•   
  •   

World Carbon Tax, Beloved Policy to Fix Climate Change, Is Dead at 47

03:13  21 july  2021
03:13  21 july  2021 Source:   theatlantic.com

Crunch time looming for Morrison on climate as the world looks to Australia to act

  Crunch time looming for Morrison on climate as the world looks to Australia to act The need for China, India and other big emitters in the developing world to ramp up their ambition explains why the US and Britain are so exercised about Australia's 2030 target.Professor Lesley Hughes doesn't get a lot of invitations from the Morrison government to sit at the top table. The high-profile climate scientist was unceremoniously sacked, along with the entire Climate Commission, shortly after Tony Abbott became prime minister. His successors have shunned her advice ever since.

The American carbon tax , an alluringly simple policy once hailed by environmentalists, scholars, and politicians as a cure-all for climate change that, for all its elegance in economic models, could not overcome its enduring unpopularity with the American public, died last month at its home in Washington, D.C. It was 47 . The death was confirmed by President Joe Biden’s utter lack of interest in passing it. The carbon tax aimed to reduce carbon -dioxide pollution—which heats the air, acidifies the ocean, and causes climate change —by applying a commonsense idea: If you don’t want people to

Meeting the climate goals of President Joe Biden will require setting a national cost for carbon pollution and spending heavily on social programs to assist Americans hurt by the clean-energy transition. Those are the findings in a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the latest But the biggest challenges may be the policy imperatives that need bipartisan support to implement. There is currently little political appetite on either side of the aisle for a carbon tax starting at per ton as suggested by the report — which is still below data-driven estimates of what every

The American carbon tax, an alluringly simple policy once hailed by environmentalists, scholars, and politicians as a cure-all for climate change that, for all its elegance in economic models, could not overcome its enduring unpopularity with the American public, died last month at its home in Washington, D.C. It was 47.

a body of water © Jeff Swensen/Getty

The death was confirmed by President Joe Biden’s utter lack of interest in passing it.

The carbon tax aimed to reduce carbon-dioxide pollution—which heats the air, acidifies the ocean, and causes climate change—by applying a commonsense idea: If you don’t want people to do something, charge them money for it. The tax would have levied a fee—ranging from $5 to, in some estimates, more than $150—on every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere. Such a cost would have percolated through the economy, raising gasoline and jet-fuel prices, closing coal-fired power plants, and encouraging consumers and companies to adopt cleaner forms of energy.

Europe will unveil a vast climate change action plan

 Europe will unveil a vast climate change action plan Climate-EU: Europe will unveil a vast climate change action plan © Reuters / Peter Andrews Europe is going Unveiling a vast climate change action plan by Kate Abnett Brussels (Reuters) - The European Union will unveil the most ambitious climate change plan on the fight against the most ambitious climate change to this day, aimed at translating into concrete actions Ecological objectives.

“People who want carbon taxes want money for the government,” said former prime minister Stephen Harper in a recent interview. The B.C. experience shows that even if a government introduces a policy that is the platonic ideal of a revenue neutral carbon tax , it doesn’t mean that some future government won’t Then, price that,” the University of Calgary’s Trevor Tombe told the National Post. Meanwhile, it’s not like the carbon tax is the first government program that isn’t a be-all end-all solution to to a policy problem. We put soldiers in body armour even though it won’t make battlefield deaths obsolete

The European Commission plans a carbon border tax aimed at shielding European steel producers and other energy-intensive industries against cheaper imports from countries with less strict climate policies . The package will include a proposed “ carbon border adjustment mechanism” for selected sectors to be introduced by 2021, according to a leaked Commission document, although design and feasibility details are still being worked out. The plan could initially be tested on industries including steel, cement and aluminum, a second EU document said.

It was a straightforward, perhaps even beautiful, idea—a bid to apply the economic precepts of the 19th century to one of the great problems of the 21st. Its poise was matched by its elite support. The carbon tax won acclaim from self-described socialists and red-blooded libertarians, Democratic senators and Republican secretaries of state, Elon Musk and Janet Yellen.

It was a particular favorite of the economics profession. Some 3,589 economists once declared it “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions”; in 2018, it helped William Nordhaus, a Yale professor and the author of several books about the policy, win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Yet for all its credibility on campus, the carbon tax could not triumph in the real world—that is, on Capitol Hill. In 1993, and again in 2009 and 2010, Congress considered bills that would have put a price on carbon pollution nationwide. Both efforts failed in the Senate. And while a handful of liberal states, including California, New York, and New Jersey, have succeeded in pricing some of their carbon pollution, none has passed an out-and-out carbon tax. Even evergreen Washington State could not implement an economy-wide carbon tax by ballot referendum—and it tried twice.

Senate Democrats seek carbon tax on imports from countries with high pollution

  Senate Democrats seek carbon tax on imports from countries with high pollution Democrats have agreed to add a carbon tax on imports from polluting countries to their $3.5 trillion budget plan."This legislation will assert American leadership on the climate crisis, but we also can’t be ‘Uncle Sucker’ where other countries, led by China, take advantage of what we are going to ask our country to undertake," Democratic Sen. Ed Markey explained, adding that "there is a lot of support for this idea.

The federal government’s carbon tax in provinces without their own emissions reductions plans will keep rising after 2022 to hit a total of 0 per tonne by 2030 under a major new climate plan unveiled Friday. Trudeau pointed to the global business climate and the growing demands of investors for clean technology plans, adding he thinks that business pressure is starting to sway critics. “Businesses know the opportunities and the revenues and the growth that are going to come from having a strong plan to fight climate change , and indeed we’re beginning to see more and more Conservative

The new European Commission president has been trying to make fighting climate change the hallmark of her presidency. However, her proposals could further split the bloc and backfire, hurting the EU itself, analysts believe. Since taking office in December, Ursula von der Leyen has been pushing However, the move could be more about raising tax revenue for the EU and gaining political leverage than climate change , according to Richard Werner, university professor in banking and finance at Linacre College, Oxford. While the tax may not be implemented for many years, von der Leyen may

The policy’s health had been declining for years, supporters said, and it never completely recovered from a gunshot wound sustained a decade ago. In a campaign ad in October 2010, Joe Manchin—running a grueling race for one of West Virginia’s Senate seats—fired a rifle at a draft version of the Obama administration’s carbon-price bill.

Although that bill already stood little chance of passage, the attack entered the realm of Washington fable and left the policy permanently weakened.

By this spring, when Democrats began debating their first major climate bill in 11 years, the carbon tax could find no purchase in congressional negotiations. Only a handful of senators—chiefly Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island—regularly talked it up. Most ignored it.

But the carbon tax’s condition significantly worsened last month, when an ExxonMobil lobbyist revealed that his employer, which had claimed to support a carbon tax since 2009, only did so knowing that it could never pass.

Q&A: What is China's carbon trading scheme?

  Q&A: What is China's carbon trading scheme? China Friday launched the world's biggest carbon trading system to help lower carbon emissions, but critics and analysts have raised doubts about whether it will have a significant impact. - China is drafting a new climate change law that environmentalists say might address some of the shortcomings in the current carbon trading system. Campaigners are also hoping that the current scheme gets rolled out across more industries, with stricter penalties."China... has set a long-term goal to be carbon neutral (but) the carbon market in its current form just isn't going to play much of a role in realising these ambitions," Myllyvirta said.

Reducing carbon emissions requires recognizing that the market can do a better job than bureaucrats in Washington—but also that doing nothing isn't a good option. Failing to act on climate change presents significant economic costs as well. According to the Congressional Research Service, even A new study from the Niskanen Center, a centrist think tank, offers a middle ground that more politicians should be willing to consider: carbon pricing. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy , argues in a recently published report that carbon pricing could be an effective policy for curbing emissions while

We need to address climate change with transformative solutions — from rejoining the Paris Agreement and restoring global climate leadership, to significantly expanding renewable energy, improving energy and fuel efficiency, investing in carbon capture, increasing royalties on oil and gas drilling Carbon emissions have a cost to society and if that cost is not included we all will have to pick up the tab. For a specific pricing mechanism, I prefer a carbon tax , one that starts low but ramps up considerably over time. As a flat tax with regressive impact, the bulk of the revenue generated should

“Carbon tax is not going to happen … It is a nonstarter. Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans,” the lobbyist, Keith McCoy, said in a secret recording made by the left-wing activist group Greenpeace. “But it gives us a talking point. We can say, ‘Well, what is ExxonMobil for? Well, we’re for a carbon tax.’”

Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, denied the assessment and claimed that the company’s support was genuine. But the words had been said. The carbon tax died several hours later.

The carbon tax ended life as an emblem of climate policy. But it was born and raised to resolve a very different crisis.

In 1973, David G. Wilson, a 45-year-old engineer at MIT, found himself “absolutely consumed” by a problem facing the new and experimental recycling industry. In short: Nobody was recycling, nobody knew how to pay for it, and manufacturers weren’t even using recycled materials, because raw materials could be had for cheaper.

Wilson’s solution was a “virgin-materials tax.” If you “put a fee on the use of virgin materials,” you fixed the price gap and gave companies an incentive to recycle, he later explained to The Boston Globe.

Treasury Says 97% of Those Getting Child Tax Credit Have Job, Disputing GOP Talking Point

  Treasury Says 97% of Those Getting Child Tax Credit Have Job, Disputing GOP Talking Point The other 3% of people receiving the tax credit are grandparents or have health issues, disputing claims the credit will become an "anti-work welfare check".Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio successfully fought to increase the credit in 2017, but now said the plan to give tax credits to families regardless of whether the parents have a job will become an "anti-work welfare check," the Associated Press reported.

That winter, oil-producing countries slammed an embargo on the United States. The price of gasoline quadrupled, and Americans began trying to conserve energy in earnest for the first time since World War II.

The virgin-materials tax would work for this problem too, Wilson realized. The government could treat carbon-based fuels as a virgin material, tax their use on a per-ton basis, and redistribute the revenue back to Americans.

The carbon tax—what we would now call a “revenue-neutral carbon tax”—was born.

But it did not catch on until a group of atmospheric chemists, some of them working down the street at Harvard, publicized the existence of the greenhouse effect several years later.

In December 1981, at a conference for American economists at the Washington Hilton, William Nordhaus, the Yale professor, asked what economics could do about the problem of carbon dioxide.

Carbon pollution, he argued, was a negative externality, a cost borne by someone who didn’t consent to paying it, like conventional air pollution. But carbon dioxide was a much trickier problem than smog, Nordhaus said, because its costs diffused through space and time. If your factory makes smog, your neighbors suffer from it immediately. But if your factory emits CO₂, then the people who suffer from it most might live in another country—and another century.

The Infrastructure Bill Won’t Cut It on Climate

  The Infrastructure Bill Won’t Cut It on Climate Washington cannot address a small sliver of our carbon pollution and call it a victory. We have to tackle this problem at scale. The last chance we had for a federal climate bill was 12 years ago. I’m afraid that Congress will again fail to pass climate legislation that invests at the necessary level. I’m worried that we’ll keep burning time we no longer have.But we must not abandon hope. “Despair is paralysis,” the ecologist Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. “It robs us of agency.

Nordhaus entertained two solutions. The first was a standard, which would force everything that emits carbon—such as cars, power plants, and steel mills—to install emissions-reducing technology. The second was a tax, which would levy the same fee on each ton of CO₂ pollution from all sources.

In one of the most important paragraphs ever published about climate-change policy, Nordhaus endorsed the tax. He reasoned that the costs of carbon-abating standards varied wildly from sector to sector: For instance, it might cost $100 to reduce a ton of carbon from a car, but only $25 to reduce a ton from a power plant. But a carbon tax subjected every sector to the same cost per ton of carbon, meaning you could remove the most carbon for the fewest dollars. Ultimately, humanity should care only about reducing as many tons of carbon as possible, as cheaply as possible, he said.

Nordhaus’s paper, which became the field’s foundational work, arrived in the middle of a revolution in policy making: Officials in the outgoing Carter administration and incoming Reagan administration had started emphasizing the intellectual framework of economics—and its respect for rationality, efficiency, and cost-benefit analyses—over other ways of addressing society’s problems. The carbon tax gave climate change a place in that framework.

By 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency was modeling what a carbon tax would mean for American emissions. Soon the Congressional Budget Office was researching one too.

By the time James Hansen, the director of climate science at NASA, told the Senate in 1988 that global warming had begun, lawmakers knew a carbon tax was one of their best bets.

Climate cataclysms set stage for key UN science report

  Climate cataclysms set stage for key UN science report On the heels of jaw-dropping heat and flooding across three continents, nearly 200 nations gather Monday to validate a critical UN climate science report 100 days ahead of a political summit charged with keeping Earth liveable. The world is a different place than in 2014, when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its fifth comprehensive assessment of global heating, past and future. Lingering doubts that warming was gathering pace or almost entirely human in origin, along with the falsely reassuring notion that climate impacts are tomorrow's problem, have since evaporated in the haze of record heat, wildfires and crippling droughts.

The carbon tax came into legal majority in 1990, when Finland passed the world’s first version of the policy. A year later, the European Commission said it would implement a carbon tax by 1993.

Back at home, its family was growing. Republicans had become keen on the carbon tax’s cousin: emissions-trading systems, or “cap and trade” schemes. These offered a new way to price carbon pollution. Under cap-and-trade, the government decreed the total amount of pollution allowed each year, then auctioned off the right to emit it. By the 1992 presidential election, Democrats were more likely to favor a carbon tax, while Republicans endorsed a carbon market—when they endorsed climate policy at all.

But an even more important fissure was opening in Washington. The industries that stood to lose from climate policy—heavy polluters such as the coal, railroad, oil, and steel industries—were organizing against policy faster than allies were coalescing around it. They were beginning to deny the science of climate change, and they were dragging the GOP along with them.

Four years earlier, in 1988, President George H. W. Bush had promised to fight climate change. “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect,’” he said. Now Bush warned in the final days of his failing reelection campaign that Bill Clinton would impose a “drastic” and “punishing” carbon tax.

After he took office, Clinton proposed a “BTU tax” that would have raised the cost of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. Although it was not a carbon tax, Vice President Al Gore, who had called for a carbon tax in his 1992 best seller, Earth in the Balance, meant for it to resemble one.

But the tax bombed. Heavy industry rallied against it, and its simplicity became a liability: Utilities insisted that the tax appear as a line-item charge on every customer’s power bill. By 1994, the BTU tax was dead. The Senate never even voted on it. (These sorry events are recounted in more detail in the political scientist Matto Mildenberger’s book, Carbon Captured.)

Stage 3 tax cuts to cost $184 billion as decade of deficits looms

  Stage 3 tax cuts to cost $184 billion as decade of deficits looms A new analysis of the government's upcoming tax cuts, now supported by Labor, shows they will cost the budget more than $184 billion by 2031.Tax cuts to start in 2024 will cost the federal budget more than $184 billion by early next decade, new independent analysis shows, as the International Monetary Fund urges all governments to start rebuilding their fiscal buffers by making their tax systems more progressive.

Business opposition took down Europe’s continent-wide carbon-tax proposal too. For the next decade and a half, only the Scandinavian countries—Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland—managed to pass and keep a carbon tax aimed at curbing emissions.

From then on, cap-and-trade—not a carbon tax—would prove the more politically successful form of carbon pricing.

In the mid-2000s, Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, as well as a dire United Nations report and a rash of severe hurricanes, again pushed the world to adopt climate policy. The European Union finally enacted a cap-and-trade scheme, although it remained weak for another decade.

But in Congress, cap-and-trade fared no better than the carbon tax had. A bipartisan climate coalition fell apart in 2010 before it could agree to a cap-and-trade bill. President Barack Obama backed off supporting a Democratic climate bill.

More recently, a bipartisan effort to pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax—led, ironically, by some of the same Reaganites who had once championed cap-and-trade or no climate policy at all—faltered during the Trump administration. At last count, only one national Republican lawmaker, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, supported a carbon tax.

Cap-and-trade has caught on as a regional policy. In 2008, seven northeastern states launched a cap-and-trade market for their electricity emissions, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It now includes 11 states, and Pennsylvania and North Carolina could join soon. California adopted an expansive cap-and-trade program in 2013. Earlier this year, Washington State voted to join that market.

But at the federal level, policy makers have rejected policies that maximize efficiency at all. Biden’s infrastructure bill adopts the standard-based approach that Nordhaus once disdained.

Looking back, some political scientists say that the reasons for the failure of efficient carbon policy, at least in the United States, are clear. With the exception of Canada, every country that has adopted carbon pricing has no major fossil-fuel industry, notes Nina Kelsey, a political scientist at George Washington University. (Coal-rich Australia once adopted a carbon price, then repealed it.)

Carbon prices save dollars, these researchers admit. But they expend an even scarcer resource: political capital. Because a carbon price affects all of society, it increases costs for every energy consumer, without providing an immediate alternative. Because most industries interact with the energy system only as consumers, that takes a cohort that wouldn’t care about climate policy in the abstract and turns it into a foe.

Meanwhile, a price does nothing to convince “convertible” industries—businesses such as utilities and automakers, who could support an energy transition if they changed some aspect of their production line—to switch sides. And it benefits “winner” industries, such as solar-panel makers, only indirectly.

In other words, a carbon price might cheaply eliminate carbon, but it does not change political coalitions to make passing more climate policy in the future any easier.

Today, cap-and-trade markets are by far the dominant form of carbon pricing worldwide. Now that China has launched its cap-and-trade system, carbon prices cover 20 percent of global emissions. Forty-five countries are covered by some form of carbon price, according to the World Bank. But relatively few of them use carbon taxes.

Advocates say they will cryogenically freeze the American carbon tax in case it is needed in the future. Some supporters argue that the tax is one of very few climate policies that can survive a conservative Supreme Court, because the Constitution clearly empowers Congress to levy taxes but may not allow other types of regulation.

Yet near-term prospects for the policy’s revival are dim.

The American carbon tax leaves behind dozens of supportive think-tank employees, thousands of politically engaged and idealistic Americans, and 3,589 dejected economists.

Stage 3 tax cuts to cost $184 billion as decade of deficits looms .
A new analysis of the government's upcoming tax cuts, now supported by Labor, shows they will cost the budget more than $184 billion by 2031.Tax cuts to start in 2024 will cost the federal budget more than $184 billion by early next decade, new independent analysis shows, as the International Monetary Fund urges all governments to start rebuilding their fiscal buffers by making their tax systems more progressive.

usr: 3
This is interesting!