Note: On Oct. 15, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation wrote CTC with helpful details that clarify and correct some of the representations in our Aug. 29 post. The APFC graciously granted permission for us to print their e-mail in full, which we have done at the foot of this post. — C.K.

John McCain’s pick for vice-president isn’t shaping up as a win for Teddy Roosevelt-style conservation. A list of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s positions on key environmental issues posted by the folks at Grist includes these anti-green stances:

• Opposed a statewide ballot initiative to prohibit or restrict new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state’s streams and rivers.
• Has pushed to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope
• Sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species
• Has proposed eliminating Alaska’s gas tax
• Has pushed to open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling

But the Grist list also includes this:

• Got the state legislature to pass a bill to provide each Alaskan $1,200 to help with energy costs

Which naturally brings to mind the Alaska Permanent Fund, the 49th State’s long-established program that annually sends every Alaska resident an identical check drawn from the state’s North Slope oil royalties.

The $1,200 per capita “resource rebate,” was proposed by Palin in July and enacted by the legislature on Aug. 7 “as a way for the state to share some of its multibillion-dollar oil revenue surplus with Alaska residents,” according to the Anchorage Daily News, effectively making it a hybrid of the Alaska Permanent Fund and the federal economic stimulus package that distributed checks to U.S. families earlier this year.

As we have long pointed out, the Alaska Permanent Fund offers a proven, straightforward model for distributing federal (or state) carbon tax revenues in revenue-neutral and progressive fashion: returning those revenues equally to all U.S. residents.

With carbon tax revenues distributed through pro rata dividends, the vast majority of poorer households, and a majority of middle-income families as well, would get back more in the dividends than they would pay in the tax. (For a federal carbon tax, the dividend checks should be provided at least quarterly and perhaps even monthly to keep households ahead of the budget treadmill.) This would cushion the impact of higher prices from carbon pricing while retaining the incentives for businesses, institutions and individuals to transist rapidly to a low-carbon economy.

This Labor Day weekend and beyond, the media will doubtless focus on Gov. Palin’s impact on McCain’s election chances. Let’s hope that a few enterprising reporters will use the selection of a candidate from the Last Frontier State as an occasion to focus on the “Alaska Dividend” as an equitable and politically palatable way of packaging a revenue-neutral national carbon tax.

*************************************************************************************************************************

Oct. 15, 2008

Mr. Komanoff –

I saw your post today that you wrote in August mentioning the Alaska Permanent Fund.  I thought you might want to know that the Fund does not send out checks from oil taxes or royalties. The Fund invests 25% of the oil royalties that the State receives (no portion of any oil taxes come to the Permanent Fund) and then sends dividends from the income on investments. This includes rent on commercial real estate, stock dividends and bond interest.

Since 1977 the Fund has received $13.2 billion in oil deposits, which has grown through investments to a current value of $30 billion while paying out $16.7 billion in dividends since 1982.

This year was a little confusing because the dividend was $2,069 per person.  On top of that Governor Palin and the Legislature added an additional $1200 that came straight out of oil revenues (royalties and taxes) in the State’s general fund.

Since you are proposing our model as something that could have a broader US application, I thought you might want to know that it isn’t a straight redistribution of oil revenues. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Laura Achee, Director of Communications, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, www.apfc.org

*************************************************************************************************************************

Photo: Flickr / vincentd_indy.

We launched the Carbon Tax Center seventeen months ago to inform and engage the public about the need for and benefits of revenue-neutral carbon taxation. Coincidentally, that same week the United States Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of mainstream environmental organizations, major electricity generators and giant industrial corporations, announced its formation and legislative agenda: a federal carbon cap-and-trade system. To state the obvious, USCAP has a lot more money and political clout than we do. Not surprisingly, USCAP managed to buy a tremendous amount of press and political support for its cap-and-trade program.

Our strategy at CTC has been simple. We provide an objective source of carbon tax and cap-and-trade related facts, economic arguments and news. We let the public know about the broad support for a carbon tax from economists and opinion leaders across the political spectrum. We were confident the public and Congress would eventually recognize that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is far superior to cap-and-trade for a variety of efficiency and equity reasons that we set forth in an issue paper on our Web site and in a variety of debates and other forums. We expected that Americans would see that the cap-and-trade scheme proposed in bills such as Lieberman-Warner is essentially a tax, with the revenue doled out to special interests. We were betting that once cap-and-trade was revealed as a hidden tax proposal, its putative political advantage over a straightforward carbon tax would vanish.

Events are proving us right. Cap-and-trade’s aura of inevitability evaporated in the U.S. Senate this month. Why? Because, just as we predicted, Senators balked at the cap-and-trade bill’s complexity, its windfall profits for carbon polluters and the feeding frenzy to distribute the revenues in classic pork-barrel fashion.

We don’t buy the notion that in rejecting cap-and-trade, the Senate is defying the public outcry for an effective response to global warming. As John Tierney wrote in his New York Times science blog, “Maybe a better deal — and a better policy — will emerge from this failure.” Tierney emphasized that James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who has been so outspoken on the imminence of global warming, now backs a “tax-and-dividend approach” with carbon revenues “divided equally, so that people who use less energy than average — like lower-income people — would get back more than they spend.” As Tierney pointed out, “Refunding money directly removes the temptation for Congress to treat … carbon-reduction revenues as a chance to dispense trillions of dollars worth of favors — as proposed in last week’s bill, which was aptly dubbed ‘pork-and-trade.’”

Sound familiar? It should. Hansen’s proposal is the same revenue-neutral carbon tax the Carbon Tax Center has been urging all along. In fact, if you’ve been keeping up with our posts you may have noticed that CTC adopted the tax-and-dividend terminology several weeks ago, a switch we picked up from Peter Barnes’ excellent work on cap-and-dividend.

Meanwhile, as readers of our posts and our “Latest News” headlines surely know, the real action on revenue-neutral carbon pricing is in Canada. Liberal Party Leader Stéphane Dion has transformed the climate debate in Canada with his proposal for a $15.4 billion, 4-year “Green Shift.” Read our post on the subject for a quick summary, the Green Shift Handbook for the details and our “Latest News” for reaction to the Green Shift in Canada and around the world. And on Tuesday (July 1), British Columbia inaugurates the Western Hemisphere’s first substantial and comprehensive carbon tax — a day after it distributes dividend checks from the revenue-neutral tax to households and businesses.

A tremendous opportunity awaits. The failure of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade scheme has created a huge opening for a better and more workable method for putting a price on carbon. Splits within USCAP have re-emerged. In a powerful speech on June 25, Lewis Hays, III, Chairman and CEO of FPL Group (a member of USCAP), reiterated his support for a carbon fee stating, “[T]he simplest and most effective way to price carbon is with a continuously escalating fee – or a ‘tax’ as the big carbon emitters like to call it. Under a carbon fee that starts modestly and rises steadily over time, companies will find it more and more expensive to use dirty fuels.”

To take advantage of the opportunity and to capitalize on the post-election window in which new policy ideas can command serious attention, the Carbon Tax Center is organizing a conference in Washington, D.C. this November. Our goals are to:

• increase public awareness of the environmental and economic advantages of a carbon tax over other policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

• place carbon taxes higher on the U.S. Congressional agenda;

• enable carbon tax advocates to forge connections with one another:

• address obstacles (political, economic, and scientific) to enacting a U.S. carbon tax, and to discuss the ideal form of such a tax;

• recognize leaders who have publicly advocated a U.S. carbon tax; and

• discuss lessons learned from the Green Shift proposal in Canada.

We are assembling a terrific roster of speakers and participants. James Hansen has already agreed to speak, and we anticipate many more leading voices on climate change and carbon pricing.

We need your financial help to make our conference happen and to continue our essential work. Please click here to find out how to contribute to CTC. [Note: the foregoing link replaces the original instructions for contributing in this post, which no longer apply.]

Please be as generous as you can, and please donate today. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles Komanoff
Dan Rosenblum

Canada’s Liberal Party Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday dramatically transformed the debate in Canada over how to reduce greenhouse gas emission by proposing a $15.4 billion “Green Shift” over a four-year period. The proposed revenue-neutral carbon tax shift puts a significant price on carbon and demonstrates the type of leadership that’s yet to emerge in the United States.

Introducing the carbon tax shift, Dion eloquently explained:

The Liberal Green Shift is as powerful as it is simple. We will cut taxes on those things we want more of such as income, investment and innovation. And we will shift taxes to what we all want less of: pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste. We need to make polluters pay an put every single penny back into the hands of Canadians.

The Green Shift Plan will be good for the environment and good for the economy. Good for the planet and good for your wallet. We need to make real progress in the fight against climate crisis, and at the same time make our economy more competitive. While energy prices continue to rise, we need to encourage energy efficiency.

            Some have said that nobody would have the courage or the political will to
            do what we believe is right. We need to do it. We will do it.

Dion’s message and a detailed description of the Green Shift can be found in the Green Shift Handbook, easily downloaded from the Green Shift web page. The Green Shift will begin with an immediate $10 per tonne tax on carbon and steadily rise by an additional $10 per tonne each year, reaching $40 per tonne within four years.

The tax will apply at the wholesale level to all fossil fuels based upon their respective carbon content. The tax will not apply to gasoline at the pump, since the existing excise tax on gasoline at the pump is already the equivalent of $42 per tonne of carbon.

Revenue-neutrality is a key element of the Green Shift, which clearly states that “For every dollar raised in taxes there will be a dollar returned to Canadians in tax cuts.” The Auditor General will ensure the Green Shift’s revenue-neutrality.

The Green Shift will return the “pollution dividend” to Canadians through:

• Significant, broad-based income tax reductions, increasing each year as the pollution tax revenue rises;

• Reforms to the tax system to make it fairer for low-income Canadians, including;

o Introducing a new, universal child tax benefit worth $350 per child, per year,
on top of all existing child benefits;

o Replacing the existing $1,000 employment credit with a $1,850 refundable
employment credit targeting those making less than $50,000 per year;

o Enriching the Working Income Tax Benefit, making it available on the first
dollar earned; and

o Making the Disability Tax Credit refundable;

• Additional support for rural and Northern Canadians, with every rural Canadian receiving, up front, an annual Green Rural Credit of $150;

• A boost in the Northern Residents Deduction for those living in Northern
  Canada;

• Broad-based corporate tax reductions;

• Small-business income tax reductions;

• Accelerated capital cost allowances for green technologies; and

• Better research and development incentives.

The Green Shift is already receiving massive press coverage in Canada, a small sample can be found in our “Latest News” column. And as the press coverage makes clear, the stakes are high for both the environment and for Dion and the Liberal Party’s political future. Dion Stakes His Future on Being Greenest of Them All, according to the Globe and Mail. The attacks by Dion’s political opponents have already begun. See, for example, the Vancouver Sun story Dion’s ‘Green Shift’ Debuts to Heavy Fire, “The Conservative government and the New Democratic Party assailed Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s proposed national carbon tax Thursday as a crazy and irresponsible plan….”

Canadian environmentalists have been far more supportive. According to an article in today’s Montreal Gazette, Greenpeace offered qualified support for the Green Shift arguing the price should be even higher, Équiterre says it’s the type of policy it could support and the Sierra Club Canada’s executive director said, "The benefit of a carbon tax is that it can be applied quickly, thereby raising the price of carbon emissions sooner; cap-and-trade systems have their benefits but they do take longer to implement properly."

That’s CTC’s response, too. We applaud Dion’s political courage, but we prefer a higher carbon tax. We fully support the concept of revenue neutrality and like the “shift” and “dividend” language, although we would prefer more direct return of the revenues through a Green Shift/carbon tax dividend or offsetting tax reductions. We applaud Dion’s targeting of Green Shift/carbon tax revenues to low-income rural energy users, necessary for both equity and political reasons. Finally, we’re intrigued that the Green Shift does not tax gasoline at the pump, although we expect that some portion of the tax will be passed through to retail customers. As we noted in a post last week, gasoline prices have already increased as much in the last year as we proposed for the next ten years. A floor on gasoline prices maintained by a revenue-neutral carbon tax might be appropriate.

There will be plenty of time to carefully examine the details of the Green Shift and, we’re sure, plenty of lessons to be learned about both the substance of the Green Shift and the politics of promoting a carbon tax. Stay tuned!

Photo of Stéphane Dion: http://www.liberal.ca/glance_e.aspx

U.S. CO2 Emissions Rose 1.6% in 2007 (EIA "flash estimate")

Carbon taxes having been getting much more attention in the Canadian press than they have in the United States. And familiarity with the concept of a carbon tax appears to produce support.

A Canadian Press Harris/Decima poll released last week revealed strong support for "a carbon tax levied on people and businesses based on the carbon emissions they generate," with 61% supporting such a tax and 32% opposed.

The poll showed even greater support for "an environmental tax refund paid to those who succeed in reducing their use of fossil fuels, electricity, water and the amount of garbage they produce," with 80% support and only 16% opposition.

According to Harris/Decima President Bruce Anderson, the basic concept of a carbon tax becomes more popular:

when the focus is on the broader aspects of our environmental footprint, not just carbon, when it is clear that the money raised would be used to incent environmental improvement, when the idea is that those who are taxed are those who aren’t trying, and when there is a signal that environmentally thoughtful behaviour will be rewarded." (Emphasis added.)

Rewarding the "thoughtful behavior" may explain the greater support offered for the "environmental tax refund" compared to the "carbon tax" poll question. Anderson concludes:

The central concept, of taxing particularly harmful behavior, and rewarding the opposite, is a potential political winner for the party that can get it right and describe it clearly. The tag "carbon tax" and the term "revenue neutral", from a political communications standpoint, are not ideal starting points, as communications go.

We agree with Anderson’s conclusion that "taxing particularly harmful behavior, and rewarding the opposite" — precisely what a revenue-neutral carbon tax is designed to do — is a potential political winner.

We intend to give more thought to his political communications point and whether there is a better way to frame the case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Ideas?

Photo: Flickr / champy1013

UPDATE – May 11 – The Canadian Press reported today on unsubstantiated rumors that the Liberal Party’s pollster has found far less favorable views about carbon tax when respondents were given details of British Columbia’s carbon tax plan. According to the rumors, "the poll found 30 per cent strongly opposed to the idea and 12 per cent somewhat opposed, compared to 23 per cent strongly supportive and 25 per cent somewhat supportive." Based upon Anderson’s conclusion above and assuming the rumored poll results are accurate, the Liberal Party pollster’s results might have been more favorable had he avoided use of the terms "carbon tax" and "revenue-neutral."

Canadian Liberal Party chief touts carbon tax on fuels, billions in tax cuts (Globe & Mail)

Thanks to the gas tax “holiday” proposed by Senators McCain and Clinton, gasoline taxes (a component of carbon taxes) have become a major issue in the presidential campaign. Senators McCain and Clinton have been attacked across the political spectrum for pandering. Politicians from President Bush to House Speaker Pelosi have rejected the idea, as have newspaper editorial boards from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a powerful carbon tax advocate, may have been the most succinct, calling a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax “about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view” and saying he did not see “any merit to it whatsoever” (NY Times, May 2). Economists have been nearly unanimous, with over 100 economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, signing a statement opposing the gas tax holiday.

In our last newsletter we acknowledged that “the ‘T’ word is unpopular with politicians,” but asserted that “awareness is growing that ‘putting a price on carbon’ is an essential element of any successful strategy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” In fact, awareness is growing faster than we expected. We’re heartened by the widespread recognition that the gas tax holiday proposal is fundamentally flawed because it undercuts the need to properly price gasoline and would encourage gas use just when it is essential to discourage consumption. In breaking news, the Monday (May 5) New York Times will report that by 49% to 45%, more Americans think that lifting the gas tax is a bad idea than approve of the plan.

In addition, we are intrigued by a Wall Street Journal report that some members of Congress are advocating that proceeds of a windfall profits tax be used to provide rebates for consumers. It sounds a lot like the rebate we have proposed to return carbon tax revenues to the American people. While we take no position at this time on the merits of a windfall profits tax, it’s good to see thought being given to returning the windfall profit tax proceeds. It’s a step toward a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Our next challenge is to convert the well-reasoned opposition to a gas tax holiday into support for a carbon tax. As a first step, we have begun preliminary planning for a Carbon Tax Conference to be held in Washington, D.C. in mid-November. The conference will be designed to focus public attention on a carbon tax as the best policy for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and is timed to occur just as a new administration and Congress begin establishing priorities and mapping out strategies. Interested in being involved in the early planning? If so, please let us know.

Please check our web page regularly for the latest developments on carbon tax issues and progress. We add important news stories to the “Headlines” column on our home page almost every day. Take a look at the excellent guest post by James Handley, an extraordinary volunteer at CTC, addressing the gas tax holiday issue. It was on our web page until today (in case you haven’t noticed, previous blog posts are listed just below the current post). Our next post will take up a related issue, the impact on demand of rising gasoline prices. There is more and more evidence that higher prices, such as would result from a carbon tax, lead to reduced consumption. That’s the premise of our proposed carbon tax and it’s being validated every day.

Finally, CTC does have to admit to one major failing. We’ve been so focused on policy issues and getting the message out that we haven’t spent the necessary time on fundraising. The result is predictable. We’re desperately short of money just when we need it the most. To continue playing our essential role, we need your financial help.

You can contribute to CTC in three ways, two of which are tax-deductible:

* Tax-deductible:

Write a check or money order to ELPC (Environmental Law & Policy Center), writing Carbon Tax Center in the memo line; mail it to ELPC at 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60601. ELPC is CTC’s fiscal sponsor.

* Tax-deductible:

Make an on-line contribution via Groundspring by clicking on the DONATE NOW box on our website, www.carbontax.org.

* Not deductible:

Write a check or money order to Carbon Tax Center and send it to our New York City mailing address: CTC, 636 Broadway, Room 602, New York, NY 10012.

Please be as generous as you can, and please donate today. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles Komanoff
Dan Rosenblum

The British Columbia Ministry of Finance issued this News Release on April 28. It speaks for itself and requires no comment from the Carbon Tax Center.

N E W S   R E L E A S E

For Immediate Release                                                                       Ministry of Finance

2008FIN0009-000615

April 28, 2008 

CARBON TAX GUARANTEES TAX CUTS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIANS

VICTORIA — British Columbia is the first province to implement a comprehensive, revenue-neutral carbon tax – an initiative that returns every dollar raised to the people and businesses of British Columbia as tax cuts, Finance Minister Carole Taylor announced today.

“British Columbia is leading the way in addressing climate change, and the revenue-neutral carbon tax is another pioneering step forward for our province,” said Taylor. “Each step we take to change our habits and behaviours, as individuals and as a community, will help leave a legacy that our children and grandchildren can be proud of.”

By tying the carbon tax to reductions in personal and business taxes, the Province is giving the people of British Columbia the power to make their own choices.

“Pricing carbon sends a clear message that there is a cost to the environment involved in emitting carbon,” said Taylor. “Leading economists and scientists agree that introducing a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the right thing for our province, today and for the future. We took time to design a model that protects low-income families and moves British Columbia to being one of the lowest-taxing provinces in Canada.”

In the first three years, the carbon tax is estimated to generate $1,849 million in revenue, which will be returned to British Columbians as follows:

The bottom two personal income tax rates will be reduced for all British  Columbians, resulting in a tax cut of two per cent in 2008, rising to five per cent in 2009 on the first $70,000 in earnings – with further reductions expected in 2010: $784 million.

Effective July 1, 2008, the general corporate income tax rate will be reduced to 11 per cent from 12 per cent – with further reductions planned to 10 per cent by 2011: $415 million.

Effective July 1, 2008, the small business tax rate will be reduced to 3.5 per cent from 4.5 per cent – with further reductions planned to 2.5 per cent by 2011): $255 million.

Beginning July 1, 2008, the new Climate Action Credit will provide lower-income British Columbians a payment of $100 per adult and $30 per child per year – increasing by five per cent in 2009 and possibly more in future years: $395 million.

Total tax cuts over three years:$1,849 million.

This groundbreaking legislation is supplemented by an immediate Climate Action Dividend, $100 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia. This dividend, which will further support our community’s ability to make greener choices, will go out to residents of British Columbia starting in late June.

For further information about the carbon tax and ideas for making greener choices, please visit:

The year-long effort to enact congestion pricing in New York City had a lot going for it:

• Traffic congestion is roundly despised. Gridlock has few defenders.
• NYC’s mass transit system, the asserted beneficiary of revenues from the traffic fee, is riding a 25-year upswing and is understood to be the linchpin of the city’s prosperity.
• A broad coalition of business, labor and environmental groups supported and actively campaigned for congestion pricing.

The demise of the pricing plan — it passed the City Council last week but wasn’t brought up for a vote in the State Legislature yesterday — is prompting much hand-wringing in the City. The New York Times today decried the powerful Speaker of the State Assembly for failing to throw his weight behind the proposal. The blogs, from the estimable Streetsblog ("covering the Livable Streets Movement") to the Times’ dot Earth, are asking what pricing’s defeat says about the fate of other, larger issues, from livable urban streets to the campaign to stop climate change.

There’s soul-searching at the Carbon Tax Center as well. Having argued last year that congestion pricing and carbon taxing were thematically linked — both entail valuing the commons to preserve it; both appear income-regressive but can be made strongly progressive by fairly and effectively allocating the revenues — we’re obliged to ponder what the failure of congestion pricing portends for carbon taxes in America.

We’ve already posted a Top 10 Reasons piece to Grist. It’s a bit on the lite side, but it makes some salient points, such as this:

Misplaced emphasis on climate: Hitching congestion
pricing to climate protection, even in part, was disingenuous. The anticipated traffic reductions would have eliminated no more than 1% of NYC’s CO2. The emphasis should have been on cutting the scourge of traffic, whose theft of time, sanity, and safety from New Yorkers outweighs the climate damage from CBD-bound tailpipes by a couple of orders of magnitude.

(That was reason #10; it would probably rank higher on this blog.)

Our Grist post elicited a number of candid, private replies. Here are three worth pondering (edited, and with the names redacted):

A chemical engineer and policy analyst who worked with congestion pricing theorist and Nobel Laureate Bill Vickrey, honed in on the winners/losers conundrum:

The central problem policy problem, both here and around the world, continues to be that the losers from any policy change know who they are and are always far better organized than are the winners. Indeed, some winners are bamboozled into thinking that they will be losers. Nowhere is this more true than with congestion pricing — invariably this has been opposed by a majority before introduction but is warmly welcomed by a majority afterwards.

This is why political leadership is so important. Such leadership emerges in New York only very rarely if ever and is one of the reasons New York continues to decline relative to other states.  History tells us that this has long been true however; consider how T.R. got on the national ticket with McKinley in 1900.

A writer on transportation and public spaces blamed congestion pricing’s messenger:

Appalling though this setback is, I think it has its up-side — Bloomberg
is not really the champion you want for this kind of fundamental
change.  He (your reason #3) never really "got it" in anything other than a
gaudy, intellectualized fashion and, as you say, certainly never put in the work needed to make this
real. The plan was
never properly linked to specific, pre-visualized, and fully explained transit
and other benefits (your reason #2); and for all of Bloomberg’s newly-donned, enviro-conning
green robes he is planning a Manhattan top-heavy with the swaggerers
(your #6 reason). So I think your 10 reasons actually boil down to 1: the
Mayor.

Another writer on public policy was more pessimistic:

Today’s New York Times turned over a patch of its most coveted space — on its op-ed page — to a curious essay. On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend is vexing and even a tad bipolar, in one moment calling a carbon tax "glamorous" (who knew?), but in the next insinuating that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a big no-no for the U.S.

The article’s big idea is that carbon tax revenues should be allocated to industry as lump-sum incentives to invest in cutting carbon, rather than returned to households to offset higher prices for energy and products. To support this thesis, the author points to carbon-taxing Scandinavia, where Denmark, the only country to dedicate carbon tax revenues to industry, is also the only one where CO2 emissions have plummeted.

On close examination, this "finding" turns flimsy. The fly in the ointment is that while all four Scandinavian countries have indeed levied some form of carbon tax since the early 1990s, in each case the tax levels so far have been on the "lite" side, making it difficult to tie changes in emissions to specific tax and revenue policies.

Sweden, for example, taxes carbon at $150 per ton (that’s a hefty $41 per ton of carbon dioxide), as we report elsewhere on this site, but fuels to generate electricity are untaxed, and industries pay only 50%. Denmark’s carbon tax is $14 per ton of CO2, reports Alan Durning of Sightline Institute; while that’s not chicken feed — it equates to around half-a-buck per gallon of gasoline — it’s still insufficient to account for more than a fraction of Denmark’s carbon reductions, especially considering that, as in Sweden, industry in Denmark is taxed at only half the going rate.

Denmark has trimmed CO2 emissions impressively. The Times op-ed puts the drop in per-capita emissions at 15% from 1990 to 2005; using regression analysis, which infers the trend line from all the annual data points instead of just the first and last, we calculated the per-capita drop at 15% using EIA data and 18% using CDIAC data. This decline is heartening, but we’re inclined to ascribe it primarily to Denmark’s aggressive pursuit of wind power (which now accounts for over 20% of electricity generation), steep taxes on coal-fired electricity (not quite a carbon tax though with similar impact) and ongoing promotion and enabling of bicycle transportation, which now accounts for 24% of urban trips by vehicle, nationwide.

Our big beef with the article is with its use of Norway as a lesson in failed carbon taxing. Unlike Denmark, Norway doesn’t dedicate carbon tax revenues to industry, and per capita emissions have risen 43%. Ergo, implies the author, carbon taxing with revenue return is tantamount to allowing producers
"to continue polluting while handing over cash to the government." Not only is that argument a non sequitur, its premise may be shaky if Norway’s carbon accounting hasn’t been adjusted for oil infrastructure and exports, which have grown enough recently to make Norway the world’s third largest oil exporter.

We’ll concede that countries with sturdy safety nets and small carbon taxes can probably get away with directing the tax revenues to industry or other agents for low-carbon investment. But for big carbon taxes in the USA, we think a revenue-neutral tax with revenue recycling will be imperative to keep not only poorer Americans but much of the middle class from being pushed to the wall.

Notwithstanding our dissatisfaction with the op-ed, we regard the author, Monica Prasad of Northwestern University, as an interesting thinker. Her new paper on which she based her essay, Taxation as a Regulatory Tool: Lessons from Environmental Taxes in Europe, is a provocative work that uses behavioral economics as a window for evaluating taxes and other policies for curbing carbon emissions. It’s worth careful study, by us and by you.

Photo: Flickr / Less Salty.