1 / 41

Carbon Taxes First

Carbon Taxes First. Charles Komanoff & Dan Rosenblum Carbon Tax Center www.carbontax.org April 24, 2007. Global Warming Is ….

ishi
Télécharger la présentation

Carbon Taxes First

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CarbonTaxes First Charles Komanoff & Dan Rosenblum Carbon Tax Center www.carbontax.org April 24, 2007

  2. Global Warming Is … • Triggering a climate crisis that threatens massive and irreversible damage to our global environment, public health, world peace, national security and economic well-being. • No longer seriously contested by anybody other than vested interests, their hired “experts” and indebted politicians. • See An Inconvenient Truth and IPCC Fourth Assessment.

  3. 43 Boston 42 N) New York 41 o Latitude ( Philadelphia 40 Washington, DC 39 38 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 o Warmer Winters: 4.3ºF, 1971-2002 Boston is the new Philly; NYC is the new D.C. (winter temps.) Cameron Wake, UNH Winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) Mean Temp (ºF)

  4. More Extreme Weather Extreme Precipitation Events, % Increase 1949-2002 Cameron Wake, UNH

  5. The Problem:Unsustainable CO2Emissions Worldwide • World must reduce emissions ~80% by 2050, with big cuts starting now. • Americans are emitting many times our share of CO2 (next slide). • Americans must reduce by >80%.

  6. Americans Emit in a Day What Others Emit in a Workweek

  7. China China Lines X in 2009 Lines X in 2009 U.S. U.S. “In an alliance of denial, China and the United States are using each other’s inaction as an excuse to do nothing.” – New York Times editorial, 4-20-07 What about China? China X U.S.

  8. China China Lines X in 2009 Lines X in 2009 U.S. U.S. Because CO2 stays “resident” in the atmosphere for at least a century, one hundred years of fossil-fuel use drive climate responsi- bility. U.S. still has a 40-50-year lead. Chemistry → Responsibility X U.S. China

  9. No More Free Dumping “Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the atmosphere has served as a free dumping ground for carbon gases. If people and industries are made to pay heavily for the privilege, they will inevitably be driven to develop cleaner fuels, cars and factories.” — Avoiding Calamity on the Cheap, Nov. 3, 2006 New York Times editorial

  10. Putting a Price on CO2 Emissions High taxes on carbon emissions from coal, oil and natural gas will: • Reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions • Substitution of clean fuels and technology • More efficient use of energy • Provide a revenue stream to enable • Progressive tax-shifting, or • Rebate to all U.S. residents

  11. Additional Benefits of a Carbon Tax • Carbon tax receipts may also be used to finance • Energy efficiency, further reducing use of fossil fuels and related emissions. • Energy R&D. • Will also reduce dependence on foreign oil, with major national security benefits. • Economically, will keep dollars in USA instead of flowing overseas.

  12. Rely on “Market Forces”? Here Come Synfuels Only a carbon tax can subject CO2-intensive oil sands, oil shale, coal-into-oil, etc. to a climate- appropriate market test.

  13. Clean-Energy Subsidies:A Limited Answer • Selecting the next best energy technology by fiat has largely benefited lobbyists + special interests • Oil shale, nuclear power, synfuels, ethanol, etc. • Many new sources also emit CO2 • Renewable Portfolio Standards: helpful – but not enough

  14. Efficiency Standards:Vital, but Not Enough • Too slow • Corporate resistance • Inherently reactive • Corporate gaming • (e.g., “CAFE” loophole that enabled SUV’s) • Scattershot – impossible to regulate the hundreds of important energy-usage sectors • 1-dimensional • (e.g., CAFE doesn’t affect miles driven)

  15. More than Half of U.S. Oil Use Is Not Gasoline for Cars Freight Cars Heat,Power Other Air Paving RV’s

  16. Gas Tax-Shift impacts: How high CAFE is set Mfg’er mpg decisions What car to buy Which car to drive How to drive VMT (miles traveled) Share (carpool) Chain trips Transit Walk/Bike Proximity CAFE impacts: Mfg’er mpg decisions What car to buy Example - Gas Use Decisions

  17. Dynamic Capitalism & CO2: I “ … specially equipped, privately owned jumbo jets – the kind that normally carry 300-400 passengers … recon- figured … for the enjoyment of, at most, a couple of dozen.” New York Times, 17-Oct-2006: For the Super-Rich, It’s Time to Upgrade the Old Jumbo Jet

  18. Dynamic Capitalism & CO2: II Backyard Blizzards: “Snowmaking, since the mid-1960s the provenance of ski resorts and, more recently, some party planners, has gone domestic,” with 2-kW plug-in snowmakers that run ’round-the-clock. New York Times (Home Section) 15-Feb-2007: Not Enough Snow For You? Talk to Your Father

  19. Example - Electricity • Utilities and other generators will • Respond to price signal by substituting lower-carbon fuels • Renewables • Natural Gas • Invest in efficiency on demand- and supply-side • Consumers will • Respond by using less • Substituting low- or non-carbon energy

  20. Carbon Tax Proportions Fuels are taxed by their carbon content per btu

  21. A “Starter” Carbon Tax-Shift • $37 / ton of carbon = • 10¢ / gallon of gasoline, jet fuel, etc. = • 0.72 ¢ / kWh (U.S. retail average) • Reduces U.S. CO2 emissions ~ 4% • Repeat 10 X (while standards and incentives also cut emissions)

  22. Energy Use: Not Inelastic • Gasoline usage grew only 3.5% from 2003 to 2006, while the economy grew 11%. • Pump prices have risen < 50% since 2003 (adjusted for inflation) – not the doubling commonly believed. • The modest growth in demand points to a “short-term price elasticity” of around 0.1, and 0.4 in the long term. • Finding: Demand for gasoline (and other fuels) is at least somewhat price-sensitive.

  23. Elasticity (long-run) Assumptions U.S. CO2 • Gasoline: ­ 0.4 • Electricity • Residential (37%) - 0.5 • Commercial / Industrial (63%) - 1.0 • Fuel-switching Leverage: 1.2 x • “Other” – midway bet. Gasoline/Elect. Reductions

  24. Starter Tax – Why Ramp Up? • Win broad consensus • Implement ASAP • Help people and businesses adapt • Empirical validation of efficacy • Mid-course corrections • Establish long-term price trajectory • Complement w/ investment in EE and renewables

  25. USA After “Starter Tax x 10” • CO2 emissions down by a third • Oil use down by ~5 million barrels/day • Energy • Coal-fired generation reduced • Wind and other renewable generation increased • Incandescents / halogens out, CFL’s + LED’s in • Transportation and Land-Use • SUVs out, sedans in • Costlier air and highway travel creates market pull for 300-mph intercity rail • Urban trips by bicycle up 10x, to 10% • Urban revitalization

  26. The Wealthy Will Pay More

  27. “Progressive” Use of Carbon Tax Revenues EITHER • Distribute pro rata to 320 million Americans (~ $1,500 each, per year) OR • Tax Shift out of regressive taxes (green bar at right assumes 2.5%/yr drops in emissions (net of +1.5%/y income, - 4%/y price)

  28. Two Fossil Fuel SubsidiesBy Taxpayers: Relatively SmallBy Climate: Enormous

  29. Existing Carbon Taxes(1st-year Starter Tax shown for comparison) Per ton of car-bon

  30. Politics? • Concerns about carbon tax-shifting • Contrary to Americans’ sense of entitlement to “cheap energy” • Anti-tax ideology of past 25 years • Elected officials wary of another defeat • Clinton’s 1993 Btu tax • Rep. John Anderson’s “50-50” program (1980 presidential campaign)

  31. But: Growing Support for Taxing Carbon Emissions • Opinion leaders • Al Gore • Scientists such as James Hansen (NASA) • NY Times op-ed columnists Brooks, Friedman, Kristof, Krugman & Tierney • Conservatives including Gregory Mankiw, Bush chief Economic Advisor, 2003-2005 • CEO’s of Dynegy & FPL Group

  32. Some Support in Opinion Polls • Feb. 2006 New York Times poll • 55% would support increased tax on gasoline if it reduced dependence on foreign oil. • 59% would support if the increased tax would curb energy consumption and global warming. • Oct. 2006 M.I.T. survey • Over three years, 50% increase in respondents’ willingness to pay more for electricity to reduce global warming.

  33. Carbon Tax v. Cap-and-Trade • Cap-and-trade is alternative vehicle for “putting a price” on carbon • Proposed by US CAP – coalition of large environmental groups and large corporations • Emissions are capped at a level determined through the political process • Allowances/permits to emit CO2 up to the cap are distributed or auctioned • Market participants can buy or sell as necessary

  34. Cap v. Tax: Predictable Prices • Carbon taxes provide predictable prices necessary to encourage investment in • less carbon-intensive technology • carbon-reducing energy efficiency • carbon-replacing renewable energy • Cap-and-trade aggravates price volatility that discourages beneficial investments

  35. Are We Over-Valuing Cap-and-Trade’s “Emissions Certainty”? • “Safety-valve” would authorize auctioning additional allowances if allowance prices exceed predetermined level • Emissions cap could be politically fragile without public support • No magic emissions level (except as low as possible)

  36. Tax v. Cap: Timing • C&T design and implementation: complicated, contentious, prolonged • Level of cap • Timing • Allowance allocations • Certification procedures • Offsets • Penalties • Permit banking • Inevitable requests for exemptions • Tax can be in place promptly with quick results

  37. Tax v. Cap: Equity • Cap-and-trade • Practice has been to allocate based on past use • Rewards polluters with windfall • Perverse incentive to pollute more now to increase base for allocations • Allowances can be auctioned off to highest bidders • Proposed in RGGI program • Proceeds used to provide public benefits • Lawyers and consultants are other big winners • Carbon tax would be revenue-neutral

  38. Tax v. Cap: Understandability • Carbon taxes provide direct, transparent and understandable price signals to consumers • Perceived political liability, but essential to transform societal climate-awareness • Cap-and-trade is complicated and opaque • Perceived political asset, but limits public participation and could backfire

  39. Tax v. Cap: Comprehensiveness • Carbon taxes address emissions from every sector • All users must respond to price of carbon • Most current cap-and-trade programs, as proposed, only target the electricity industry • Only 40% of emissions • If allowances are allocated, polluters with sufficient allowances have less incentive to reduce emissions

  40. Keys to Political Success • Progressive Tax-Shifting • Not a tax increase • Carbon tax revenues used to reduce regressive payroll and sales taxes • Provisions to Protect Low-Income Families • Reductions in payroll/sales taxes will offset all or a portion of the carbon tax • Other measures to reduce low-income energy use • Message: Taxing pollution instead of productive work

  41. Principles Tax-shifting – not a tax increase Full-cost pricing Polluter pays Responds to concerns about Climate crisis Inequitable taxes Security / Oil dependence Basing economy on vulnerable energy Summary www.carbontax.org

More Related