*[Enwl-eng] Researchers Debate the Efficacy of A Carbon Tax
0 views
Skip to first unread message
ENWLine
Mar 10, 2013, 5:14:10 PM3/10/13
to "ENWL-uni"
The Brookings Institute Paper can be downloaded at:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/02/benefits-of-carbon-tax
The National Association of Manufacturers report can be accessed at:
http://www.nam.org/Issues/Energy-and-Climate/Carbon-Tax.aspx
* * *
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/26/1
*Another day, another set of dueling papers on the carbon tax*
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, February 26, 2013
A think tank and a pro-manufacturing group released dueling papers today
taking very different views of the carbon tax.
The Brookings Institution paper suggests an escalating carbon tax could
help address federal budget shortfalls, reduce heat-trapping greenhouse
gas emissions, and make costly energy subsidies and regulations unnecessary.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Manufacturers released a study
that found a carbon tax would inhibit economic growth.
The Brookings paper by economist Adele Morris proposes an initial
$16-a-ton price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels production
beginning in 2014, rising 4 percent each year over the rate of inflation.
For comparison, British Columbia levies a tax of more than $29 a ton of
carbon dioxide, and Australia's is more than $24 a ton.
The paper presents the carbon tax as a policy that can do something for
nearly every interest group.
"The revenues from the new levy could fund permanent reductions in more
distortionary taxes on capital income while also contributing to deficit
reduction," Morris writes. "And by providing simple, transparent, but
powerful market-based incentives to reduce damaging greenhouse gas
emissions, this levy could supersede the array of costly regulatory
command-and-control approaches and expensive subsidies aimed at reducing
dependence on fossil fuels and promoting clean energy."
If a carbon tax remained in effect for two decades, she writes, the
United States could use the revenue to lower the corporate income tax by
7 percent while decreasing the deficit by more than $800 billion. The
policy would also result in a 12 percent reduction in carbon emissions.
Morris suggests imposing a border tariff on energy-intensive goods from
countries that lack a similar carbon price to protect U.S.
manufacturers. A similar provision was part of a Democratic carbon
cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009, and some experts
questioned whether it would be in compliance with international trade rules.
Unlike the House-passed bill and a carbon tax measure offered recently
by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Brookings proposal wouldn't direct
much carbon tax revenue toward new federal spending. Morris proposes a
small carve-out to protect low-income households from a possible spike
in energy prices, but suggests rolling back spending elsewhere. For
example, her proposal would continue federal support for research and
development of new low-carbon technologies but eliminate subsidies and
tax credits for mature technologies, like renewable energy and electric
cars.
The tax could also replace some energy efficiency, renewable energy and
carbon mandates, the paper says.
But despite a lack of new government spending, Morris' proposal is not
the revenue-neutral carbon tax favored by Republicans like former Rep.
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.). They say revenue must not be diverted to pay down
the federal deficit but should go exclusively toward offsetting tax cuts.
On the other hand, the NAM study considers the effects of a $20-a-ton
carbon tax whose revenue would go toward deficit reduction and to keep
personal income taxes from rising as quickly as a base line assumed by
the researchers.
Far from acting as a stimulus, NAM researchers say, the tax would "have
a net negative effect on consumption, investment and labor market
decisions, resulting in lower federal revenue from taxes on capital and
labor."
And rather than raising revenue that could help lift the United States
out of debt, NAM says, the carbon tax would "be significantly less than
the projected carbon tax proceeds themselves."
The policy model would also greatly inflate the cost of electricity,
especially if the tax was set with a specific emissions-reduction goal
in mind (the study considers an 80 percent reduction target by 2053)
rather than a specific dollar amount.
The carbon tax has gained little traction on Capitol Hill or within the
Obama administration, despite its being discussed at several Washington
think tanks. Resources for the Future, for example, will host a forum on
the carbon tax tomorrow.
Jack Lew, the White House nominee for Treasury secretary, reiterated
last week at his Senate confirmation hearing that President Obama would
not propose a carbon tax in his second term. And House and Senate carbon
tax proposals are not expected to gain steam in the current political
environment.
This was illustrated again today when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top
Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a
carbon tax opponent, asked the White House to promise to oppose Hill
efforts to enact such a policy.
"This request is pretty simple: Are they going to stand by their
statements and oppose any new carbon tax?" said Vitter in a statement,
adding that the proposal offered by Sanders and Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would cause energy
prices to "skyrocket," driving up the cost of living.
Also not expected to take off is regulated industry pushing for a carbon
price, despite facing the prospect of U.S. EPA regulations and other
constraints on their carbon output.
Mike Duncan, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,
said in an interview with Platts over the weekend that he did not
believe a carbon tax would be enacted in the near future.
The tax, he said, would hurt low-income people and lead to greater
government spending -- two issues that Brookings' Morris sought to
address in her proposal.
Reporter Manuel Quinones contributed.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 7:23 PM
Subject: News: Researchers Debate the Efficacy of A Carbon Tax
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/02/benefits-of-carbon-tax
The National Association of Manufacturers report can be accessed at:
http://www.nam.org/Issues/Energy-and-Climate/Carbon-Tax.aspx
* * *
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/26/1
*Another day, another set of dueling papers on the carbon tax*
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, February 26, 2013
A think tank and a pro-manufacturing group released dueling papers today
taking very different views of the carbon tax.
The Brookings Institution paper suggests an escalating carbon tax could
help address federal budget shortfalls, reduce heat-trapping greenhouse
gas emissions, and make costly energy subsidies and regulations unnecessary.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Manufacturers released a study
that found a carbon tax would inhibit economic growth.
The Brookings paper by economist Adele Morris proposes an initial
$16-a-ton price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels production
beginning in 2014, rising 4 percent each year over the rate of inflation.
For comparison, British Columbia levies a tax of more than $29 a ton of
carbon dioxide, and Australia's is more than $24 a ton.
The paper presents the carbon tax as a policy that can do something for
nearly every interest group.
"The revenues from the new levy could fund permanent reductions in more
distortionary taxes on capital income while also contributing to deficit
reduction," Morris writes. "And by providing simple, transparent, but
powerful market-based incentives to reduce damaging greenhouse gas
emissions, this levy could supersede the array of costly regulatory
command-and-control approaches and expensive subsidies aimed at reducing
dependence on fossil fuels and promoting clean energy."
If a carbon tax remained in effect for two decades, she writes, the
United States could use the revenue to lower the corporate income tax by
7 percent while decreasing the deficit by more than $800 billion. The
policy would also result in a 12 percent reduction in carbon emissions.
Morris suggests imposing a border tariff on energy-intensive goods from
countries that lack a similar carbon price to protect U.S.
manufacturers. A similar provision was part of a Democratic carbon
cap-and-trade bill that passed the House in 2009, and some experts
questioned whether it would be in compliance with international trade rules.
Unlike the House-passed bill and a carbon tax measure offered recently
by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the Brookings proposal wouldn't direct
much carbon tax revenue toward new federal spending. Morris proposes a
small carve-out to protect low-income households from a possible spike
in energy prices, but suggests rolling back spending elsewhere. For
example, her proposal would continue federal support for research and
development of new low-carbon technologies but eliminate subsidies and
tax credits for mature technologies, like renewable energy and electric
cars.
The tax could also replace some energy efficiency, renewable energy and
carbon mandates, the paper says.
But despite a lack of new government spending, Morris' proposal is not
the revenue-neutral carbon tax favored by Republicans like former Rep.
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.). They say revenue must not be diverted to pay down
the federal deficit but should go exclusively toward offsetting tax cuts.
On the other hand, the NAM study considers the effects of a $20-a-ton
carbon tax whose revenue would go toward deficit reduction and to keep
personal income taxes from rising as quickly as a base line assumed by
the researchers.
Far from acting as a stimulus, NAM researchers say, the tax would "have
a net negative effect on consumption, investment and labor market
decisions, resulting in lower federal revenue from taxes on capital and
labor."
And rather than raising revenue that could help lift the United States
out of debt, NAM says, the carbon tax would "be significantly less than
the projected carbon tax proceeds themselves."
The policy model would also greatly inflate the cost of electricity,
especially if the tax was set with a specific emissions-reduction goal
in mind (the study considers an 80 percent reduction target by 2053)
rather than a specific dollar amount.
The carbon tax has gained little traction on Capitol Hill or within the
Obama administration, despite its being discussed at several Washington
think tanks. Resources for the Future, for example, will host a forum on
the carbon tax tomorrow.
Jack Lew, the White House nominee for Treasury secretary, reiterated
last week at his Senate confirmation hearing that President Obama would
not propose a carbon tax in his second term. And House and Senate carbon
tax proposals are not expected to gain steam in the current political
environment.
This was illustrated again today when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top
Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a
carbon tax opponent, asked the White House to promise to oppose Hill
efforts to enact such a policy.
"This request is pretty simple: Are they going to stand by their
statements and oppose any new carbon tax?" said Vitter in a statement,
adding that the proposal offered by Sanders and Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would cause energy
prices to "skyrocket," driving up the cost of living.
Also not expected to take off is regulated industry pushing for a carbon
price, despite facing the prospect of U.S. EPA regulations and other
constraints on their carbon output.
Mike Duncan, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,
said in an interview with Platts over the weekend that he did not
believe a carbon tax would be enacted in the near future.
The tax, he said, would hurt low-income people and lead to greater
government spending -- two issues that Brookings' Morris sought to
address in her proposal.
Reporter Manuel Quinones contributed.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 7:23 PM
Subject: News: Researchers Debate the Efficacy of A Carbon Tax
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages