Carbon Tax Center

Why Isn’t The Environmental Community Using the Fiscal And Tax Reform “Window” to Push For A Carbon Tax?

11/8/2011 by James Handley Comments (11)

A carbon tax offers a unique and powerful combination of fiscal, economic-efficiency and environmental benefits, argued Adele Morris, the Brookings Institution’s Policy Director for Climate and Energy Economics, at an Oct. 18 forum convened by the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute and the Tax Policy Center. Morris acknowledged the political obstacles. One of course is the failure of anti-tax politicians to distinguish beneficial “Pigouvian” taxes on pollution from conventional taxes that burden and discourage productive activity. But another has been “tepid” support for a carbon tax from the environmental community.

We heard that as a challenge: Why has the environmental community (with a few notable exceptions) parked itself on the sidelines of this crucial policy debate?

Adele shared her presentation text, which we reproduce below:

Time to ’86 the Tax Code? Prospects for Tax Reform After 25 Years

AN URBAN INSTITUTE – BROOKINGS INSTITUTION – TAX POLICY CENTER EVENT 10/18/11

The potential role for a carbon tax in a broader tax reform package is timely and economically important. This paper addresses two aspects of the issue: the economics and the politics. It makes good economic sense to embed a carbon tax in a broader tax reform package. If you’re going to “go big” on deficit reduction, it makes sense to include a carbon tax, and likewise if you’re going to do serious climate policy, it makes sense to raise revenue for deficit reduction or to offset other taxes. Despite the strong economic case, the political challenges to a carbon tax are many, and they aren’t just from anti-tax Republicans who don’t believe in the science of climate change. Some of the headwind to a carbon tax derives from tepid enthusiasm from Democrats and the environmental community.

Embedding a Carbon Tax in Broader Tax Reform

First and foremost, the reason to do a carbon tax is to reduce the risks posed by climate change. If you don’t believe the science that indicates that humans are responsible for rising temperatures then naturally there is nothing else compelling beyond this point. But if we stipulate the risks of climate change, then a policy that prices those damages (as best as we can estimate them) into fossil fuels is an economic no-brainer.

Adele Morris, Climate & Energy Policy Director, Brookings Institution

The kind of carbon tax policy I support is the canonical carbon tax recommended by many economists. It would fall on the carbon content of fossil fuels broadly across the economy. It would start modestly, at something like $15 to $25 per ton of CO₂, and ramp up at a modest real rate over inflation, something like 4 percent per year. It would allow tax credits for carbon in fuels that are not subsequently emitted, for example because it is sequestered underground or embodied in a product, such as plastics.

While it’s true that tax reform is hard enough without larding it up with a grab bag of other policy priorities, especially something as contentious as climate policy, there are several good economic reasons to combine these two efforts. First, a carbon tax can raise significant revenue. Depending on the tax rate, it can raise more or less revenue, but estimates suggest that a price on carbon about $33 per ton of CO₂ in 2020 would raise about $180 billion per year. A tax of about the size I described earlier would start out at revenue of about $100 billion per year, and it would rise from there. However, the revenue profile isn’t as steep as you might think because people respond exactly as you want them to — by emitting less carbon. That means that although the tax rate goes up, the revenue tapers off and eventually falls over the long run as the falling emissions dominate the higher tax rate. So a carbon tax is a medium- to long-run revenue instrument, but as emissions fall to low levels in the very long run the tax eventually raises little revenue, which is exactly what you want if the goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

A second reason to embed a carbon tax in broader tax reform is that a carbon tax can be regressive. If you don’t make the carbon tax part of a progressive tax reform, then you have to fix the regressivity within the climate policy or not fix it at all. If you address the regressivity within the carbon tax system, you can end up with less efficient climate policy – for example with rebates to households to offset higher energy bills. This blunts the incentive to conserve energy, which means you have to have a higher carbon price to get the same environmental benefits, which is obviously more costly.

Third, a carbon tax used for deficit reduction could possibly avoid some of the protracted rent-seeking we saw over the cap-and-trade bill, where relatively little of the debate over cap-and-trade was over the cap — most of the squabble was over who got the free allowances. Everyone who thought they were about to lose their share of the pie had incentive to block the measure and get another bite at the pie. Maybe if all the carbon tax revenue goes to deficit reduction or to fund the reduction of other taxes, then there’d be less to squabble over and we could make some progress.

Fourth, a carbon tax policy that doesn’t apply the revenue for deficit reduction or to offset other distortionary taxes would be a lot more costly to the economy than one that does. The economic literature is clear on this. If you just give away allowances or carbon tax revenue, you’re not getting the economic benefit of reducing distortions from the existing tax system which in turn makes the climate policy a lot more costly than it could be.

A final reason to embed the carbon tax into other tax reform is that it might make it harder to unwind later. There’s always going to be a constituency to repeal the carbon tax, and it will get louder as the tax and retail energy prices go up. If there’s a countervailing constituency that is the clear beneficiary of the other taxes reduced, then we have a counterweight. That’s what they did in British Columbia, which is a model we should consider.

More on the Politics

AEI’s Kevin Hassett recently observed that one reason we not have discussed climate policy this long without actually putting a price on carbon is that economists haven’t done a good job convincing Republicans that Pigouvian taxes are okay, meaning that taxing something you want less of is good economic policy. I agree with his assessment.

I also think economists haven’t done a good job convincing the environmental community that Pigouvian taxes are good environmental policy. After decades of opposition, the good performance of the Acid Rain program led environmentalists to support the idea of cap-and-trade to control air pollutants. And we saw their strong support of the cap-and-trade legislation as it moved through the House but died in the Senate in 2010. However, even as the environmental community embraced cap-and-trade, which put a specific limit on emissions, they didn’t entirely trust it to do the job. Recall that only one title of the monster bill was cap-and-trade. The environmental community embraced, and still does, a wide variety of ancillary policies, some of which would have been redundant to the cap. These include appliance standards, fuel economy standards, renewable energy mandates and subsidies, and a host of other measures that would have shifted around where emissions reductions occurred and raised costs, but not necessarily decreased emissions below the cap.

So if there was lingering distrust of cap-and-trade, there’s probably even less confidence in a carbon tax to do the job. Very few NGOs supported a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, mostly because they viewed the cap-and-trade as more certain environmentally. Perhaps downward sloping demand is just not that convincing, and now, when we’re in the context of discussing a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade, the unease over letting go of the ancillary policy apparatus is likely to be higher.

The political reality is that Democrats will likely have to give up something to get a carbon tax. It might include proposed or existing clean air act regulations that could become redundant with a carbon tax, spending on clean energy or green jobs initiatives, or transfers to what Republicans view as sketchy UN bureaucracies for climate finance in developing countries. (I would note that the politics of those ancillary policies aren’t just about concern about the environmental effectiveness of a carbon tax; there are important Democratic constituencies for these clean energy measures, such as renewable energy firms and labor unions.) But be that as it may, I think the way forward, if Democrats are serious about putting a price on carbon, is for leaders to put together a carbon tax proposal and to sell it in part by describing what they would be willing to give up to get it.

It might have to wait until we’ve tried everything else, and it hasn’t worked. We can pursue appliance standards and renewable subsidies and the like. Then when we’re not meeting our environmental goals, we’ll converge on the economic equivalent of concluding the earth revolves around the sun and put a price on carbon.

Majority in U.S. Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

12/2/2011 by James Handley Comments (1)

Sixty-five percent of Americans now support a modest revenue-neutral carbon tax to reduce pollution and create jobs, according to a survey of one thousand American adults conducted jointly last month by the Yale Project on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. This is the first poll we have seen showing that a majority of Americans support a carbon tax.

Majority support for a carbon tax spanned the political spectrum in the Yale-George Mason poll, with 51% of self-identified Republicans, 69% of independents and 77% of Democrats supporting a carbon tax with revenue returned as lower taxes.

The survey found 60% support for a $10/ton CO2 tax if revenue is returned by reducing income taxes. (The pollsters helpfully noted that $10/ton CO2 equates to around 10 cents per gallon of gasoline.) That support slipped to 49% if revenue is returned via annual checks to families, with each family receiving the same amount. The apparent preference for an income tax shift over a “dividend” runs counter to the view that voters are more likely to embrace direct checks than tax shifts. The survey did not poll on monthly checks, nor on the payroll tax shift approach backed by many economists and embodied in Rep. John Larson’s carbon tax bill.

In the poll, 70% of respondents rated global warming as a high priority for the President and Congress, suggesting that reality in the form of this year’s record-breaking 14 weather-related disasters in the U.S. may be affecting public opinion more than the constant drumbeat of industry-funded climate science denial.

Greater funding for research on renewable energy was supported by an overwhelming 78% of respondents, with greenhouse gas regulation supported by 63%, slightly less than the 65% support for a carbon tax. The survey also found that 70% of respondents oppose fossil fuel subsidies, including a whopping 80% opposition among independent voters.

The Carbon Tax Center has long urged polling organizations to query voters on revenue-neutral carbon taxes, in order to test opinions on carbon taxes apart from anti-government sentiments. The strong public support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax evidenced by this groundbreaking survey suggests we are on the right track.

Brookings Panel Points To “Grand Bargain” – Carbon Tax to Reduce GHG Pollution and Deficit

05/21/2011 by James Handley Comments (0)

Last Wednesday, the Brookings Institution hosted “America’s Energy Future: New Solutions to Fuel Economic Growth and Prosperity.” The first panel, “New Policies for a Cleaner Economy,” featured heavy-hitters: John Deutch (MIT “Institute” professor, former CIA Director…), Joseph Aldy (former Obama assistant on climate & energy), as well as Brookings Senior Fellows Ted Gayer and Michael Greenstone, who moderated.

Greenstone opened by noting how closely-linked energy consumption is to our well-being, but strongly cautioned about very serious un-priced side effects, especially from fossil fuels. Gayer recommended reforming government cost-benefit analysis to focus more on those un-priced externalities, especially since consumer benefits, he noted, are already efficiently priced into markets. Deutch advocated creation of a national energy technology research corporation to harness private sector investment free of a Department of Energy that “is mostly about bombs.” Aldy proposed a technology-neutral “National Clean Electricity Standard” to tax carbon-intense electricity generation and credit low- and zero-carbon electricity,  while providing federal revenue.

Greenstone asked the panel if their proposals wouldn’t be better replaced by a “grand bargain” to provide more of what we like: income, and less of what we dislike: carbon pollution. “[T]he giant prize standing in front of us is the realization that one could raise revenue instead of raising income taxes… through a carbon tax or some kind of carbon charge.” Aldy enthusiastically agreed, claiming “evidence of bipartisan support” and pointing out that he and Brookings economist Adele Morris proposed a carbon tax to the Obama deficit commission.

Deutch chimed in, “I couldn’t agree more with a proposal to do a comprehensive greenhouse gas tax. It depends, of course, on how it’s designed… and how you allocate the revenue. So if you put onto a tax proposal like you say a revenue proposal, then you have at least some chance of selling it.” Deutch urged return of some revenue to taxpayers as “walking around money.” “We’ve got to get the legislation passed,” he concluded.

Shocker: NY Times ‘Energy’ Special is More Hot Air

04/6/2011 by Charles Komanoff Comments (1)

What a mess is Can We Do Without the Mideast?, the tedious and simplistic headliner of last week’s New York Times special “Energy” section.

Jeff Stahler, Columbus Dispatch, 2011

Times reporter Clifford Krauss expended three thousand words trying to say what Columbus (OH) Dispatch cartoonist Jeff Stahler conveyed in eight words and a drawing: that for four decades U.S. administrations have postured rather than acted to reduce petroleum consumption and oil imports.

Overlooked entirely was the principal reason U.S. imports remain around 50 percent of consumption: the failure to raise taxes on transportation fuels — gasoline, diesel and jet fuel — and instill incentives to move people and goods less frequently, less inefficiently, and for shorter distances.

Krauss ascribes the singular success in reducing imports — temporarily halving them from 1977 to 1982 — to “the efforts of the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations.” Yet what made auto-efficiency and other fuel-saving standards politically viable while motivating millions of households and businesses to economize on oil was the rise in petroleum prices.

The notion of a carbon tax received its token mention, as did the existence of something called climate change. Otherwise, the article was one dreary cheer for dirty energy including shale gas (a winner, “presuming that the oil and gas industry can answer growing environmental concerns surrounding their hydraulic fracturing practices”), synthetic oil from tar sands (speciously, “if the United States does not import that oil, China will”), and even nukes (astoundingly, “In the aftermath of the Japanese disaster, nuclear power will need to be put on safer footing and expanded.”).

You can’t make this stuff up.

Bidder 70 Tim DeChristopher Personifies the Carbon Tax for “Generation Hot”

03/1/2011 by James Handley Comments (1)

Tim DeChristopher, “Bidder 70” in a 2008 Department of Interior Utah oil lease auction, goes to trial this week amidst throngs of supporters, celebrities and media coverage. Tim is charged with two felonies: making false statements and violating federal oil leasing laws, both for entering the winning (highest) bid on a U.S. government oil lease in Utah canyon country, without funds to consummate the purchase. For these alleged offenses, he faces up to ten years in prison.

Yesterday, Federal District Judge Dee Benson instructed the jury not to consider Tim’s defense that he acted out of “necessity” in the face of the global climate emergency. Invoking Gandhi’s maxim to “Be the change you want to see in the world,” Tim explained in an interview with Good Magazine:

“[T]he change that most of us wish to see is a carbon tax, but our leaders aren’t doing that for us, so Gandhi’s call is then for us to be the carbon tax… [t]o cost the fossil fuel industry money in any way that we can… [g]etting in their way, slowing them down, shutting them down. Doing whatever we can to be that tax. It forces our leaders to make a choice—to either be more explicit in their war on the young generation, or to get serious about stopping climate change.”

The Carbon Tax Center expresses profound thanks to Tim for putting his liberty on the line for “Generation Hot” and for calling out the policy change that’s urgently necessary: a carbon tax that makes the prices of fossil fuels reflect at least some of the damage their use costs nature, communities and humanity.

Former Fed Vice-Chair Urges — Show The CO2 Price Now! (Two Years Ahead of Time)

01/31/2011 by James Handley Comments (7)

Everyone from the President on down professes to want more hi-tech jobs and cleaner energy. Here’s a prescription for getting them: enact a gradually-rising carbon tax but delay its implementation for two years to avoid dampening the fragile economic recovery.

That’s former Fed Vice-chair and Princeton Econ. professor Alan Blinder’s message in “The Carbon Tax Miracle Cure,” broadcast today from the pulpit of free-market orthodoxy, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal:

[A] carbon tax… should be enacted now [but] set at zero for 2011 and 2012. After that, it would ramp up gradually… What’s critical is that we lock in higher future costs of carbon today.

Once America’s entrepreneurs and corporate executives see lucrative opportunities from carbon-saving devices and technologies, they will start investing right away—and in ways that make the most economic sense… I can hardly wait to witness the outpouring of ideas it would unleash. The next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are waiting in the wings to make themselves rich by helping the environment.  Jobs follow investment, and we need jobs now.

Blinder recommends using carbon tax revenue to reduce the deficit and underscores the advantages of a carbon tax over other deficit reduction strategies:

[E]very realistic observer knows that closing our humongous federal budget deficit will require a mix of higher taxes and lower spending as shares of GDP. Forget about value-added taxes and other new levies you may have heard about. A CO2 tax trumps them all… reducing our trade deficit, making our economy more efficient, ameliorating global warming, and showing the world that American capitalism has not lost its edge.

Now that “hiding the price” behind cap-and-trade has crashed politically, Prof. Blinder is urging Congress to try the opposite: show the price—two years ahead of time—and let the expectation of a rising price on CO2 pollution do its job-creation and climate work. As for the politics, Blinder drags out the familiar Churchill quote: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” It’s a cliché, all right, but it might just apply.