Comments on: We Want to Hear from You

By: Daniel Hewitt

Daniel Hewitt — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:30:38 +0000

Daniel,
You are an idiot if you believe that a tax on carbon will do anything other than fatten the pockets of the elite. This website is a joke. You are either part of the problem or very ill informed. It is people like you who further the myth of global warming. I challenge you to post this comment and rebut the statement that global warming and the carbon tax is part of a larger adgenda centered around a one world govt. You make me sick.

By: Arny

Arny — Sat, 05 May 2007 16:36:02 +0000

The problem I see at the moment is that carbon taxing is a non-scientific solution to a science generated problem. While I support carbon taxing in principle, I do not think that it is a good solution for the long term. I come from Australia and the water rates are continuously going up due to drought to try to force people to decrease usage. This is rather than building infrastructure.I see carbon tax in the same category. It does not solve the problem, it does however make it more costly to have too many emissions. Unfortunately the other alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal are non-energy efficient compared to the use of carbon. I would like to see a synthetic way of generating photosynthesis. There are a few people researching this but until we make it profitable then it will never be achieved. Massey University�s Nanomaterials Research Centre have used chlorophil to generate a much more efficient solar cell that does not need as much power input. This is a first step in possibly even wearing clothing that generates energy to keep us warm in colder climates and can run electronic devices.Either way, while I hate the prospect of taxing carbon, I think it will allow better funding and research in solving the problem. If we can make businesses generate environmentally safe products, maybe as well we can give them money back if they reverse the carbon emissions. Rather than a carbon tax, what about a carbon credit?What are your opinions?

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 01 May 2007 02:43:28 +0000

Here’s a few more points for your powerpoint presentation: In the calculation of the total societal costs of fossil fuels, you rarely hear of the associated dangers such as rescuing and treating the thousands of miners hurt every year in coal mining accidents, likewise for those hurt or killed in oil tank, platform or refinery disasters (such as at the Texas BP plant that blew up in 2005). When is the last time a wind farm blew up and destroyed a highway overpass like a gasoline truck did in San Francisco yesterday (04/29/07)? These fossil fuel disasters happen more regularly than people know or care to remember. Here’s a bit more: CNN ran a piece last night on the incredible danger that liquid natural gas (LNG) poses to certain cities like Boston as the massive tanker ships pass the Tobin Bridge, Logan Airport and many residences. Some experts describe a half mile diameter fire caused by just one of the tanks exploding on an LNG ship. Sounds like a pretty tasty terrorist target. Shipping on the river is halted as the Coast Guard escorts the tankers to the terminals. That, of course, doesn’t even consider the dangers posed by the natural gas pipelines buried everywhere that occasionally explode. As for the mother of all fossil fuel disasters, the Exxon Valdez, I think they stopped counting the cleanup costs after about $3 billion. It’s very hard to imagine any similar degree of catastrophe occuring to a solar, wind, geothermal or wave motion power plant.

By: Steve Hart

Steve Hart — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:34:08 +0000

Great website. Reading some of the comments there are apparently a number of us who have been thinking about this subject and wondering why no one in the media are discussing it. I am drawn to the concept of a carbon tax because I want to see real solutions that actually work.The total failure of CAFE standards to improve fuel economy (and thus to reduce emissions) for the last 20 years is an excellent example of what doesn’t work. What did have a dramatic effect was the high energy prices of the late 70s and early 80s (while they lasted.) For an easily understandable chart and a brief article see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_EconomyA carbon tax will work for the same reason – it is a price change, albeit an artificially induced one. I think it should be more aggressive in the beginning though, to jump-start the attitude change.To work politically the carbon tax must be completely revenue neutral and obviously (arguably and understandably) unbiased. It could be made revenue neutral by taxing carbon at its source (or at the port), then distributing the ENTIRE tax revenue to the populace on a per capita basis. This would provide a carrot along with the stick, and individuals would be rewarded for carbon-frugal behavior on a truly fair and equal basis. This should pass muster with fair-taxers as well. It could be called the "Fair Carbon Tax". I would not attempt to use the carbon tax for any other type of income redistribution – that would be the kiss of death for it.The carbon tax could be "dialed-in" for desired results, and the results could be easily interpreted. It could also be applied immediately for benefit on the national level without world consensus. I would also argue that carbon tax distributions would help stabilize the economy – because there would be some redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, only because the financial incentives do not carry the same imperative for the wealthy as they do for the poor. I would like to take this opportunity to rail against electric utilites, for instituting graduated rate structures – the more you use the less you pay. This is antithetical to the concept of conservation. I think a Federal law should void all such rate structures immediately, in the public interest.It is important to note that one of the requirements for really conquering the dual crises of resource depletion and atmospheric carbon-loading is for a majority of Americans to adapt to a lifestyle that we currently equate with poverty. The good news, as I recently read (Sorry, I don’t remember the source) is that a study indicated our level of happiness peaks at an income of approximately $10,000. If 99% of the population lived at that level, then it wouldn’t really be a problem that the other 1% were extravagant in their lifestyles.This brings up another point though. We need policy makers to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and to develop real solutions rather than to posture on opposite sides of a fictional reality. Republicans say that by removing safety nets they are enabling everyone to become CEOs, and Democrats imply that they can guarantee an upper middle class lifestyle to everyone. Wrong and wrong. I think reality on this issue is the new third rail – but a world of suffering will ensue if it is ignored. We desperately need to evolve into a society of small houses, integrated communities, and limited mobility.Thanks also to Doug Henwood for mentioning the Carbon Tax Center in his Alternet Article, Can the Ruling Classes Save the World From Global Warming?

By: Dustin

Dustin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:40:08 +0000

Dan, Excellent stuff. I came up with something similar right before hearing Daniel Rosenblum on the Newshour. This tax idea is important for many reasons you’ve covered (simple to implement, revenue neutral, hard to evade) and some that you may not have (I have a slowish connection and didn’t have the patience to get through all your slideshow). some of the points I haven’t seen are >helps deprive terrorists of funding >reduces pollution >alters the perverse incentives our tax code gives to reduce employment >helps reduce our vulnerability to cutoff of international oil supplies >helps build employment in efficiency and alternatives >provides a steady incentive rather than, for example, the destructively fluctuating incentives given to wind power. I’m a contractor and drive and F350. I’ve been a lifelong libertarian/Republican (until W). Yes, I’ll pay a lot more in fuel costs, but having the incentives in front of me every time I hit the gas pumps of flip a light switch will make the difference when running numbers on that tubular skylight for my office lighting, solar water heater, or taking fewer trips into town. We pay huge costs right now for energy, from air pollution to military to the bad water from coal mining one of your detractors mentioned above. The demon’s tangle of incentives, taxes, offsets, etc in our current energy system could be reduced if we simplified things with a carbon tax. Whatever the primary justification, this tax should reduce all these "bads and dis-services", will not put more funds into the hands of the pols as some fear, and seems generally sensible. I suppose the only hole one needs to plug is imported embodied CO2 emissions; there is some opportunity for mischief there. Anyway, I like your ideas. Nice work.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:10:59 +0000

Dana,

Sloppy thinking? Let�s take a look at your post. Your first point is that we’re silly to say that �fairly steep prices increases can be manageable so long as they�re regular and predictable.� Why, because you say �the implication of this is that $1,000 per barrel of oil by 2020 would not retard economic growth as long as we got there through steady, predicable annual increases of ~&70 per barrel over each of the next 13 years.� Hold on a minute! Better, please re-read our proposal, which equates (for petroleum products) to annual increases of 10 cents a gallon for 10 years. After 13 years that will be a $1.30 increase which equates to $55 per barrel (since, as you know, 42 gallons equals one barrel ). That’s more than an order of magnitude less than your increase to $1,000/barrel.

Your second point refers to Kyoto-level increases as being draconian and �cleverly� says �I guess one man�s �not draconian� is another man�s �pretty painful�.� I�m not sure whether your focus is on whether the impact is �pretty painful� to the end user or harmful to the economy, but apparently you think our proposed tax is �draconian� or �pretty painful.� Did you forget that our proposed carbon tax is revenue-neutral? Regarding the impact on the economy, you proceed to say that it is �illogical� for us to have compared our proposed 5-10% increases in energy prices per annum, with the percentages shrinking over time, to the 14% average annual real increase in U.S. gasoline prices in 2003 which didn�t stop the economy from growing at 3.5% per year. Why is that illogical? Our point is that an actual increase (in gasoline prices) greater than that which we propose didn’t stop the economy from growing. You are correct, of course, that the fact that the economy continued to grow doesn�t mean that increased prices didn�t slow it down. We never claimed that higher prices won�t slow the economy, we simply responded to the charge — not a straw man, in our view — that heavy fuel taxes �will wreck the economy.�

Your final point questions our statement that the true threat to the economy is unchecked climate change, which point you support by claiming that Nordhaus and Weitzman have debunked the Stern Review. Presumably, you’re referring to the Nordhaus paper Comments on the Stern Review’s Economics of Climate Change. While you’re right that Nordhaus raised the discount rate issue and characterized the Stern Review as political, you didn’t mention the Nordhaus conclusion at page 4: �While I question some of the [Stern] Review�s modeling and economic assumptions, its results are fundamentally correct in sign if not in size.� Our point is that unchecked climate change is more of a threat to the economy than the phased-in carbon tax we have proposed. We stand by that conclusion.

Thanks for writing.

Dan

By: Dana Johnson

Dana Johnson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:48:31 +0000

In your Myths Section you have:
Myth #4. Heavy fuel taxes will wreck the economy.
Who says? Traditional growth champions, fossil fuel interests.
Rebuttal: What causes economic havoc isn’t high energy prices or even rising prices, but price volatility. Even fairly steep price increases can be manageable so long as they’re regular and predictable.
THIS SEEMS PRETTY SILLY. SURE, PRICE VOLATILITY IS BAD, BUT THE IMPLICATION OF THIS IS THAT $1,000 PER BARREL OIL BY 2020 WOULD NOT RETARD ECONOMIC GROWTH AS LONG AS WE GOT THERE THROUGH STEADY, PREDICTABLE ANNUAL INCREASES OF ~$70 PER BARREL OVER EACH OF THE NEXT 13 YEARS.
And carbon taxes need not be draconian to accomplish their mission. Our program of recurring annual increases of $37 per ton of emitted carbon equates to 5-10% increases in energy prices per annum (with the percentages shrinking as the "base" rises and as non-fossil energy assumes a larger share).
WEFA ESTIMATES THAT EVEN IMPLEMENTING KYOTO-LEVELS OF EMISSIONS ABATEMENT WOULD COST THE AVERAGE US HOUSEHOLD ABOUT $225 PER MONTH. I GUESS ONE MAN’S ‘NOT DRACONIAN’ IS ANOTHER MAN’S ‘PRETTY PAINFUL’.
By comparison, the average annual real increase in U.S. gasoline prices in 2003-06 was 14%, and this didn’t stop the economy from growing at 3.5% a year.
ALSO PRETTY ILLOGICAL. THE US ALSO CONDUCTED A MULTI HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR WAR OVER THIS PERIOD. THE ECONOMY GREW IN SPITE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, NOT BECAUSE OF IT. SIMILARLY, THE ECONOMY GREW IN SPITE OF THE INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS OVER THIS PERIOD. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED DURING A PERIOD OF OVERALL GROWTH, DEOSN’T MEAN IT DIDN’T RETARD GROWTH VS. WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Needless to say, the true threat to the economy (and everything else) is unchecked climate change, as the Stern Report has shown.
YOU ARE SURELY AWARE THAT ESSENTIALLY ALL MAINSTREAM ECONOMISTS DISMISS THE STERN REPORT AS A PURELY POLITICAL DOCUMENT. THEY KEY ASSUMPTION THAT STERN MADE THAT LEADS TO ANY VARIANCE BETWEEN HIS CONCLUSIONS IS THAT THE SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATE SHOULD BE SET EFFECTIVELY TO ZERO. THIS REPORT HAS BEEN WIDELY DE-BUNKED BY SUCH ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL ZEALOTS AS WEITZMAN AT HARVARD AND NORDHAUS AT YALE.

BY THE WAY, I BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING, AND THAT THE RISK OF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE NEEDS TO BE MANAGED. I DON’T WORK IN THE ENERGY INDUSTRY. I JUST THINK A LOT FO THE REASONING YOU ARE PUTTING FORWARD IS PRETTY SLOPPY.

By: M. Sullivan

M. Sullivan — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:36:46 +0000

Leave it to the libs to think up another way to expand government through another tax! Just another way to attack our freedom in the United States.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:30:15 +0000

Andrew and Gary,

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions regarding the need to provide more understandable language and simple illustrations. The slideshow on our homepage was originally created as background slides for use during oral presentations. We explain the various points on the slides during the presentations, but you are correct that the points on the slides are not entirely clear on their own. We'll have to work on making the concepts for understandable on the web site.

Gary,

I certainly haven't thought through all the issues regarding a tax on the methane produced by ruminants, but I expect that imposition and collection of such a tax might be administratively difficult. Given our limited resources, we'll focus on a carbon tax with its broad effects on all types of energy use. Speaking of limited resources, thanks for the contribution you plan to send next month. We need it!

Also, thanks for your excellent responses to various comments.

Bill, Lechtelhavel, John, Tom and Bill,

Thanks for your support, understanding that Lechtelhavel supports the carbon tax, but not our premise re the climate crisis.

John,

I'm very interested in hearing more about your experience with the EU RoHS directive. I'll follow-up with you directly.

Tom,

We're proposing a carbon tax as opposed to an energy tax, because we need to reduce CO2 emissions. A carbon tax, based upon the Btu content of various fuels, will encourage energy users to shift to less carbon-intensive fuels. For example, electricity generators will have an incentive to shift from coal to natural gas, wind, solar or, in the future, coal with sequestration. An energy tax would not provide the same incentive for fuel substitution.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:05:48 +0000

I am still pondering whether it should be a carbon tax or energy sales tax. In the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro power. No carbon emissions there. But every kwh we burn means there will be some carbon released somewhere else. Same story with nuclear energy. One question with an energy sales tax would be how to treat renewable sources like wind and solar. These could be exempt. I also like the fact that people know what a sales tax is. It also implies if you are not buying or selling energy you are not paying it. I am brainstorming here. There are many factors to consider.