Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Despite massive ongoing social unrest triggered by an attempt to introduce carbon taxes in France, greens still think they can get away with it.
Why I’m (slightly) less pessimistic about global warming
By Robert J. Samuelson
Columnist
January 20 at 6:35 PM…
We have yet to discover or create some low-cost fuel that would replace fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal), which provide roughly 80 percent of the world’s energy. Most nations aren’t willing to scrap the energy status quo — the very basis of modern civilization — before having a practical substitute.
…
Under one proposal, the government would slap a $43 tax on each ton of CO2. That would equal about 38 cents on a gallon of gasoline, says economist Marc Hafstead of Resources for the Future, who studied the plan. It would raise about $180 billion in the tax’s first year, he says. If the “dividend” — the tax rebate — were distributed evenly, that would be about $1,400 per household.
Meanwhile, if the tax were increased 3 percent annually, there would be (according to the estimates) a dramatic reduction in U.S. fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases. Without the tax, projected CO2 emissions would be 5.4 billion metric tons in 2035. With the tax, the total would be 3.6 billion metric tons, a 33 percent decline. Still, this would hardly eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions.
…
Read more (paywalled): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-im-slightly-less-pessimistic-about-global-warming/2019/01/20/4c2b3122-1b52-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html
The source of this idea is the “Economists’ Statement”, a manifesto produced by a high profile group of economists and other financial personalities including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury secretary George Shultz;
ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.
Source: https://www.econstatement.org
All these carbon tax ideas seem to assume fossil fuel use is elastic, that using fossil fuel is a simple choice; people can choose to use less fossil fuel. But delve into the issue and lot of that elasticity disappears.
As President Macron of France discovered, if you are a rural worker, hopping on a bus is usually not an option; you need fossil fuel to get to work, to operate agricultural machinery, and to transport farm produce and supplies.
The Washington Post author admits there is currently no practical substitute for fossil fuel.
Food producers whose businesses survived the imposition of carbon taxes would have no choice other than to keep using more or less the same amount of carbon taxed fossil fuel as they currently use, but they would have to pass the additional costs on to consumers.
I suggest a “solution” which creates substantial upward pressure on the price of food is unlikely to benefit disadvantaged people.
I am sick of hearing the word Ëmissions”. call it what it is, CO2, the essential trace gas which both we and our crops need.
So we have just a few years before the Planet ceases to be, so what are we going to do about both India and China.
They must be classified as the Enemy, by doing what they are doing, they are going to cause our death.
So they must be stopped, completely. But how.
Do t6he Greens in the USA advocate nuclear war, if not, why not. Put it too every Greenie you mee3t, “Do you want a war, a real one, with both India and China..
Of course this is complete nonsense , but if they say no to having such a war , then ask them as a matter of National Emergency just what they suggest we do.
Remember its a short time we are looking at, a decision is required right now, or we are all doomed, or so they keep telling is.
MJE
An “existential” climate crisis would seem to require extreme measures.
It is not a media outlet’s job to pimp out so-called solutions to society’s problems. WaPo has fallen even further in my estimation, and it was already near rock bottom.
Just what the Western World needs – unelected economists and journalists proposing a increasing carbon dioxide tax because they think its the right thing to do for the planet. Democracy is about the vote of elected representatives – not about what elites think.
Meanwhile other major global powers quietly laugh as the west continues to try and destroy its economy over fake science.
No one seems capable of reading past the words CARBON TAX and comprehending what fully-rebated means.
If I had to sell this program, I would say that the government will direct deposit $120 in the the bank account of every American on the first of every month. Americans will pay more for gasoline and electricity because the gas station owner and your power distributor will be paying the carbon tax. Energy is used in the manufacture and delivery of all products, so they will cost more. The average American will break even. None of the money will be going anywhere else.
Unrealistic? The government isn’t going to expect the average American to wait for a full year to get their $1400/person rebate! Perhaps working Americans will be able to reduce their withholding by $120/person/month and obtain their rebate this way. Those receiving Social Security are already getting monthly deposits, just add another $120.
WUTW readers are about as rational as a bunch of teenage girls saying: “Eke! A mouse.” Eke! A carbon tax!
Macron’s carbon tax was a gross mistake, because it was a regressive tax intended to raise revenue. Macron had invested all of his political capital making desperately-needed structural changes to the highly Socialist French economy and raised taxes to keep the budget deficit under the mandated 2%. France already got 85% of its electricity for nuclear. Their per capita emissions are roughly HALF of Germany’s and have fallen 10% more since 1990. They are lower than Britain, Italy and Spain too.
There will be a cost of administering it, so there will be a difference between the amount collected and the amount rebated. All we’re doing is setting up a new bureaucracy that will drain money out of everyone’s pockets. TANSTAFL
If you are looking at France as an example of all that is good vis low carbon energy. Could you also explain why France is such an economic mess? Can you explain why people from third world countries and war torn places in the Middle East, would risk death from drowning and exposure, setting off in a rubber dingy to cross the Channel just get out of France and into the UK?
The world needs more CO2 in the atmosphere to assist subsistence farmers.
A tax on CO2 is a tax on the poor.
Hello, is that you, Justin Trudeau? If you believe ANY of the “carbon pricing” schemes are revenue neutral, you are grossly naive or a liar.
So the guy in the city who can walk to work every day, or works from home, gets the same $120 as the fellow in a rural area like mine who has to drive 45 min to an hour to work, or the farmer who needs gas for his equipment, or the over the road truck driver who owns his own rig?!? You think that will go down well outside of the metropolitan areas?
By the way, what government is going to administer this at no cost?
Look at CA and NY as well as Canada, and tell us that a huge portion of the revenue won’t be used to “promote green technology” (really meaning “subsidize at high risk”), or at Washington state where it would have been distributed to designated groups to insure “climate justice”.
Just who is using immature reasoning?
Global warming/climate change is the biggest scam in world history. There are criminals out there pushing this.
Does this mean that the Washington Post intends to increase its price? If so; by how much?
If you persist you’ve already lost because you believe their false premise! MORE CO2 is needed!
They have most of you believing the false premise of CO2 is a ‘bad’ gas’ because someone got the EPA to declare it is so. Now everyone is arguing the economic perils as if it is inevitable something must be done to cause humanity to use less ff.
Please take the time to educate yourself about the importance of CO2:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/21/co2-and-crops-nas-vs-science/
Now there’s the recipe for the mother of all trade wars. I also suspect that the writer’s implicit assumption is that U.S. competitiveness will generally be demonstrably equal to, or greater than, global competitors, a perilous assumption.
Chuckl. Yeah righhht….It was written by an intern. They didn’t even read it.
No mention of how much “climate change/global warming” will be averted as the result of these carbon tax schemes. Why is anyone in favor if the potential effects are unknown?
Just add it to the Amazon Prime subscription price.
Can I be the first to volunteer to pay the new tax! Just replace the 60% (approx) tax that we pay on petrol and diesel here in the UK with less than 8 pence per litre AND receive free money for paying vastly less fuel tax. It’s a win/win for everyone. Gotta love those greens and their crazy ideas. Not only that, I can also smugly claim that I am paying the right amount of tax that the environmentalists say absolves me of any responsibility for their claimed damage by my fuel use.
Oh, and just to be clear – that is 60% of the pump price is taxation equating to a rate of tax of 150%.
Speaking of volunteering, there is nothing stopping those that believe in a carbon tax from voluntarily paying it themselves. Or rather the only thing stopping them from voluntarily paying the carbon tax is the “not with MY money you don’t” attitude.
“I suggest a “solution” which creates substantial upward pressure on the price of food is unlikely to benefit disadvantaged people.”
You’re not supposed to include higher food costs — only higher energy costs. The energy cost component of everything we buy is supposed to be ignored.
Is this an economic perpetual motion machine where the government collects carbon taxes then returns the money to the citizens so they can then afford to pay more for energy and everything else that energy helps build, grow, transport, etc.? This is not a true perpetual motion machine because the government will extract about 30% to oversee the program every time the money wheel turns over. In addition, it will disincentivize the more productive.
I live in the Rocky Mountains west of Denver Colorado and heat my home using a natural gas condensing boiler. A great many of my neighbors use wood stoves. For me using natural gas is convenient, cleaner, easier on the environment and reasonably priced. If natural gas should increase in price I would be forced to convert to a wood stove. I wonder what the carbon tax on a cord of black market firewood would be?