Search Results for “revenue /blogarchives/2008/08/29/could-palin-pick-spotlight-alaska-dividend-solution-to-climate-crisis”

Carbon Tax Center

Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably

Search Results for: revenue /blogarchives/2008/08/29/could-palin-pick-spotlight-alaska-dividend-solution-to-climate-crisis

Revenue-Neutral: Yes or No?

A “robust” carbon tax — one high enough to significantly change fuel incentives, drive innovation and transform our energy system and culture — is going to generate large amounts of revenue.

Fossil-fuel burning in the U.S. now (pre-pandemic, 2019) emits around 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. A carbon tax set at the threshold of robustness — $50 per metric ton — would generate roughly $250 billion a year in new tax proceeds. That’s a significant figure by any measure. It equates to 6-7 percent of total U.S. tax proceeds (currently $3.86 trillion). Spread among the country’s 128.5 million households (as of 2017), it’s $1,950 a year.

Not surprisingly, “what to do with the carbon tax revenue” is the most contentious issue surrounding carbon tax proposals, especially for possible carbon taxes at the federal level where the tax rate could be higher and political divisions are starker.

Revenue-Neutral Carbon-Taxing

Revenue-neutral means that government retains little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions. Instead, the revenues are returned to the public; with, perhaps, small amounts utilized to assist communities dependent on fossil-fuel extraction and processing to adapt and convert to low- or non-carbon economies.

There are two overlapping but nonetheless disparate reasons for structuring a carbon tax to be revenue-neutral.

One is to appeal to (or appease) voters and elected officials who claim to abhor government and thus don’t want to swell its coffers.

The other is to counter or at least minimize the natural regressivity of carbon taxes by returning revenue in a way that protects the less affluent, while preserving the tax’s price-incentive to reduce emissions. (Keep in mind that wealthier households use more energy, since they generally drive and fly more, have bigger (and sometimes multiple) houses, and buy more stuff that requires energy to manufacture and use.)

There are two primary approaches to returning or recycling the tax revenues.

One approach, discussed below in detail, returns revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) “dividends” to all U.S. households or residents. Every resident or household receives an equal, identical slice of the total carbon revenue “pie.” In this approach, which adherents at Citizens Climate Lobby call fee-and-dividend, each individual’s carbon tax is proportional to his or her fossil fuel use, creating an incentive to reduce; but everyone’s dividend is equal and independent of his or her usage, preserving the conservation incentive. Alaska’s dividend program has provided residents with annual allotments from the state’s North Slope oil royalties for three-and-a-half decades.

In the other revenue-return method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue triggers a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or corporate income tax — or, on the state level, sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising steadily but not too steeply, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes are phased out. While this “tax-shift” is less direct than the dividend method, it too ensures that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It offers other important benefits, as well; for example, reducing payroll taxes could stimulate employment.

To repeat: each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts is independent of the carbon taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits are tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation of benefits from payments preserves the carbon tax’s incentive to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. (Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the costs of various goods and services.)

Revenue-neutrality not only protects the poor, it’s also politically savvy since it offers a way to blunt the “No New Taxes” demand that has held sway in American politics for decades. Returning the carbon tax revenues to the public would also make it easier to raise the tax level over time, a point made nicely by McGill University professor Christopher Ragan in a 2008 Montreal Gazette op-ed, and subsequently borne out by the experience in British Columbia where a revenue-neutral carbon tax was ramped up in four annual increments; that tax remains politically popular and is driving down emissions.

In any event, either of the two “revenue return” approaches — carbon dividends and tax-shifting — can make carbon taxes income-progressive. Because income and energy consumption are strongly correlated, most poor households will get more back in their carbon dividends or via tax-shifting than they will pay in the carbon tax. The overall effect of a carbon tax could thus be equitable and even “progressive” (benefiting lower-earning households).

Revenue-Positive Carbon-Taxing (Investing in Alternatives)

It may seem axiomatic that carbon-tax revenues should fund renewable energy or efficiency upgrades. And that approach always polls well, making it politically attractive.

Nevertheless, climate and energy realities indicate that only a robustly-rising carbon tax can deliver the deep and broad CO2 emission reductions needed to avert climate disaster. Building public support and maintaining the fairness needed for such a substantial carbon tax can most easily be done if all or nearly all of the carbon-tax revenue is returned to taxpayers. See “Making a carbon tax income-progressive” and our blog post: “Which Carbon Tax: Robust or Miniature? (July 7, 2013)”

Dividends

(a/k/a Carbon Dividends or “Green Checks”)

One revenue treatment that is both income-progressive and appealingly straightforward is to return the revenues equally to all U.S. residents. This  so-called “dividend” would be a national version of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which since the 1970s has annually sent all state residents identical checks drawn from earnings on investments made with the state’s North Slope oil royalties. (For a federal carbon tax, the “dividend” checks should be provided quarterly or monthly to keep households ahead of the budget treadmill.)

The dividend approach was so attractive and elegant that the nation’s most energetic and active advocacy organization for carbon taxes has organized around it. That’s the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which calls its approach carbon fee-and-dividend.

Fee-and-dividend explained, Canadian style. Hat tip to @scottsantens.

Fee-and-dividend explained, Canadian style. Hat tip to @scottsantens.

Nevertheless, it seems fair to say (and important to acknowledge) that by 2018, the second year of the Trump administration, fee-and-dividend has run out of political room. Not a single “sitting” (i.e., still in office) Republican member of Congress has publicly endorsed fee-and-dividend, even as a concept, let alone an actual bill. Yet the premise of fee-and-dividend has always been bipartisanship, since Democrats, with their preference for activist government, would accept a revenue-neutral carbon tax such as fee-and-dividend only if it delivered Republican votes.

For a decade, we wrote glowingly about fee and dividend — most recently in 2017 articles in The Nation and the Washington Spectator. We also praised the Climate Leadership Council’s “carbon dividend” proposal and advocacy in those two pieces and in numerous blogs (here, here, and here, inter alia). But as we wrote in June 2018, we believe that the time for carbon dividend proposals has probably passed. We wrote:

The [political] center to which Baker-Shultz (CLC) and fee-and-dividend (CCL) were designed to appeal barely exists. It’s not just that no sitting Republican has endorsed Baker-Shultz or indeed fee-and-dividend in any form. It’s also that the Democratic majority that will be needed to pass a carbon tax bill appears unlikely to rally around a revenue-neutral carbon tax, whether it’s organized as fee-and-dividend or some form of tax swap.

Economic Progressivity of Fee-and-Dividend

In 2016 CCL released a detailed paper examining how a carbon fee-and-dividend would impact U.S. households. The study took into account geographic variations in electricity sources and gasoline use and drew on a database of carbon intensity of expenditures for 5.8 million households to analyze the net effect of returning revenue to households on a modified per capita basis. Here are the major results:

Percentage of Households Benefitted by Income Quintile

Percentage of Households Benefitted, by Income Quintile

  • 53% of households (and 58% of individuals) would receive more in dividend payments than they would spend due to higher fossil fuel prices.
  • Another 19% of households would incur only a slight loss, defined as a net loss no larger than one-fifth of one percent of pre-tax income.
  • Nearly 90% of households below the poverty line would benefit an average of $311, an increase of roughly 2.8% of pre-tax income.
  • In contrast, the net loss for the top quintile of households would average $-322 or only -0.18% of pre-tax income.

Notably, these findings support a dividend plan’s ability to transform a carbon tax into a progressive policy that neutralizes the burden that lower-income households would otherwise face, directly and indirectly, due to higher fuel prices. CTC advocates a progressive distributional outcome for both pragmatic and ethical reasons: pragmatically, because a carbon tax will require broad, sustained, public and political support; and ethically, because it’s not tenable to solve the climate crisis on the backs of those who can least afford it.

A Caveat — CBO’s “haircut”

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office routinely “scores” members’ bills for their prospective impact on tax revenues. To streamline its analyses, CBO long ago settled the so-called “CBO haircut” by which it assumes that one-quarter of indirectly raised revenues would need to be allocated from the tax proceeds in question in order to make up for reduced tax revenues collected from conventional sources such as personal or corporate income taxes. But modeling of carbon tax proposals consistently finds that when revenue is strategically returned by reducing other taxes that tend to slow down economic activity, the net negative impacts are much lower than CBO’s 25% assumption and in some cases may be eliminated altogether. While returning revenue as “dividends” (which economists call “lump-sum rebates”) offers less potential to reduce economic drag than tax shifts, CBO’s assumption still seems like an over-estimate.

In any event, rigid application of the 25% CBO haircut could, on paper at least — and, likely, in Congressional deliberations — limit the carbon tax revenue perceived to be available for “dividends” to 75%. Yet even with this reduced fraction of revenue, returning carbon tax revenue via a direct dividend represents a simple and income-progressive means to make carbon taxes distributionally fair; though with the haircut, the share of households reaping a net benefit via an equal 75% dividend would be lower than the 58% of individuals mentioned above.

Related CTC blog posts

Related news reports and opinion pieces

Cogent opinion pieces by dividend proponent James K. Boyce (U-Mass, Amherst)

Tax-Shifting

The distribution of carbon tax burdens creates an opportunity for “progressive tax-shifting,” in which a portion of carbon tax revenue is dedicated to reducing regressive taxes such as the payroll tax (at the federal level) or sales taxes (at the state level). An early proponent of such a carbon tax shift was Al Gore, with his exhortation to “Tax what we burn, not what we earn.” Shifting taxes away from payroll and/or sales taxes and onto carbon pollution could raise, not lower, the after-tax incomes of a majority of below-median-income households, giving this approach a net progressive effect.

In addition to this potential progressive effect of tax shifting, a wide range of economists, [including Lawrence Goulder, Roberton Williams & Ian Parry, Gilbert Metcalf & David Weisbach, Alan Viard, Robert Shapiro, Donald Marron & Eric Toder] have concluded that use of revenue to reduce other taxes would improve the overall efficiency of the economy, for example, by removing burdens on work.

In October 2007, the Brookings Institution published a A Proposal for a U.S. Carbon Tax Swap — An Equitable Tax Reform to Address Global Climate Change by Tufts University economics professor Gilbert E. Metcalf, describing a national carbon tax paired with an income tax credit for payroll taxes paid. Metcalf assessed the impact of a tax of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide and five major greenhouse gases. Revenues would be used to credit payroll tax paid on the first $3,660 of earnings per worker. Metcalf showed that such a tax swap would be both revenue-neutral and distributionally-neutral. (Harvard professor and former Bush Administration economist Gregory Mankiw mentioned the Metcalf paper in a Sept. 2007 New York Times op-ed, discussed on our blog.) Rep. John Larson (D-CT) adopted Metcalf’s framework for his “America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act,” discussed on our Bills page.

C tax revenue efficiency -- RFFMore recent analysis has confirmed the importance of carbon tax revenue wisely; using it to reduce other “distortionary” taxes can offer large enough efficiency benefits to reduce or even possibly eliminate the economic drag that a carbon tax would otherwise create. In Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Impacts (2013) researchers from Resources for the Future found that using carbon tax revenue to reduce corporate income tax rates offers large enough efficiency benefits to more than overcome the efficiency loss of a carbon tax. The next best option is using revenue to cut wage taxes, while using revenue to cutting other consumption taxes is somewhat less efficient. Finally, refunding carbon tax revenue in a “lump sum rebate” (dividend) offers the least economic efficiency benefit.

Reducing the top marginal corporate income tax rate has been articulated as a goal by leaders of both major political parties. In an effort to attract Republican interest, Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) has introduced a carbon tax measure that would devote half its revenue to corporate income tax reduction.

Nevertheless, the growing economics literature on carbon taxes suggests a strong a tradeoff between the efficiency benefits of using carbon tax revenue to cut taxes on capital (as the Delaney proposal would do) and the distributional benefits of cutting taxes on labor (as Rep. Larson’s proposal would).

Related CTC blog posts and articles

Related journal articles and papers

 

Bloomberg, Economists, Greens Tell Ways & Means: Price Carbon Upstream, Distribute Revenues to Consumers

By

Reported for the Carbon Tax Center by James F. Handley.

The "fierce urgency" of the climate crisis compels action, said Rep. John Larson (D-CT) at Thursday’s House Ways and Means Committee’s packed hearing on climate change revenue measures. Hurricane Ike’s devastation of coastal Texas imparted deeper meaning to Martin Luther King’s phrase. Witnesses pointed to storm-related damage as one of many ways in which failure to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming will destroy ecosystems and economies alike.

Citing the effectiveness and simplicity of a carbon tax, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to tax fossil fuel producers upstream, and distribute revenue downstream to consumers by reducing payroll taxes. A carbon tax would impose a cost proportional to carbon emissions, but because revenue distribution would not be linked to consumption, the system would “use capitalism” to create broad incentives for energy conservation and alternative energy, Bloomberg said.

Ways_Means.jpgWhile reiterating that he favors a “straightforward carbon tax,” Bloomberg said carbon cap-and-auction would also work if revenues were distributed downstream, an idea elaborated later by Peter Barnes of Cap and Dividend. Bloomberg urged the U.S. to avoid competing to become the world’s cheapest producer — a strategy that has thrust China into an environmental nightmare and a downward wage spiral. Bloomberg and Dr. Frank Ackerman of the Stockholm Environment Institute and Tufts University cited Germany’s standing as a world leader in manufacturing high-value products despite high wages and energy prices.

Climate policy, said Dr. Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office, poses the thorny problem of imposing short-term costs to achieve long-term benefits. The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill would have created $100 billion in carbon emission allowances. Orszag stressed that giving away permits to energy producers, as the bill proposed, would enrich fuel producers rather than protect energy consumers. To avert the extreme volatility experienced under EPA’s sulfur dioxide cap and maximize economic efficiency, Orszag urged that a carbon cap be designed flexibly with banking of permits.

Dr. Dallas Burtaw of Resources for the Future agreed with Orszag that giving away permits to energy producers wouldn’t reduce price increases felt by consumers. A tax with a direct dividend would function as a transparent system, Burtaw said, that would signal to the public that we are addressing climate change as a national initiative that is “not engineered to squirrel away special privileges.”

Tim Regan of Corning Incorporated warned the Committee over the competitive disadvantage to energy-intensive industries such as his own under either cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. But Robert Lighthizer, an attorney with Skadden, Arps’ international trade department, assured the panel that the WTO allows the U.S. to impose tariffs equivalent to domestic carbon prices on imported products to put domestic products on a level playing field. Gary Hufbaur of the Peterson Institute cautioned that the WTO has not ruled on these matters but argued that this need not delay U.S. action to create incentives for our trading partners to join in combating global warming.

The Committee questioned panelists extensively. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cited the conclusion of the February CBO study that a carbon tax would be five times as effective as a simple cap-and-trade system. Several panelists noted that setting tariffs to harmonize the burden on imported goods would be much simpler under a carbon tax because the exact price of carbon would be fixed while under cap-and-trade the price would fluctuate.

After a recess for floor votes, the Committee began its second panel with Frank Ackerman of the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University. “The debate has shifted at last” Dr. Ackerman declared. “Climate science is no longer debatable and now the serious economic discussion is underway.” He insisted that costs of inaction would be staggering — far more severe storm damage, sea-level rise inundating coastal-area homes, farms and businesses, particularly in Florida and the Caribbean, and endemic water shortages. Ackerman testified that the costs of well-designed policies to cut carbon would be small by comparison, probably only 1% of output.

Daniel Abassi of the emissions trading and investment firm MissionPoint Capital called on Congress to price carbon through a cap-and-trade system, with 25% of allowances given to industry and 75% auctioned, with revenue used to reduce distortionary taxes, for tax incentives, efficiency upgrades and low-carbon energy R&D.

The climate crisis is “a major threat to national security,” declared Jerome Ringo of the Apollo Alliance Having just been in Louisiana and Texas, Ringo said average people aren’t talking about the Wall Street meltdown, they’re asking “why they’ve been hit with so many category 5 storms; climate change comes up in almost every conversation.” Ringo called for Congress to push the U.S. to a green jobs economy by funding public transportation and infrastructure. He warned that emissions trading could mean “rich companies get richer” and asked that carbon revenues be dedicated to training and investment in alternative energy.

Peter Barnes urged Congress to put cap-and-trade auction revenue where it will do the most good both politically and economically — into a direct monthly dividend to each U.S. resident along the lines of the Alaska Permanent Fund. A dividend would offset economic effects on consumers and also build the broad political support needed to support climate legislation, Barnes said.

Expanding on the Apollo Alliance’s call for funding public transportation, Bill Millar of the American Public Transportation Association cited DOE studies showing that transport generates a third of U.S. carbon emissions. [Ed. note: autos and light trucks generate 21-22% of U.S. CO2; air travel and freight add another 10%, approximately.] “If a typical two-car, two-adult household chooses to eliminate one car and take public transportation, walk or ride a bicycle for most of its trips, [its] CO2 emissions can be reduced 30% which is more than if that household went without electricity,” Millar testified. Millar said that spending $1 billion on public transportation would create at least 35,000 jobs. He also called transit a direct way to offset the effects of higher fuel prices on consumers.

David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation testified that a U.S. policy capping emissions or a carbon tax would do little to reduce global greenhouse emissions and would not be worth the cost. Ackerman strongly disagreed, “If the U.S. leads, the world will follow, but if we don’t, the worst consequences” can be expected.

Photo: Flickr / HispanicCaucus.

Cheap Oil’s Peril and Promise in the Fight against Climate Change

By

Clifford Krauss and Diane Cardwell have a front-page story in today’s New York Times about the challenge that cheap oil poses to the Paris climate agreement. The way that governments respond could make or break the agreement, they say, with huge ramifications for the global fight to stop climate change:

For the climate accord to work, governments must resist the lure of cheap fossil fuels in favor of policies that encourage and, in many cases, require the use of zero-carbon energy sources. But those policies can be expensive and politically unpopular, especially as traditional fuels become ever more affordable.

“This will be a litmus test for the governments — whether or not they are serious about what they have done in Paris,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.

The Carbon Tax Center has repeatedly highlighted this challenge over the past twelve months, particularly in economic terms. Cheap oil has meant cheap gas, which has encouraged more driving and a reversion to gas guzzlers. We calculated last month that increased gasoline consumption in the U.S. alone in 2015 produced carbon emissions equivalent to a year’s worth of emissions from nine coal-fired power plants. That’s equivalent to the entire annual emissions from burning all fossil fuels for all purposes in Denmark or Ireland.

Want more driving? Cheap gasoline will do the trick.

Want more driving? Just pour on cheap gasoline.

We concluded that cheap oil risks making a “mockery of just about every scenario to move the U.S. and other countries decisively off carbon fuels.” But that’s not the end of the story. Cheap oil paradoxically presents an historic opportunity to pivot away from oil — and all fossil fuels — for good.

As we wrote last January, cheap oil brings a host of positives, like more jobs in most economic sectors, and negatives, like increased fuel use. The trick is how to safeguard the positives while neutralizing the downside. From a policy perspective, this actually isn’t hard to do, and oil’s low price makes it that much easier (as well as more imperative). The real question is whether we have the political will to do so.

The policy solution is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, beginning with a refundable tax on oil. The government would collect the tax at ports and wellheads and distribute the revenues equally to households each month, just like in Alaska. Because tax dollars stay in circulation, the amount of money families have to spend doesn’t fall and the economy benefits. Most families of limited means will come out ahead because on average they spend fewer dollars on oil than they will receive in their monthly revenue check.

By simulating higher fuel prices, we can preserve incentives to get more fuel-efficient. As a result, motorists will buy higher-mileage cars and drive them somewhat less, manufacturers will build more-efficient vehicles and aircraft, and cities and counties will be less inclined to  dial back public transit. The same goes for freight movement — goods produced nearby will be advantaged, boosting local agriculture and domestic jobs. You can read more about our proposed oil tax here.

As we and others, including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued over the past year, the current cheap oil environment is ideally suited for the implementation of a carbon tax. The question remains: do we seize the moment to lock in the good while neutralizing the bad? Or do we instead continue fighting climate change with one arm tied behind our backs?

First Tax Oil, Then Carbon

By

Low oil prices and cheap gasoline bring a host of positives and negatives, as befits petroleum’s dual nature as a bestower of motion and light but also smog, traffic and climate change. This clash has bedeviled energy and climate policy for decades. Now we have a golden opportunity to resolve it.

Heading the good things is inexpensive oil’s boost to the economy. Cheap gas gives consumers more money to spend, and that means more jobs and better wages. Geopolitically, low oil prices are a scourge on several bad actors on the world stage, from Russia to Iran. And as drilling gets less profitable, thousands of fragile places might be left alone.

But when oil is cheap, the world gears up to use more of it, which accelerates climate change. For all we rightfully target coal, burning oil releases almost as much climate pollution. Boeing and Airbus are reportedly apprehensive that their latest fuel-efficient aircraft may go begging. And of course the faster oil usage rises, the more quickly the price rebounds, teeing up the next recession.

A refundable oil tax can pave the way for a full-fledged carbon tax.

A refundable oil tax can pave the way for a full-fledged carbon tax.

What’s needed is a way to safeguard the benefits of low oil prices while fending off the downsides. The trick to this feat, which should unite all sides of our fractured body politic, is to let consumers collect a tax on oil. Or rather, have government collect the tax at ports and wellheads and distribute the revenues to consumers each month, the same way Alaska distributes the revenues from its wildly popular tax on its oil flows.

Yes, we take Sarah Palin nationwide, taxing oil and disbursing the dollars — all of them — to U.S. households, the same “dividend” for each.

Because the tax dollars stay in circulation, the amount of money families have to spend doesn’t fall and the windfall to the economy persists. Most families of limited means will come out ahead because on average they spend fewer dollars on oil than they will receive in their monthly revenue check. Economic inequality eases a little, at no cost to economic activity.

Why have the tax at all, then? Answer: to simulate high fuel prices, preserving incentives to get more fuel-efficient. In this way, motorists will keep buying high-mileage cars and driving them somewhat less, manufacturers will build ever-more efficient vehicles and aircraft, and cities and counties will keep broadening their transit infrastructure. The same goes for freight movement ― goods produced nearby will be advantaged, boosting local agriculture and domestic jobs. [Read more…]

FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers about Carbon Taxes and the Carbon Tax Center

1. Who/what is the Carbon Tax Center?

CTC is a 501(c)3 non-profit that since 2007 has given voice to Americans who believe that taxing carbon pollution — the primary greenhouse gas — is imperative to reduce global warming. Co-founders Charles Komanoff and Dan Rosenblum brought to CTC a combined six decades of experience in economics, law, public policy and social change. CTC educates and informs policymakers, journalists and other opinion leaders, grassroots activists and the public about the need for significant, rising and equitable taxes on carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Though Dan has moved on, Charles remains as CTC director.

2. Why are carbon taxes essential?

The transformation of our fossil fuels-based energy system to reliance on energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable fuels won’t happen fast enough without carbon fees or taxes sending the appropriate persistent and rising price signals into every corner of the economy and every aspect of life. Or, in the words of Brookings economist (and carbon tax supporter) Adele Morris, “As long as burning dirt (i.e., fossil fuels) is the cheapest form of energy, that’s what we’ll do.” Conversely, raising fossil fuel prices with carbon taxes will motivate switches to clean energy across the economy by making it more economically rewarding to move to non-carbon fuels and energy efficiency.

3. How serious is the climate crisis?

Bill McKibben on Twitter _ temperature deviation thru June 2016 _ via Mashable _ 20 July 2016We agree with pioneering climate-scientist James Hansen that the continued buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere has begun causing cataclysmic change in our planet’s climate and ecology. Denialists’ claims that global temperatures are receding are blatantly false; new records are set almost monthly, and both 2016 and 2015 smashed prior records (see graphic). Nor just sweltering summers but forest fires and die-off, drowned coastal regions, decimated food chains, spreading disease, economic devastation, warfare and massive migrations of humans and other species are all virtual certainties in the lifetimes of many people now living, unless the world makes sharp cuts in greenhouse gases.

4. How much of greenhouse gas emissions are from fossil fuel burning?

For the U.S., carbon dioxide released by burning oil, coal and natural gas makes up 82% of total greenhouse gas emissions (weighted by climate-change impact), according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The remainder is methane (9%, from landfills, coal mines, oil and gas operations and agriculture); nitrous oxide (5%, from burning fossil fuels and from certain fertilizers); refrigerants and other “engineered” chemicals (2%); and carbon dioxide from other sources (2%).

5. What is the U.S. share of world greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning?

The U.S. slipped behind China as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, a decade ago. Nevertheless, the U.S. still accounts for nearly 20% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fuel-burning. Because Americans are less than 5% of world population, per capita we emit almost 5 times as much CO2 as the average non-American. The historical disparity is even greater, and because CO2 molecules persist in Earth’s atmosphere for around a century, our past emissions are disproportionately responsible for climate change now and in the future. On any moral calculus, the United States bears a heavy responsibility to cut emissions massively and rapidly.

6. Why does CTC support carbon tax shifting?

The potential carbon tax burden on low and moderate-income households can be averted by returning the tax proceeds to Americans. This can be done through periodic pro rata “dividends” or by reducing the tax burden of regressive taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes (depending upon whether the tax is imposed at the federal or state level). Shifting the tax burden to pollution and pollution-generating activities will create powerful incentives to use less energy and emit less CO2 while simultaneously promoting tax equity and minimizing the impact of the carbon tax on those with lower incomes.

7. Why should we CTC support both carbon taxes and energy-efficiency standards?

Energy standards have improved energy performance by forcing product design changes in critical sectors such as major appliances and U.S.-made automobiles, as we noted in one of our most popular blog posts. Standard-setting takes a long time, however. Moreover, standards tend to be static whereas energy use is ever-evolving. Combining carbon taxes with efficiency standards will achieve far more than the latter alone by motivating manufacturers and builders to proactively maximize energy efficiency while giving consumers ongoing incentives to make cost-effective choices valuing efficiency in shopping, traveling and purchase of homes and other durables.

8. Why not just subsidize renewables?

Federal payments to wind generators for each kWh produced, accelerated depreciation allowances for solar photovoltaic cells, and state “Renewable Portfolio Standards” mandating purchases use of renewable power have helped jump-start these sectors, bringing down costs and establishing renewables as culturally viable and politically salient. But energy efficiency is just as vital. Unfortunately, subsidizing efficiency is impracticable due to the distributed and dispersed nature of energy efficiency investments and choices. Moreover, a carbon tax will help wind and solar power speed their rise from their 3% niche (as of 2017, when wind + solar accounted for 8% of U.S. electricity) to a majority share of energy. (For a full exploration of these issues, read CTC’s Jan. 2014 Comments to the Senate Finance Committee.)

9. Why not just withdraw fossil fuel subsidies?

Of course we should zero out tax breaks, lease loopholes and other giveaways to the fossil fuel industry, along with the bloated and unsupportable ethanol mandate. But the impact on U.S. fossil fuel use would barely be noticeable. Authoritative sources such as EarthTrack have placed the fossil fuel industry’s tax and fiscal subsidies at around $25 billion a year, a figure that pales beside the roughly $1,000 billion (one trillion dollars) paid annually for coal, oil and natural gas burned in the U.S. Do the math: withdrawing those subsidies would lead to at most a 2-3 percent rise in the market prices of fossil fuels — scant incentive to reduce their use and concomitant emissions of CO2.

10. Why not just let market forces lift fuel prices?

Market signals are too volatile in the short term and too weak in the long term to provide the incentives needed to rewire the U.S. for energy efficiency and renewables. Moreover, high prices alone, whether due to geological depletion or plain old gouging, line the pockets (and magnify the political power) of the energy industry and ravage the poor and middle class. They’re even counter-productive, since high prices, absent a carbon tax, unleash production of CO2-intensive “extreme” fossil fuels from tar sands, mountaintop detonation, and fracking. Only carbon taxes combine market correctives with protecting American families and our environment.

11. Why not let technology remove carbon pollution from coal-fired smokestacks?

Rather than take positions on competing technologies, CTC works to remedy the market failure that allows burning of gas, oil and coal without charging for the resultant climate damage. Thus, we neither favor nor oppose so-called “clean coal,” i.e., combustion of coal with carbon dioxide captured and sequestered from the atmosphere; though we’re not bullish on Carbon Capture and Storage in light of the considerable (~30-40%) oversizing of generating capacity and coal throughput required to process flue gas to safely remove 90% or more of the CO2. In any event, every serious carbon tax proposal has a provision to credit working CCS systems via a rebate or netback for CO2 demonstrably sequestered from release to the atmosphere.

12. Will a carbon tax lessen U.S. oil dependence?

You bet. Petroleum products account for around 45% of U.S. CO2 emissions from burning fuels (coal and natural gas are responsible for roughly 25% and 30%, respectively), so a carbon tax stiff enough to cut down heavily on CO2 will necessarily put a big dent in oil consumption. According to our own modeling, Rep. Larson’s bill would, by its tenth year in effect, reduce U.S. use of petroleum by nearly 20% below “business-as-usual” levels (i.e., without a carbon tax or equivalent price on carbon emissions).

13. Would taxing carbon be regressive?

Any flat tax is regressive, but the regressivity of a tax on carbon pollution could and should be minimized or even reversed by making sure a fair share of tax revenues flow to the less affluent. The key is that wealthier households use more energy, on average – they drive and fly more, have bigger (and sometimes multiple) houses, and buy more stuff that requires energy to manufacture and use. A majority of carbon tax revenues will come from families of above-average means, which creates a basis for “progressive tax-shifting”: transferring a portion of the tax burden from regressive taxes such as the payroll tax (at the federal level) and the sales tax (at the state level) onto pollution and pollution-generating activities. Another progressive approach is to rebate the carbon tax revenues equally to all U.S. residents — a national version of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which for decades has annually sent identical checks to all state residents from earnings on investments made with the state’s North Slope oil royalties. Because income and energy consumption are strongly correlated, most poorer households will get more back in rebates or tax savings than they pay out in the carbon tax. The Citizens Climate Lobby is the leading proponent of this “fee-and-dividend” approach.

14. How can impacts on poor families be lessened?

Impacts of carbon taxes on poor families can be lessened by: 1) progressive tax-shifting as just described; 2) pro-rata distribution of the carbon tax revenues to every U.S. resident (also described above); and/or 3) to the extent necessary, funding programs designed to help poorer households use less energy driving and at home. See Offsetting a Carbon Tax’s Costs on Low-Income Households (Congressional Budget Office, 2012).

15. How much revenue will carbon taxes generate?

A lot, if taxes on carbon pollution rise briskly enough to have the needed climate impacts. Rep. Larson’s bill would start modestly at $15 per ton of CO2. That $15 per ton CO2 tax would bring in $80 billion of revenue, which equates to around $250 per U.S. resident, or $1,000 for a family of four. (Thus, if carbon revenue are distributed as per capita “dividends,” that family receives $1,000. If that family uses less fossil fuel energy than average, their increased costs will be less than $1,000, so they’ll come out ahead.) Successive annual carbon tax increments adding $12.50 per ton will add to the annual revenue stream, though at a declining rate as CO2 emissions fall each year in response to the rising CO2 price. By the end of the tenth year, the annual revenue will be on the order of $440 billion. We estimate that this brisk rise in the cost of CO2 pollution will reduce U.S. emissions dramatically, by about 1/3.

16. How will carbon taxes be administered?

The tax will be levied at the wholesale level of the fuel supply chain, as far upstream as practicable. Electric generators will pay the mandated carbon tax to their coal or natural gas suppliers, who will forward the payment to the government; the generators will pass along the tax to the retail electric utility which in turn will charge it to customers – to the extent that market conditions allow. Similarly for petroleum products (e.g., gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil), with government collecting the tax from refiners or importers of refined petroleum products, and the taxes passed on to oil wholesalers and eventually to retail customers. This approach will maximize accuracy and incentives and minimize paperwork and leakage.

About 1,200 to 1,500 fossil fuel energy producers will pay carbon taxes. According to Jack Calder of EPA, whose paper “Administration of a U.S. Carbon Tax” forms Chapter 3 of “Implementing a US Carbon Tax: Challenges and Debates,” approximately 150 petroleum refineries, 500 – 800 coal producers (depending on the point of compliance) and about 500 natural gas distributors will be taxed. Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach offer more detail in The Design of a Carbon Tax (Harvard Environmental Law Rev, 2009). A January 2017 report from the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis, Methodology for Analyzing a Carbon Tax, is a superb (and mercifully brief, just 28 pages) guide to the nuts and bolts of administering a carbon tax.

17.Will carbon tax “dividends” be subject to federal income taxes?

It is likely that the carbon dividends (periodic payouts to households or individuals under a fee-and-dividend system) will count as taxable income. But the additional federal revenue from the taxes received on the dividend income could be added back to the dividend pool being divvied up and returned to households, thus preserving revenue-neutrality.

It is true that this will add a step or two to the Treasury’s bookkeeping; and that it would alter somewhat the distributive patterns from a pure (untaxed) dividend system. The net effect will probably make fee-and-dividend even more income-progressive, since wealthy individuals and households tend to pay a higher percentage of their gross income as taxes than non-wealthy taxpayers.

18. How will carbon taxes handle carbon sequestration? Plastics? Petrochemicals?

Offsetting credit will be provided to the extent the carbon dioxide is actually sequestered, in order to eliminate any disincentive to sequestration. Releases of CO2 from converting fossil fuels to plastics or petrochemicals in non-combustion processes will be taxed at the same level as CO2 emitted in the production of energy or for transportation purposes.

19. Will a carbon tax apply to nuclear power?

A carbon tax will only be imposed on the use or combustion of carbon and the resulting emission of carbon dioxide. A carbon tax would not be imposed directly on the generation of nuclear power, though of course it would apply to any CO2 released in mining, enriching and transporting uranium, in other uses ancillary to the generation of nuclear power (such as fuel used for back-up generation), and in storing radioactive wastes.

20. How high should carbon taxes go? How fast should they climb?

While carbon taxes will need to be rise briskly to create the required price incentives, they will need to be phased in to give individuals and businesses the opportunity to adjust. There’s no magic formula or perfect number, but a tax that grows fast enough to reduce CO2 emissions by 1/3 within a decade probably offers a viable combination of meaningful incentive and opportunity for adaptation. The $15 per ton of CO2 “starter tax” mentioned earlier, equating to around 14 cents a gallon of gasoline, fits the lower end of that range. At least as important as the tax level is the commitment to keep raising the tax, preferably annually, so that energy-critical decisions, from car-buying (Hummer vs. Prius) to home-buying (exurb vs. transit-oriented community) to factory locating (highway interchange vs. rail line), are made with carbon-appropriate price signals.

21. Must carbon taxes be global to work?

Though carbon taxes can be applied locally, nationally or globally, the eventual goal is a global tax. Not only is the climate crisis global in both scope and solution, but a global carbon tax will avert potential leakage by carbon emitters attempting to move their combustion of carbon from countries that tax carbon to those that don’t. U.S. carbon tax legislation should include border tax adjustments to help protect domestic industry from unfair competition and to tax imports of other nations until they enact their own taxes on carbon pollution. Still, let’s not make perfection the enemy of the good; carbon pollution should be taxed wherever possible.

22. Why a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade system?

Carbon taxes are superior to cap-and-trade programs for seven fundamental reasons:

  • Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will only exacerbate price volatility that discourages investments in carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
  • Carbon taxes can be implemented more quickly than complex permit-based cap-and-trade systems.
  • Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit public support than opaque and complex cap-and-trade.
  • Carbon taxes aren’t easily manipulable by special interests, whereas the complexity of cap-and-trade leaves it rife for exploitation by the financial industry.
  • Carbon tax revenues can be more or less guaranteed and integrated into state or federal fiscal policy, owing to their predictability, whereas the price-volatility of cap-and-trade precludes its being counted on as a revenue source.
  • Carbon taxes are replicable across borders, since the price “metric” embodied in a carbon tax is far more universal than the quantity-reduction metric underlying cap-and-trade.
  • Perversely, cap-and-trade discourages voluntary/individual carbon reductions, since those cause a lowering of prices of emission permits which undercuts low-carbon investments; carbon taxes are free of this unintended negative consequence.

23. How responsive is energy demand to the price of fuels?

That varies with the type of fuel, the expected persistence of the price change, and the availability of substitutes. The two forms of energy that economists have studied most intensively are gasoline (which in 2014 accounted for 20% of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide) and electricity (39%).  From our own micro-economic analyses as well as a literature review, CTC believes a “price-elasticity” of 35% (or negative 0.35, in the jargon) is an appropriate assumption for gasoline demand, and 70% for electricity. These assumptions mean that drops in demand are less steep than rises in the fuel price but are still substantial. For all other fuel uses, ranging from diesel fuel for trucks and jet fuel for planes to home heating and industrial fuels — the overall price-responsiveness is probably greater than for gasoline but less than for electricity. (See more detailed discussion on our “Effectiveness” page.)

These estimates are “long-run” elasticities, meaning that price rises take years to fully affect demand. Households and businesses can’t overnight adjust their stocks of energy-using equipment (cars, major appliances, office layouts, etc.), nor can they instantly adapt location decisions that determine distances that people and goods travel. On the other hand, carbon taxes and the resulting relative rises in fossil fuel prices will induce reductions in carbon emission rates on the supply side. For example, higher coal prices due to carbon taxing will lead cost-minimizing power grids to more heavily dispatch lower-emitting natural gas power plants in the short run, and to switch increasingly to zero-carbon wind and solar generation over time.

24. What are the non-climate costs of using fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels burden human beings, communities and nature with enormous environmental and social damages apart from destabilizing climate. Chief among them are “traditional” air pollution such as car and truck exhaust and smokestack emissions; destruction of land and water from extracting and transporting fuels; and the militarism, economic inequality and political authoritarianism that is endemic to extractive economies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia). Many researchers believe the magnitude of these and other “indirect” costs exceeds the “market” prices paid for coal, oil and gas.

25. What are the ancillary benefits of taxing carbon?

As the previous Q&A suggests, U.S. carbon taxes will deliver vast non-climate benefits by discouraging use of fossil fuels. These will range from better air quality and less strip-mining to reduced entanglement in the unstable and dangerous Middle East and a less powerful fossil fuel industry. Americans can also look forward to a slew of indirect benefits – for example, lighter road traffic arising from a decrease in vehicle-miles traveled, as families and businesses adapt to higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices by trimming their least essential trips and consolidating others.

26. Who favors carbon taxes?

Carbon taxes are supported by a diverse group of opinion leaders, pundits, scientists and economists. The task now is to broaden and deepen support for taxing carbon among both the political elites and the grassroots – and to do so in the face of concerted opposition from fossil fuel interests determined to preserve (and increase!) their sales rather than watch their sector, and profits, shrink as the carbon tax steadily diminishes sales and use of coal, oil and gas.

27. How have past fuel tax efforts fared in the U.S.?

Poorly. The idea of taxing energy to better reflect its full costs collides with Americans’ historical entitlement to cheap energy and the anti-tax ideology of the past 35 years, not to mention the political muscle of the fossil fuel industry. This triad helped kill the last big effort to tax energy — President Clinton’s Btu tax in 1993. Nevertheless, we’re optimistic that making the carbon tax revenue-neutral, with all revenue recycled via tax-shifting or returned via carbon tax dividends, can soften resistance. Indeed, as described in the next Q&A, polls now point to strong support for a revenue-neutral tax designed to combat climate change.

28. What does polling indicate about carbon taxes?

Poll-Graphic-Pie-Chart-Alt

Opinion polls increasingly find Americans grasping the need to address climate change and warming (oops) to a revenue-neutral carbon tax. A January 2015 poll by political scientists at Stanford University and Resources for the Future found that two-thirds of Americans support making corporations pay a price for carbon pollution, provided the revenues are redistributed, i.e., made revenue-neutral. (See graphic at left.)

More recently, in March 2016, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans polled told Gallup’s annual environmental poll that they are worried a “great deal” or a “fair amount” about global warming. That figure is up from 55% in March 2015 and is the highest reading since 2008, according to Gallup. (See graphic below.)

Gallup _ U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High _ annotated _ 18 March 2016Other results from the 2016 Gallup poll are equally striking. They show a record-high share of Americans stating that climate change poses a threat to them and their way of life; a record number agreeing that climate change is caused primarily by human activity; and climate concern climbing across the political spectrum.

There’s more about these two polls as well as earlier ones on our page on opinion polling.

29. What will a carbon tax look like to me?

On the one hand, just about everything requiring fossil fuels, from a drive in the country to imported produce, will cost more, with prices rising the most for activities or goods that use the most fossil fuels. But the upside is three-fold: (i) your tax reduction or dividend check will offset much, perhaps more than 100%, of those price increases; (ii) you’ll be able to minimize your tax bite by cutting down on fuel usage (e.g., shortening those country drives, buying locally-grown produce, purchasing “green power” from wind and solar cells); and (iii) Americans’ combined behavior changes in response to the carbon tax will go a long way toward protecting the climate and averting the cataclysmic consequences of unchecked global warming.

30. Who’s taxing carbon now?

See our Where Carbon Is Taxed page. Or, download Sightline Institute’s excellent 2014 report, All the World’s Carbon Pricing Systems in One Animated Map, with maps tracing the institution (and, in at least one instance, Australia, the rescission) of carbon taxing worldwide, as well as carbon pricing administered via cap-and-trade programs. The Sightline report includes helpful tables, too.

The most notable carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere remains that in British Columbia. Carbon dioxide emissions from that province, Canada’s third most populous, began to be taxed on July 1, 2008 at a rate of $10 (Canadian) per metric ton and were raised annually to reach the current rate of $30 per metric ton (which equates to just over 20 U.S. dollars per U.S. ton). (We assessed BC’s carbon tax in a December 2015 report.) Voters in Boulder (Colorado) passed a carbon tax referendum in 2006; while Boulder’s tax equates to just $7/ton and applies only to electricity, it nonetheless establishes an important precedent: the first climate-protecting tax ever levied in the United States. Citizens in Washington State and five other states are campaigning to enact statewide carbon taxes.

31. What’s the political strategy for winning carbon taxes?

An effective campaign for carbon taxes must be both intellectually sound and politically palatable. The key point: Taxing climate pollution is economically and morally preferable to taxing productive activity such as work, savings or investment. Instead of discouraging productive effort, initiative and investment as other tax burdens do, a tax on carbon pollution raises the cost of harmful activity and thereby encourages efficiency and renewable energy. Revenues from carbon taxes can fund “dividends” to all U.S. residents or be used to reduce existing taxes, shifting tax burdens onto pollution and pollution-generating activities. Framing taxes on carbon pollution as an embodiment of the “polluter pays” principle unites interests as diverse as environmental-justice advocates, free-market conservatives and classical economists. Sound design of the revenue side of carbon tax legislation will also ensure that people of limited means, who use less energy than average, are made better off, not worse.

32. What can I do to advance carbon taxes?

The big need now is to develop grassroots support for a carbon tax. Start talking about a tax on climate pollution at your local environmental, religious or civic group meetings. Subscribe to CTC’s occasional but timely emails by filling in the sign-up pop-up box on our home page. Join Citizens Climate Lobby, the vital and committed nationwide network of activists that is putting the revenue-neutral carbon tax known as “fee-and-dividend” (delightfully explained in CCL’s 2-minute video) on the policy map. And please donate to the Carbon Tax Center, via our on-line Donate page. It’s contributions from people like you that enable us to conduct research, work on advocacy, and share knowledge and hope on carbon taxing. Thank you.

Dividends

Carbon Dividends (“Green Checks”)

Another approach for handling carbon-tax revenues, one that is clearly income-progressive and appealingly straightforward, is to return the revenues equally to all U.S. residents. This  so-called “dividend” would be a national version of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which since the 1970s has annually sent all state residents identical checks drawn from earnings on investments made with the state’s North Slope oil royalties. (For a federal carbon tax, the “dividend” checks should be provided quarterly or monthly to keep households ahead of the budget treadmill.)

The dividend approach was so attractive and elegant that the nation’s (and perhaps the world’s) most energetic and active advocacy organization for carbon taxes has organized around it. That’s the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which calls its approach carbon fee-and-dividend.

Fee-and-dividend explained, Canadian style. Hat tip to @scottsantens.

Fee-and-dividend explained, Canadian style. Hat tip to @scottsantens.

Nevertheless, it seems fair to say (and important to acknowledge) that by 2018, the second year of the Trump administration, fee-and-dividend has run out of political room. Not a single “sitting” (i.e., still in office) Republican member of Congress has publicly endorsed fee-and-dividend, even as a concept, let alone an actual bill. Yet the premise of fee-and-dividend has always been bipartisanship, since Democrats, with their preference for activist government, would accept a revenue-neutral carbon tax such as fee-and-dividend only if it delivered Republican votes.

For a decade, we wrote glowingly about fee and dividend — most recently in 2017 articles in The Nation and the Washington Spectator. We also praised the Climate Leadership Council’s “carbon dividend” proposal and advocacy in those two pieces and in numerous blogs (here, here, and here, inter alia). But as we wrote in June 2018, we believe that the time for carbon dividend proposals has probably passed. We wrote:

The [political] center to which Baker-Shultz (CLC) and fee-and-dividend (CCL) were designed to appeal barely exists. It’s not just that no sitting Republican has endorsed Baker-Shultz or indeed fee-and-dividend in any form. It’s also that the Democratic majority that will be needed to pass a carbon tax bill appears unlikely to rally around a revenue-neutral carbon tax, whether it’s organized as fee-and-dividend or some form of tax swap.

Economic Progressivity of Fee-and-Dividend

In 2016 CCL released a detailed paper examining how a carbon fee-and-dividend would impact U.S. households. The study took into account geographic variations in electricity sources and gasoline use and drew on a database of carbon intensity of expenditures for 5.8 million households to analyze the net effect of returning revenue to households on a modified per capita basis. Here are the major results:

Percentage of Households Benefitted by Income Quintile

Percentage of Households Benefitted, by Income Quintile

  • 53% of households (and 58% of individuals) would receive more in dividend payments than they would spend due to higher fossil fuel prices.
  • Another 19% of households would incur only a slight loss, defined as a net loss no larger than one-fifth of one percent of pre-tax income.
  • Nearly 90% of households below the poverty line would benefit an average of $311, an increase of roughly 2.8% of pre-tax income.
  • In contrast, the net loss for the top quintile of households would average $-322 or only -0.18% of pre-tax income.

Notably, these findings support a dividend plan’s ability to transform a carbon tax into a progressive policy that neutralizes the burden that lower-income households would otherwise face, directly and indirectly, due to higher fuel prices. CTC advocates a progressive distributional outcome for both pragmatic and ethical reasons: pragmatically, because a carbon tax will require broad, sustained, public and political support; and ethically, because it’s not tenable to solve the climate crisis on the backs of those who can least afford it.

A Caveat — CBO’s “haircut”

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office routinely “scores” members’ bills for their prospective impact on tax revenues. To streamline its analyses, CBO long ago settled the so-called “CBO haircut” by which it assumes that one-quarter of indirectly raised revenues would need to be allocated from the tax proceeds in question in order to make up for reduced tax revenues collected from conventional sources such as personal or corporate income taxes. But modeling of carbon tax proposals consistently finds that when revenue is strategically returned by reducing other taxes that tend to slow down economic activity, the net negative impacts are much lower than CBO’s 25% assumption and in some cases may be eliminated altogether. While returning revenue as “dividends” (which economists call “lump-sum rebates”) offers less potential to reduce economic drag than tax shifts, CBO’s assumption still seems like an over-estimate.

In any event, rigid application of the 25% CBO haircut could, on paper at least — and, likely, in Congressional deliberations — limit the carbon tax revenue perceived to be available for “dividends” to 75%. Yet even with this reduced fraction of revenue, returning carbon tax revenue via a direct dividend represents a simple and income-progressive means to make carbon taxes distributionally fair; though with the haircut, the share of households reaping a net benefit via an equal 75% dividend would be lower than the 58% of individuals mentioned above.

Related CTC blog posts:

Related news reports and opinion pieces: