves for low income folks, in the same way that low wage folks don’t pay payroll taxes now. If you have another workable solution to the global climate crisis and know how we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the extent and within time frames that are necessary to preserve life on this planet, I and the rest of the world would love to hear it.
Eric, the taxes pay for the same stuff taxes get paid for today. Its the source of the taxes that changes, not their destination.
Gary says
&eye, I think you are under the influence of some skeptic arguments that have been debunked. Here’s a site that covers the CO2 lag arguement and some others as well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414 You are absolutely correct about there being a great deal of disagreement among scientists, but skeptics have misrepresented the disagreement. A vast majority of the disagreement concerns many scientists in the group believing that the consequences of AGW will be MUCH WORSE than on what they were able to reach consensus. Simply put, the IPCC reports are WATERED DOWN. I suggest you go to the IPCC website and watch the webcast of the most recent press conference and download the most recent 23 page Summary for Policymakers.
David Yolton says
No one is sure at this time how much mankind contributes to global warming, actually warming of the oceans, via the production of carbon emissions, and yes, breathing. How would one then calculate a carbon tax? Well, you can’t. What this amounts to is the latest effort to control our lives and limit our freedom. Big Carbon Tax Brother is here — or at least proposed. DO NOT BUY INTO THIS FRAUD!!!
Gary says
David Yolton- Of course you do not favor a carbon tax. That is because you are skeptical that global warming is caused by humans. I, too, would not support a tax that served no useful purpose. I suggest you download the IPCC 4th Assessment Summary for Policy Makers for Working Group 1 here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Hopefully, it will make a believer out of you.
Lechtellhavel says
A nice and useful site even if I do believe that you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
Global warming is definitely real but the idea that it is largely based on greenhouse gas emissions is going to turn out to be THE scientific canard of the 21st century. Everybody seems to forget that the Sun is the sustained nuclear explosion that is closest to Earth. Explosions are wonderful playgrounds for the pursuit of chaos theory and while the Sun is big enough to average out a lot of that chaos, it is absurd to think that the output of the Sun will be delivered in a perfectly predictable manner that can be graphed on a perfectly smooth curve. Small (to the Sun) perturbations in the solar output can and will have measurable consequences on little old Earth.
Much as I hate the idea of using taxation for social manipulation, carbon taxes are probably the best (politically palatable) way to promote a more important agenda, i.e. conservation of non-renewable natural energy resources and inducement of progress in the areas of energy conservation and alternative energy production and research. Cap and trade can work but it takes more political courage and integrity than the human race is normally capable of mustering.
My main objection to cap and trade is that it is less effective at promoting conservation and clean energy resource development (while maximizing opportunities for political manipulation and outright corruption) which are the only real benefits that either approach can deliver. Any effect on global warming will be marginal at best and nonexistent at worse.
That being said, go for it guys! Make it happen!
StonedPigeon says
You have got to be kidding!
This is sad and pathetic; your solution is a TAX!
Ill be waiting patiently for a response detailing all the different things that have been solved by taxes!
Also if its not too much trouble, explain to all the folks how and why the last Ice Age ended without man being around to produce all the man made co2s that are warming the plant.
John says
A shift from income taxes to a carbon tax is the way to go. I work in the world of manufacturing outsourcing and I know that work will transfer outside of the US if there is not a provision to tax incoming products based on the carbon used to produce them. The US is one of the largest consumers in the world and we can influence the rest of the world through the policies we set. I have recently been involved with the EUs RoHS directive. This is a perfect example of policies in one region affecting the way products are produced the world over. Companies have shifted their whole product line to RoHS compliant products even though only a portion of their revenue comes from Europe.
I think there are two factors that make this type of proposal acceptable to the masses: 1. it has to be revenue neutral – take tax increase out of the lexicon and replace it with tax shift; 2. it has to be geographically neutral – in other words there can be no carbon tax advantage by moving across national boundaries.
Thanks for your work on this topic. I see this as one of the most important issues of our generation.
Cheers.
Tom says
Thanks for all the great work you are doing.Language matters very much. John is right. Describing it as shifting taxes is critical to success. We all know the huge hill we have to climb by just mentioning the t word, taxes. The strategy I have been trying is saying we are going to shift taxes from personal income, social security and medicare to an energy sales tax. With an ultimate goal in the future of all taxes on energy and nothing else. People kind of light up when they think about not paying any income and social security taxes. Of course you have to immediately make the point that it would be revenue neutral and the money will be all spent exactly the way it is now. Social security credit would be tallied and benifits distributed exactly the way it is now, based on a percent of wages and time worked. The only change is the required amount doesnt come out of your check. Someone please check my numbers. When you divide all federal annual tax revenue which is $2.7 trillion by total annual US energy consumption of 94.27 quadrillion BTU you get some very interesting numbers. On a strict tax on btu you get a $3.72 increase per gallon of gas and a 10 cent increase per kwh, while all federal taxes in current form go away for individuals and business. This we can sell. It would be a huge tax shift away from individuals to commerce. Unfortnatly those who dont pay taxes now, disabled, retired, underground economy are hit but tax payers make out like bandits, even the lower income levels. And we all know we can help folks that would need it. One thing we could and would do is get real with mass transit.Another key point is we are not paying the true cost of energy. This is a critical point. It is a myth we are waiting for more techniogical breakthrus. The problem is one thing only, we are not paying the true cost of energy. The renewables get zero credit in the marketplace for the no pollution they bring.Thanks again to this site for your work
Tom says
I am still pondering whether it should be a carbon tax or energy sales tax. In the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro power. No carbon emissions there. But every kwh we burn means there will be some carbon released somewhere else. Same story with nuclear energy. One question with an energy sales tax would be how to treat renewable sources like wind and solar. These could be exempt. I also like the fact that people know what a sales tax is. It also implies if you are not buying or selling energy you are not paying it. I am brainstorming here. There are many factors to consider.
Dan says
Andrew and Gary,
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions regarding the need to provide more understandable language and simple illustrations. The slideshow on our homepage was
originally created as background slides for use during oral
presentations. We explain the various points on the slides during the
presentations, but you are correct that the points on the slides are
not entirely clear on their own. We’ll have to work on making the concepts for understandable on the web site.
Gary,
I certainly haven’t thought through all the issues regarding a tax on the methane produced by ruminants, but I expect that imposition and collection of such a tax might be administratively difficult. Given our limited resources, we’ll focus on a carbon tax with its broad effects on all types of energy use. Speaking of limited resources, thanks for the contribution you plan to send next month. We need it!
Also, thanks for your excellent responses to various comments.
Bill, Lechtelhavel, John, Tom and Bill,
Thanks for your support, understanding that Lechtelhavel supports the carbon tax, but not our premise re the climate crisis.
John,
I’m very interested in hearing more about your experience with the EU RoHS directive. I’ll follow-up with you directly.
Tom,
We’re proposing a carbon tax as opposed to an energy tax, because we need to reduce CO2 emissions. A carbon tax, based upon the Btu content of various fuels, will encourage energy users to shift to less carbon-intensive fuels. For example, electricity generators will have an incentive to shift from coal to natural gas, wind, solar or, in the future, coal with sequestration. An energy tax would not provide the same incentive for fuel substitution.
M. Sullivan says
Leave it to the libs to think up another way to expand government through another tax! Just another way to attack our freedom in the United States.
Dana Johnson says
In your Myths Section you have:
Myth #4. Heavy fuel taxes will wreck the economy.
Who says? Traditional growth champions, fossil fuel interests.
Rebuttal: What causes economic havoc isn’t high energy prices or even rising prices, but price volatility. Even fairly steep price increases can be manageable so long as they’re regular and predictable.
THIS SEEMS PRETTY SILLY. SURE, PRICE VOLATILITY IS BAD, BUT THE IMPLICATION OF THIS IS THAT $1,000 PER BARREL OIL BY 2020 WOULD NOT RETARD ECONOMIC GROWTH AS LONG AS WE GOT THERE THROUGH STEADY, PREDICTABLE ANNUAL INCREASES OF ~$70 PER BARREL OVER EACH OF THE NEXT 13 YEARS.
And carbon taxes need not be draconian to accomplish their mission. Our program of recurring annual increases of $37 per ton of emitted carbon equates to 5-10% increases in energy prices per annum (with the percentages shrinking as the "base" rises and as non-fossil energy assumes a larger share).
WEFA ESTIMATES THAT EVEN IMPLEMENTING KYOTO-LEVELS OF EMISSIONS ABATEMENT WOULD COST THE AVERAGE US HOUSEHOLD ABOUT $225 PER MONTH. I GUESS ONE MAN’S ‘NOT DRACONIAN’ IS ANOTHER MAN’S ‘PRETTY PAINFUL’.
By comparison, the average annual real increase in U.S. gasoline prices in 2003-06 was 14%, and this didn’t stop the economy from growing at 3.5% a year.
ALSO PRETTY ILLOGICAL. THE US ALSO CONDUCTED A MULTI HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR WAR OVER THIS PERIOD. THE ECONOMY GREW IN SPITE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, NOT BECAUSE OF IT. SIMILARLY, THE ECONOMY GREW IN SPITE OF THE INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS OVER THIS PERIOD. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED DURING A PERIOD OF OVERALL GROWTH, DEOSN’T MEAN IT DIDN’T RETARD GROWTH VS. WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Needless to say, the true threat to the economy (and everything else) is unchecked climate change, as the Stern Report has shown.
YOU ARE SURELY AWARE THAT ESSENTIALLY ALL MAINSTREAM ECONOMISTS DISMISS THE STERN REPORT AS A PURELY POLITICAL DOCUMENT. THEY KEY ASSUMPTION THAT STERN MADE THAT LEADS TO ANY VARIANCE BETWEEN HIS CONCLUSIONS IS THAT THE SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATE SHOULD BE SET EFFECTIVELY TO ZERO. THIS REPORT HAS BEEN WIDELY DE-BUNKED BY SUCH ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL ZEALOTS AS WEITZMAN AT HARVARD AND NORDHAUS AT YALE.
BY THE WAY, I BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING, AND THAT THE RISK OF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MANAGED. I DON’T WORK IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY. I JUST THINK A LOT FO THE REASONING YOU ARE PUTTING FORWARD IS PRETTY SLOPPY.
Dan says
Dana,
Sloppy thinking? Lets take a look at your post. Your first point is that we’re silly to say that fairly steep prices increases can be manageable so long as theyre regular and predictable. Why, because you say the implication of this is that $1,000 per barrel of oil by 2020 would not retard economic growth as long as we got there through steady, predicable annual increases of ~&70 per barrel over each of the next 13 years. Hold on a minute! Better, please re-read our proposal, which equates (for petroleum products) to annual increases of 10 cents a gallon for 10 years. After 13 years that will be a $1.30 increase which equates to $55 per barrel (since, as you know, 42 gallons equals one barrel ). That’s more than an order of magnitude less than your increase to $1,000/barrel.
Your second point refers to Kyoto-level increases as being draconian and cleverly says I guess one mans not draconian is another mans pretty painful. Im not sure whether your focus is on whether the impact is pretty painful to the end user or harmful to the economy, but apparently you think our proposed tax is draconian or pretty painful. Did you forget that our proposed carbon tax is revenue-neutral? Regarding the impact on the economy, you proceed to say that it is illogical for us to have compared our proposed 5-10% increases in energy prices per annum, with the percentages shrinking over time, to the 14% average annual real increase in U.S. gasoline prices in 2003 which didnt stop the economy from growing at 3.5% per year. Why is that illogical? Our point is that an actual increase (in gasoline prices) greater than that which we propose didn’t stop the economy from growing. You are correct, of course, that the fact that the economy continued to grow doesnt mean that increased prices didnt slow it down. We never claimed that higher prices wont slow the economy, we simply responded to the charge — not a straw man, in our view — that heavy fuel taxes will wreck the economy.
Your final point questions our statement that the true threat to the economy is unchecked climate change, which point you support by claiming that Nordhaus and Weitzman have debunked the Stern Review. Presumably, you’re referring to the Nordhaus paper Comments on the Stern Review’s Economics of Climate Change. While you’re right that Nordhaus raised the discount rate issue and characterized the Stern Review as political, you didn’t mention the Nordhaus conclusion at page 4: While I question some of the [Stern] Reviews modeling and economic assumptions, its results are fundamentally correct in sign if not in size. Our point is that unchecked climate change is more of a threat to the economy than the phased-in carbon tax we have proposed. We stand by that conclusion.
Thanks for writing.
Dan
Dustin says
Dan, Excellent stuff. I came up with something similar right before hearing Daniel Rosenblum on the Newshour. This tax idea is important for many reasons you’ve covered (simple to implement, revenue neutral, hard to evade) and some that you may not have (I have a slowish connection and didn’t have the patience to get through all your slideshow). some of the points I haven’t seen are >helps deprive terrorists of funding >reduces pollution >alters the perverse incentives our tax code gives to reduce employment >helps reduce our vulnerability to cutoff of international oil supplies >helps build employment in efficiency and alternatives >provides a steady incentive rather than, for example, the destructively fluctuating incentives given to wind power. I’m a contractor and drive and F350. I’ve been a lifelong libertarian/Republican (until W). Yes, I’ll pay a lot more in fuel costs, but having the incentives in front of me every time I hit the gas pumps of flip a light switch will make the difference when running numbers on that tubular skylight for my office lighting, solar water heater, or taking fewer trips into town. We pay huge costs right now for energy, from air pollution to military to the bad water from coal mining one of your detractors mentioned above. The demon’s tangle of incentives, taxes, offsets, etc in our current energy system could be reduced if we simplified things with a carbon tax. Whatever the primary justification, this tax should reduce all these "bads and dis-services", will not put more funds into the hands of the pols as some fear, and seems generally sensible. I suppose the only hole one needs to plug is imported embodied CO2 emissions; there is some opportunity for mischief there. Anyway, I like your ideas. Nice work.
Steve Hart says
Great website. Reading some of the comments there are apparently a number of us who have been thinking about this subject and wondering why no one in the media are discussing it. I am drawn to the concept of a carbon tax because I want to see real solutions that actually work.The total failure of CAFE standards to improve fuel economy (and thus to reduce emissions) for the last 20 years is an excellent example of what doesn’t work. What did have a dramatic effect was the high energy prices of the late 70s and early 80s (while they lasted.) For an easily understandable chart and a brief article see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_EconomyA carbon tax will work for the same reason – it is a price change, albeit an artificially induced one. I think it should be more aggressive in the beginning though, to jump-start the attitude change.To work politically the carbon tax must be completely revenue neutral and obviously (arguably and understandably) unbiased. It could be made revenue neutral by taxing carbon at its source (or at the port), then distributing the ENTIRE tax revenue to the populace on a per capita basis. This would provide a carrot along with the stick, and individuals would be rewarded for carbon-frugal behavior on a truly fair and equal basis. This should pass muster with fair-taxers as well. It could be called the "Fair Carbon Tax". I would not attempt to use the carbon tax for any other type of income redistribution – that would be the kiss of death for it.The carbon tax could be "dialed-in" for desired results, and the results could be easily interpreted. It could also be applied immediately for benefit on the national level without world consensus. I would also argue that carbon tax distributions would help stabilize the economy – because there would be some redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, only because the financial incentives do not carry the same imperative for the wealthy as they do for the poor. I would like to take this opportunity to rail against electric utilites, for instituting graduated rate structures – the more you use the less you pay. This is antithetical to the concept of conservation. I think a Federal law should void all such rate structures immediately, in the public interest.It is important to note that one of the requirements for really conquering the dual crises of resource depletion and atmospheric carbon-loading is for a majority of Americans to adapt to a lifestyle that we currently equate with poverty. The good news, as I recently read (Sorry, I don’t remember the source) is that a study indicated our level of happiness peaks at an income of approximately $10,000. If 99% of the population lived at that level, then it wouldn’t really be a problem that the other 1% were extravagant in their lifestyles.This brings up another point though. We need policy makers to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and to develop real solutions rather than to posture on opposite sides of a fictional reality. Republicans say that by removing safety nets they are enabling everyone to become CEOs, and Democrats imply that they can guarantee an upper middle class lifestyle to everyone. Wrong and wrong. I think reality on this issue is the new third rail – but a world of suffering will ensue if it is ignored. We desperately need to evolve into a society of small houses, integrated communities, and limited mobility.Thanks also to Doug Henwood for mentioning the Carbon Tax Center in his Alternet Article, Can the Ruling Classes Save the World From Global Warming?
Scott says
Here’s a few more points for your powerpoint presentation: In the calculation of the total societal costs of fossil fuels, you rarely hear of the associated dangers such as rescuing and treating the thousands of miners hurt every year in coal mining accidents, likewise for those hurt or killed in oil tank, platform or refinery disasters (such as at the Texas BP plant that blew up in 2005). When is the last time a wind farm blew up and destroyed a highway overpass like a gasoline truck did in San Francisco yesterday (04/29/07)? These fossil fuel disasters happen more regularly than people know or care to remember. Here’s a bit more: CNN ran a piece last night on the incredible danger that liquid natural gas (LNG) poses to certain cities like Boston as the massive tanker ships pass the Tobin Bridge, Logan Airport and many residences. Some experts describe a half mile diameter fire caused by just one of the tanks exploding on an LNG ship. Sounds like a pretty tasty terrorist target. Shipping on the river is halted as the Coast Guard escorts the tankers to the terminals. That, of course, doesn’t even consider the dangers posed by the natural gas pipelines buried everywhere that occasionally explode. As for the mother of all fossil fuel disasters, the Exxon Valdez, I think they stopped counting the cleanup costs after about $3 billion. It’s very hard to imagine any similar degree of catastrophe occuring to a solar, wind, geothermal or wave motion power plant.
Arny says
The problem I see at the moment is that carbon taxing is a non-scientific solution to a science generated problem. While I support carbon taxing in principle, I do not think that it is a good solution for the long term. I come from Australia and the water rates are continuously going up due to drought to try to force people to decrease usage. This is rather than building infrastructure.I see carbon tax in the same category. It does not solve the problem, it does however make it more costly to have too many emissions. Unfortunately the other alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal are non-energy efficient compared to the use of carbon. I would like to see a synthetic way of generating photosynthesis. There are a few people researching this but until we make it profitable then it will never be achieved. Massey Universitys Nanomaterials Research Centre have used chlorophil to generate a much more efficient solar cell that does not need as much power input. This is a first step in possibly even wearing clothing that generates energy to keep us warm in colder climates and can run electronic devices.Either way, while I hate the prospect of taxing carbon, I think it will allow better funding and research in solving the problem. If we can make businesses generate environmentally safe products, maybe as well we can give them money back if they reverse the carbon emissions. Rather than a carbon tax, what about a carbon credit?What are your opinions?
Daniel Hewitt says
Daniel,
You are an idiot if you believe that a tax on carbon will do anything other than fatten the pockets of the elite. This website is a joke. You are either part of the problem or very ill informed. It is people like you who further the myth of global warming. I challenge you to post this comment and rebut the statement that global warming and the carbon tax is part of a larger adgenda centered around a one world govt. You make me sick.