From EurekAlert!
Georgia State University
ATLANTA–There is a consistently high level of public support across nations for a global carbon tax if the tax policy is carefully designed, according to a survey of people in the United States, India, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia.
The research was published in Nature.
“Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said economist and lead author Stefano Carattini, an assistant professor in Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. “Our research shows that a system of harmonized carbon taxes, in which countries agree on the tax rate but maintain control over tax revenues, would be the easiest way to achieve a global carbon price.”
In the survey, 5,000 respondents from the five countries were asked their opinions on different carbon tax designs and whether they would support a carbon tax to be implemented in their country in 2020, if this was also done in all other countries.
The majority of the respondents–from 60 percent in the United States to above 80 percent in India–supported carbon taxes in scenarios where revenues are given back to people or spent on climate projects.
“The high level of public support suggests a major rethinking of how we approach carbon taxes and international cooperation,” said co-author Steffen Kallbekken, research director at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway.
Carattini, Kallbekken and co-author Anton Orlov, a senior researcher at CICERO, simulated the effects of the carbon tax in an economic model to capture the economic and environmental effects of a global carbon tax, simulating different levels of tax rates and uses of revenues. They found a worldwide carbon tax would not disrupt the global economy.
“Our economic simulations show the economic impact would be modest in countries with a clean energy supply, but greater in countries that rely on fossil fuels, especially coal,” said Carattini. “We found this impact true even without taking into account the large benefits from avoided climate damages.”
The most feasible option would be a global system of harmonized carbon taxes because countries do not have to agree on the use of the revenues and can choose the option that is most appropriate domestically, the study found.
“Understanding peoples’ tax preferences is essential for designing policies to set a global carbon price. Knowing this, researchers should continue to evaluate the best use of revenues and ways to distribute them,” said Kallbekken.
###
People will always support a tax that someone else has to pay.
Agreed – so if the Eco-Nazis want a “carbon tax,” I say let them have one, payable ONLY by those that “believe” in human-induced climate catastrophe. Then we will get the right result – fewer who “believe” in human-induced climate catastrophe.
Global tax .. global government .. fast forward to a Bright Tomorrow!
Quote:
“Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said economist and lead author Stefano Carattini, an assistant professor in Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.
*********
I remain unconvinced of the notion that there is any meaningful evidence that politicians and academicians can successfully manipulate consumer choices and behavior with taxes on that which they consider vices. The idea that human behavior is malleable to any significant degree with govt taxes is instead IMHO merely a desire by the elitists to punish consumers for their consumption of these vices in the hopes that it will produce some desired result — they don’t know that it will.
In the absence of results, the taxes are then justified with the idea that the revenue will be used for some “greater good.” Whether that “greater good” produces significant results for the betterment of society and the world is a matter for serious debate in the absence is solid evidence that it does so. If cigarette smoking is down today, it is likely due to health concerns rather than the taxes on cigarettes–but this is just my opinion.
That no one ever asks for evidence of the existence of the desired end from accessing vice taxes must certainly be very convenient for those that support those taxes. Academicians will certainly produce “evidence” that they do if they are asked, but of course the outcome of those studies will no doubt be predetermined.
The whole idea that vice taxes are a useful tool to mold and engineer society’s and the individual’s behavior is likely based on the leftist idea that govt is always benevolent…everything that it does is designed for the betterment of society and the individual as long as the actions are consistent with one’s ideological belief system. The goals of this arrogant way of thinking –especially with carbon taxes– is aided with the creation of “crises” as we have seen with the climate alarmist narrative over the past 30 years. Don’t bother scrutinizing or asking for the evidence that any such crisis actually exists…..the Orwellian thought criminals and religious heretics who dare to question the vice taxers probably wish at times that they never opened their mouths…
If they took their research to the next step, and tried to model how patterns of consumption could be expected to change based on various tax levels, and how much taxes would need to be raised to save the world, then it would become obvious that this approach — raising taxes to save the world — won’t work any better than filling the world with windmills.
Better to find out only AFTER the tax structures are in place that the net impact is marginal.
Oh but wouldn’t they just cancel the tax if it doesn’t work? I mean it would be dishonest to just keep the money, right?
It counts as a pub for an assistant professor. That’s the main contribution from the effort.
“Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said economist and lead author Stefano Carattini
===========
So why not impose a tax on poverty and thus eliminate poverty and make everyone wealthy?
Once they are wealthy, everyone will be able to pay for electricity in place of fossil fuels, thus solving the GHG problem.
Right now, a tax on carbon doesn’t generate any new money. It simply takes money that would be used to buy fossil fuels, resulting in energy poverty. Without new money, who is going to pay for all the new solar panels and windmills and electric cars and batteries? Governments? If they had the money they wouldn’t need a carbon tax.
I cannot comment on this story because it is triggering me sumptin’ awful!
I need my safe space and my puppy and my crayons!
What happened to the trigger warning up front?
Whose face do I get in and scream at the top of my lungs at, over this?
https://youtu.be/vWz0AWtwdoA?t=50
I am going out and buying a yellow jacket.
They are very cheap; I found one on-line for about $5. I questioned my French resident sister how so many people had them ready to wear when the clarion call was heard. It turns out that French regulators have required every French driver to keep a yellow vest in his or her (or whatever’s) car. A good example of the regulatory state bearing the seeds of its own downfall.
“…in scenarios where revenues are given back to people or spent on climate projects.”
This will always be supported by activist groups as they anticipate government funding.
People who think they’ll be getting a check from the government will be in favor, along with anyone with a need to save the world from global warming.
Another natural supporting group is government itself, who generally favor higher taxes and understand that they can direct the funds as they see fit.
The approach has UN support and blessing, because a special tax is the best way to fund climate reparations/wealth transfers.
Robbing Peter has the support of Paul.
“Imposing a cost on carbon is the most economically efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said economist and lead author Stefano Carattini.
President Obama’s original goal of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050 is impossible to achieve without putting a stiff tax on all carbon fuels — one that is decidedly revenue positive. But would such a tax be enough to get the job done?
A Democrat will be inaugurated as president in 2021 and Democrats will be in full control of Congress as well. Some version of the Green New Deal will be in effect from 2022 forward.
However, even if a revenue positive tax on carbon fuel is included with the massive new spending program that will be enacted in 2021, that tax plus the additional government spending won’t be nearly enough to reach an 80% GHG reduction target for 2050.
Compressing one-hundred years of technological and economic transformation away from a carbon-fueled American society into a largely carbonless society within a time span of just thirty years will have a number of painful impacts.
Assuming a GHG reduction target of 80% by 2050 is indeed the goal climate activists have in mind for the Green New Deal, a 21st Century revival of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect philosophy won’t be nearly enough to stay on schedule.
At some point in the mid to late 2020’s, strictly enforced mandatory energy conservation measures must be imposed. By the mid to late 2030’s, lack of progress in meeting the 80% by 2050 schedule would force consideration of a mandatory carbon fuel rationing program.
In 2035, how would America’s voters react to being told that starting in 2038, they could buy only X amount of gasoline and diesel, and Y each year less than that between 2039 and 2049?
“A Democrat will be inaugurated as president in 2021 and Democrats will be in full control of Congress as well. Some version of the Green New Deal will be in effect from 2022 forward.” And you know that because? You derived this from fake news? Or maybe a poll that said it’s 90% sure? Are you watching the rest of the world?
markl: “And you know that because? You derived this from fake news? Or maybe a poll that said it’s 90% sure? Are you watching the rest of the world?”
The 2018 mid-term elections were a referendum on the Trump presidency. He lost that referendum in a big way.
The Democrats won a decisive majority in the House. Had the more vulnerable Republican seats in the Senate been included in the 2018 election cycle, the Senate would have passed into the hands of the Democrats too.
More than that, the Democrats learned the hard way in 2016 that extreme overconfidence has no place in a modern presidential election, because anything can and will happen. They won’t be making the same mistake in 2020.
The big question for the Democrats to be asking themselves in 2021, once they are back in full control in Washington DC, is this: How committed are they to making serious GHG reductions as far and as fast as climate activists claim is needed?
If the Democrats are truly serious about making those GHG reductions, they will go beyond simply spending gazillions of dollars on the renewables, the smart grid, and on energy storage systems. If they are truly serious about it, this is what they must do:
They must commit themselves to former President Obama’s original goal of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050. They must also enact a stiff tax on carbon, they must enact mandatory energy conservation measures, they must use the Clean Air Act to its maximum possible effectiveness in directly regulating all major sources of America’s GHG’s; and they must push for the adoption of advanced forms of nuclear power as well as for wind and solar.
Last but not least, if it becomes evident in the mid 2030’s that the 80% by 2050 target can’t be reached with everything that’s been done up to that point, the Democrats must state their willingness to adopt a government-enforced program of mandatory carbon fuel rationing.
What if we don’t see the Democrats doing anything more than simply spending lots of money on green energy projects and pushing for an updated version of the Clean Power Plan? If that’s what happens in 2021 and beyond, then we will know that fighting climate change wasn’t ever their true agenda.
You’re drinking too much Kool Aide. If you look at the loss in the House at the last election it matches other mid terms historically. Obama lost significant seats in both the House and the Senate and still won re election. Trump has a higher approval rating so what makes you think he won’t win again?
Here in the U.K. we have some of the highest prices for petrol and diesel in the Western world, mainly due to taxes. Such taxes have been in place for decades and have done nothing to stop demand for fuel increase. Although these taxes are called excise duty they are surely a carbon tax under a different name, as carbon taxes would be levied on things such as fuel. Given that our high taxes on fuel have done nothing to decrease demand how on earth do proponents of carbon taxes think they will cut demand. Also 12% of our electricity bills are government “environmental and social levies” again a carbon tax under a different name, and have done nothing to curb demand. Given facts such as this how the hell do people think carbon taxes will have any effect?
which led to “The high level of public support…”
Responding to a limited list of options FOR a carbon tax which do not include a NO carbon tax at all is not a high level of public support, unless you have an agenda, of course.
“There is a consistently high level of public support across nations for a global carbon tax if the tax policy is carefully designed, according to a survey of people in the United States”
Specifically, who were these 5,000 people who were surveyed? For all I know, they could be members of pro-green groups, ‘think’ tanks, media reporters, rich people, and universities.
Beware, many rich people and foundations are behind carbon taxes. Why? I believe they like the idea that the bulk of taxes going into government coffers comes from the poor and middle class and hence, gets them out of the crosshairs of having their wealth taxed for social programs.
“Joseph Stalin is said to have said,”” It does not matter how many people vote, its who counts the votes which matter”
The question is “What was the wording of this survey ? and who counted it.
MJE
Given the retail price of gasoline had dropped to AUD $1.10/L recently and we already pay 41.2c/L excise and with GST that amounts to 45.32c/L or a 41.2% carbon tax do we get a pat on the back and immunity until the rest of the world catches up with us? What say the developing world and oil states to that?
1.1.0?
really?
where?
its dropped from 147 to 132 here and that feels cheap, and our towns around 4 to 5c cheaper than others
Adelaide metro for over a week but the cycle has peaked up again by 25-30c/L but that won’t last
“ATLANTA–There is a consistently high level of public support across nations for a global carbon tax if the tax policy is carefully designed,…”
If the policy is carefully designed? IF? Since when has any tax policy been carefully designed? Yes, there are plenty of people here in Australia who truly believe a tax will solve the issue of climate change.