I refuse to give up on a carbon tax. In a new column for National Journal (the link expires at the end of next week), I explain why, and criticize the approaches of both Obama and McCain to energy policy.
Much the most important part of [their] programs is the seemingly brave commitment both have made to a long-term cap-and-trade regime for control of carbon. This could indeed be, to use Al Gore's favorite word, a "transformative" undertaking. Obama sets a goal to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain's goal is a bit less ambitious--a cut to 60 percent below the 1990 benchmark by 2050. Both are promising, in effect, a wholesale restructuring of the U.S. economy around the goal of carbon abatement.
Let us assume this is desirable. Do they mean it? Do they understand what these commitments entail? (If they do, they certainly aren't spelling it out to voters.) Is there any chance that either goal will be met?
You have to wonder. The country's mood on global warming has changed--most people now seem to take the danger seriously--but public opinion on energy policy has two contradictory strands. People are worried about rising temperatures and changing climate; but they are also worried about expensive gas. If you are serious about reducing carbon emissions, expensive gas is not a problem; it is an unavoidable part of the solution.
Politicians of both parties take it for granted that the American voter cannot tolerate an explicit tax on carbon, which would be the best way to curb greenhouse gases. This supposedly immovable resistance is why the presidential candidates advocate a system of tradable emission permits instead. But if cap-and-trade binds tightly enough to make a difference, it will necessarily make carbon-releasing fuels more expensive. The system cannot work any other way: It can succeed only by attaching an implicit tax to carbon.
Do Obama and McCain think voters are too stupid to see this? When fuel gets more expensive, won't voters object just as strenuously as they would have if a carbon tax had been imposed in the first place? You cannot hope to transform the economy and have nobody notice--can you?
And another thing: In setting their bold targets for 2050, Obama and McCain know they will not be held accountable for failing to meet them. Any such failure is 42 years away and somebody else's problem. Politically, their best bet may be to take credit for seeming to confront the problem while deferring real action and its unpopular consequences another four or eight years.
Europe's politicians have already worked out their own way of seeming bold on climate change while actually doing nothing: It is called the Kyoto Protocol. America's promised cap-and-trade system could easily go the same way. Willingness to advocate an explicit carbon tax--or at any rate, to spell out the equivalent consequences of a binding cap-and-trade system--is the real test of whether either candidate is ready to confront this issue. So far, both are failing that test.
My guess is that what Obama and McCain really think is that the people want this problem talked about, but not resolved. Any attempt to pass actual legislation will run up against the obvious fact that you identified--any program that will actually reduce greenhouse gases will also drive up the cost of gasoline and heating fuel.
So bills will be introduced and fought over, but they won't be passed, or if they are passed they will have a variety of escape clauses to prevent anything substantial from happening. The best of the best will be to have no legislation at all, because any legislation that is enacted will be 1) costly and 2) ineffectual.
"When fuel gets more expensive, won't voters object just as strenuously as they would have if a carbon tax had been imposed in the first place?" Uh, that's not it. The problem with a gas tax is that it's called a tax, and Republicans will scream and yell about it *before* it's passed. A cap-and-trade system is politically viable simply because it's kind of complicated and thus not quite as subject to lambasting. Maybe.
The lack of a Carbon tax amounts to an indirect subsidy of petroleum and coal. This distorts the market in favor of carbon-based fuels and transfers the social cost of global warming to society manking alternative to oil and coal less economically viable. The only way to level the field is to tax the polluters. By doing that the market will react moving away from carbon.
Great column! To get a carbon tax enacted, combine it with dividends for the public, as proposed by James Hansen, and a cut in the corporate income tax. Most families would come out ahead financially, and most businesses would get a favorable tax swap.
Also, use some of the tax revenue to promote 100+ mpg vehicles. Having one of these would be like getting gas for less than $1 a gallon.
Extra money in the bank, $1 gas, and saving the planet: we might be able to live with that. For more on the idea of "tax and dividend" google: Tierney new climate deal.
HMmmmm.
1. You people are completely out of your frigging minds.
2. ...
Frankly at this point I'm struck speechless.
I could write about how CO2 is almost completely irrelevant in any global warming debate because a rise in CO2 ALWAYS HAPPENS AFTER WARMING HAS ENDED.
I could write about how global average temperatures have remained FLAT since 1998.
I could write that the entire basis for this CO2 hysteria is based on incredibly flawed computer programs.
I could write that these same computer programs, if initialized with data from 50 years ago, couldn't predict today's climate.
I could write that these very same computer models depend on WATER VAPOR and not CO2 as the primary heating engine. That CO2's entire purpose is to kick-start a vicious cycle of WATER VAPOR retaining more heat and thus creating more WATER VAPOR. And idiotic cycle that hasn't happened because, alas, the frigging OCEANS, that cover 75% of the planet, act as a heat sink.
I could point out that these very same computer models cannot model clouds. Assume the atmosphere is infinitely thick, i.e. it never ends and extends out forever. And cannot adequately model the oceans or any other large body of water.
I could point out that cap and trade is a frigging TAX.
I could also point out that for the past 35+ years the only goddamn solution that liberals ever seem to "discover" is that the only thing that'll make the world a safe place for unicorns, rainbows and fluffy fucking bunnies is if everybody ELSE's life sucks ass.
Christ on a crutch you people are out of your fucking minds.
The reason polititians assume that tax is bad is because like many countries, we are overtaxed already. Whether or not co2 emissions cause global warming is true, it's not a bad idea to leave the planet as we found it if we can. The question is: how to curb carbon and many other polutants?
Since carbon tax is "just another tax", it will meet much resistance but... why not replace income and other taxes with a "resource depletion tax". Resource depletion can be anything that alters environmental resources in a difficult to reverse way. A tax on resource depletion activity would be proportional to it's envrionmental impact. Politically, it should be revenue neutral.
Carbon and all other pollutants would be included as well as mining and other non-renewable harvesting of resources.
The tax could be levied on imports as well as locally produced products to clean the world as well as just the US. It would simplify the tax code, promote both savings and production, and provide a strong incentive to produce green products. It would be better than a flat tax because it would be less regressive. Both parties should be able to find things they like about it.
The reason polititians assume that tax is bad is because like many countries, we are overtaxed already. Whether or not co2 emissions cause global warming is true, it's not a bad idea to leave the planet as we found it if we can. The question is: how to curb carbon and many other polutants?
Since carbon tax is "just another tax", it will meet much resistance but... why not replace income and other taxes with a "resource depletion tax". Resource depletion can be anything that alters environmental resources in a difficult to reverse way. A tax on resource depletion activity would be proportional to it's envrionmental impact. Politically, it should be revenue neutral.
Carbon and all other pollutants would be included as well as mining and other non-renewable harvesting of resources.
The tax could be levied on imports as well as locally produced products to clean the world as well as just the US. It would simplify the tax code, promote both savings and production, and provide a strong incentive to produce green products. It would be better than a flat tax because it would be less regressive. Both parties should be able to find things they like about it.