Welcome to the latest issue of CTC’s newsletter, A Convenient Tax, summarizing the Carbon Tax Center’s progress in advancing carbon taxes in the United States. (For Issue #2, click here.)

These are heady times for CTC. Each week, and sometimes every day, brings a major development in carbon pricing. Sometimes it has our fingerprints, and sometimes it’s a product of our work to establish a carbon tax as "the gold standard" way to put a price on carbon (as The New York Times quoted us last week).

In Just the Past Two Weeks …

New York’s Mayor Bloomberg delivered a powerful plea for a revenue-neutral carbon tax in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors last Friday. Here’s the lede of The Times’ on-line account:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his aides called one of the most significant policy addresses of his second and final term, the mayor argued that directly taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation — even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.

Echoing the Tax vs. Cap page on our Web site: Bloomberg noted that cap-and-trade is at risk from gaming, profiteering and volatility, while a straightforward carbon tax offers the essential attribute of price certainty. What is more, Bloomberg spoke as the former businessman he is:

Having spent 15 years on Wall Street and 20 years running my own company, the certainty of a pollution fee — coupled with a tax cut for all Americans — is a much better deal. It would be better for the economy, better for taxpayers and — given the experiences so far in Europe — it would be better for the environment. I think it’s time we stopped listening to the skeptics who say, "But for the politics" and start being honest about costs and benefits. Politicians tend to prefer cap-and-trade because it obscures the costs. Some even pretend that it will lower costs in the short run. That’s nonsense. The costs will be the same under either plan — and if anything, they will be higher under cap-and-trade, because middlemen will be making money off the trades. A direct fee will generate more long-term savings for consumers, and greater carbon reductions for the environment.

By 10 a.m. last Friday, CTC’s blog had a link to the Times’ story, framing Bloomberg’s speech in terms of swelling political support for carbon taxing. Since then, AP, Reuters and Newsweek (in a cover story this week) have reported on Bloomberg’s carbon-tax call.

We can’t say whether the mayor took his cue from us, or the center-right American Enterprise Institute (which issued its own report in June backing carbon taxes), or from his own internal compass. But back in July, in a piece on Gristmill, we linked Bloomberg’s NYC congestion pricing initiative with carbon taxing. We also drew Rep. John Dingell’s attention to the parallels, during a conversation with him last month (see below).

The big development the previous week was President Nikolai Sarkozy’s promise to consider a French revenue-neutral carbon tax and his urging that Europe examine the option of a European levy on imports from non-carbon-taxing countries. Sarkozy’s pledge puts pressure on the United States to do the same, a point made by New York Times columnist Roger Cohen as President Sarkozy arrived in the U.S. this week for meetings with President Bush.

Next Week

Special Invitation to NYC-area readers: CTC co-director Dan Rosenblum will be featured at a NYC Bar Association "Tax vs. Cap" debate in mid-Manhattan next Tuesday morning, Nov. 13. Go here for location, time and registration.

Congressional Support Grows for a Carbon Tax

In our last newsletter we reported on carbon tax bills introduced by Representatives Stark (D-CA) and Larson (D-CT). The two have now joined forces, with Rep. Stark and eight other members co-sponsoring the Larson bill. (Our Bills page has a list of the 10 sponsors and a summary of both bills.)

We stopped by Rep. Larson’s office recently in Washington and were deeply impressed with his staff’s and Mr. Larson’s commitment to a carbon tax. The news that Rep. Larson, the fifth highest member of the Democratic House leadership, will be participating in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali next month is also heartening.

Eclipsing this, however, is the hybrid carbon tax proposal floated by the venerable John Dingell, a member of the House of Representatives since 1955 and long-time chair of its Commerce & Energy Committee. Rep. Dingell’s staff reached out to us in late June for help estimating the carbon, petroleum and revenue impacts of a carbon tax that also included a surcharge on gasoline and jet fuel. Over the ensuing three months we refined our tax impact model (see below) and ran at least a dozen scenarios, which we discussed with his staff in a stream of telephone discussions and e-mails.

When Mr. Dingell released his proposal on the evening of Sept. 26, we were ready with a blog post on both our Web site and Gristmill, branding the idea a "hybrid carbon tax," praising Dingell’s vision, and quantifying the impacts. We’ve also taken the fight to those of our fellow environmentalists who have let their battles with Dingell over car mileage standards blind them to what Dingell calls The Power in the Carbon Tax. (For the record, we strongly support tougher CAFÉ standards but we regard the hybrid carbon tax as an even bigger breakthrough.) Mr. Dingell expressed his gratitude in a phone call last month. (Click here to participate in a public poll on Dingell’s hybrid carbon tax on his Web site.)

Needless to say, a carbon tax bill won’t pass Congress until 2009 at the earliest — public education is needed non-stop until the White House and Congress resolve to make carbon pricing a central element in climate policy. CTC is laying the intellectual and political foundation now for action in 2009.

Carbon Tax Research — National and State

Seeking out and advancing knowledge about carbon taxes is a big part of our mission. To analyze Rep. Dingell’s draft proposals, we scaled up our state-level carbon tax spreadsheet into a national 4-Sector Model — so-called because it disaggregates the U.S. carbon economy into four discrete pieces (electricity, automobiles, airlines and "other"). The model now encompasses the entire U.S. and includes the capability to model a supplemental tax on petroleum products (gasoline and jet fuel, in this case). Advocates and legislative staff in Colorado, Washington State, Oregon, California and Minnesota are currently using it to estimate impacts of state-level carbon taxes.

Much is still to be done on the modeling front. Our next steps are to incorporate "upstream" carbon costs in fuel prices and to reconcile our more-conservative model results with the "bigger bang" predicted by carbon tax supporters at the American Enterprise Institute and several resource think-tanks. We’re also stepping up our cataloging of carbon pricing research. Work at universities and think tanks is proliferating, and we want to establish CTC as the foremost English-language clearinghouse.

Media Continue to Rely on the Carbon Tax Center

Maybe it’s our revamped Web site. Or maybe carbon taxing is moving into the mainstream. Or both. CTC has been in the news a lot lately. Some recent highlights: mentions in two separate on-line New York Times articles on the same day (Friday, Nov. 2), in the news story reporting on Mayor Bloomberg’s carbon-tax address in Seattle, and in an analytical piece, The Real Climate Debate: To Cap or to Tax? • publication of a feature story on carbon taxes in Tikkun magazine • mentions in Conde Nast’s Portfolio.com, Forbes.com, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and literally hundreds of environmental and climate blogs. • We maintained our standing as the leading site on Google for those searching "carbon tax." • Our Web site continues to receive over 500 visits each week.

Going Forward

The next eighteen months are shaping up as the period in which competing policies to reduce carbon emissions will be examined for their effectiveness, cost and political viability.

CTC’s strategic goal continues to be to shape that debate and properly frame the issues by working with environmental organizations and other allies to solidify support for the concept of putting a price on carbon, while educating and inspiring opinion leaders, grassroots organizations and decision-makers to go for the "gold standard" of carbon taxes rather than settling for the less predictable, less transparent, less universal and less equitable cap-and-trade approach.

As The Times noted last week:

"Making the price predictable is the most significant move you can make to control global warming," says Charles Komanoff, a long-time environmental economist who [with Dan Rosenblum] has recently started the Carbon Tax Center as an advocacy group. "It would tilt literally billions of energy critical decisions toward using less carbon."

If you agree, please help us as we develop the intellectual ammunition, provide technical assistance, assist local, state and federal carbon tax initiatives, energize a broad coalition of interest groups, and mobilize public support for fair and effective carbon taxes.

CTC is proving its effectiveness daily. To continue playing our essential role, we need your financial help. We gratefully thank all of you who have already donated to CTC. We ask carbon tax supporters who are not yet CTC contributors to become so today.

You can contribute to CTC in three ways, of which two are tax-deductible:

Write a check or money order to ELPC (Environmental Law & Policy Center), writing Carbon Tax Center in the memo line; mail it to ELPC at 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60601. ELPC is CTC’s fiscal sponsor.

• Tax-deductible:

Make an on-line contribution via Groundspring by clicking on the DONATE NOW box on our website, www.carbontax.org.

• Not deductible:

Write a check or money order to Carbon Tax Center and send it to our New York City mailing address: CTC, 636 Broadway, Room 602, New York, NY 10012.

Please be as generous as you can, and please donate today. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles Komanoff
Daniel W. Rosenblum

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will declare his support today for a national carbon tax, according to a report posted this morning on the New York Times City Room blog by metro reporter Sewell Chan:

Mayor Bloomberg plans to announce today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his aides are calling one of the most significant policy addresses of his second and final term, the mayor will argue that directly taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation — even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.

Mr. Bloomberg is scheduled to present his carbon tax proposal in a speech this afternoon at a two-day climate protection summit in Seattle organized by the United States Conference of Mayors. (A copy of the speech was provided to The New York Times by aides to the mayor; the full text is available here, along with the complete Times story.)

With his speech today, Mayor Bloomberg joins former Vice-President Al Gore as the nation’s leading advocates of a carbon tax to cap and reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called last week for a national carbon tax on global-warming pollutants and a European levy on imports from countries not complying with the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions. In September, U.S. Rep. John Dingell, the powerful chair of the House Commerce Committee, proposed a hybrid carbon tax combining a straight carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas with a surcharge on gasoline and jet fuel.

In his Seattle remarks, Bloomberg hones in on the key advantage of a carbon tax over a carbon cap-and-trade scheme — price certainty:

Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges – but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic – price uncertainty. While the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political, the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I’ve never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success. The job of an elected official is to lead – not to stick a finger in the wind. It’s to stand up and say what we believe – no matter what the polls say is popular or what the pundits say is political suicide.

From where I sit, having spent 15 years on Wall Street and 20 years running my own company, the certainty of a pollution fee – coupled with a tax cut for all Americans – is a much better deal. It would be better for the economy, better for taxpayers and – given the experiences so far in Europe – it would be better for the environment. I think it’s time we stopped listening to the skeptics who say, “But for the politics,” and start being honest about costs and benefits. Politicians tend to prefer cap-and-trade because it obscures the costs. Some even pretend that it will lower costs in the short run. That’s nonsense. The costs will be the same under either plan – and if anything, they will be higher under cap-and-trade, because middlemen will be making money off the trades…

For the money, a direct fee will generate more long-term savings for consumers, and greater carbon reductions for the environment. And I don’t know about you, but when the economists say one thing and the politicians say another, I’ll go with the economists.

Emphasizing that “Employment is good, pollution is bad,” Bloomberg says that Congress should “use the revenue from pollution pricing to cut the payroll tax,” thus joining Mr. Gore as well as the Carbon Tax Center in seeking a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Bloomberg then closes with this powerful rhetorical flourish:

There are also logistical issues with cap-and-trade. The market for trading carbon credits will be much more complex and difficult to police than the market for the sulfur dioxide credits that eliminated acid rain. And there are political issues – because the system is subject to manipulation by elected officials who want to hand out exemptions to special interests. A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start – and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It’s like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.

Bloomberg’s support of a U.S. carbon tax is philosophically consistent with his big current local initiative, a congestion pricing plan to improve mobility, economic activity and the quality of life in the Manhattan Central Business District by charging an entry fee for motor vehicles. A carbon tax and congestion pricing both embody the principle that safeguarding “the commons” — our air, water and public space — requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses that damage or deplete it.

In July, we posted an essay on Grist drawing the links, which we reproduce in full further below.

We do take issue with Mayor Bloomberg on one important detail. He says, “People are going to keep buying gas whether it costs $1 a gallon or $2.75 a gallon — or even more — because the demand for gas is inelastic.” While gasoline is the least price-elastic of fuels — around 0.4 in the long run and less than half that much in the short run — demand for gas has some price-sensitivity, as we demonstrate elsewhere on this site. Comparing 2007 with 2004 (first 9 months for each), for example, U.S. economic activity (GDP) grew 8.4% yet gasoline usage is up only 2.7% — indicative of a 0.10-0.15 (short-run) price-elasticity, when factored against the 35% inflation-adjusted increase in gas prices over the same period.

In the longer term, carbon taxes will further conserve gasoline by stimulating a constellation of actions favoring proximity over sprawl and otherwise concentrating economic and human activity in cities. Indeed, the primary CO2-reducing aspect of Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing program resides not so much in the cars it will take off the road in and en route to midtown, as in creating the wherewithal for New York City to absorb a million more people who otherwise might take up residence in Sprawlsville, USA.

From Grist, July 15, 2007: Valuing the Commons — The connection between congestion pricing and carbon taxes, by Charles Komanoff

Every so often there arises an environmental controversy that tests the capacity of Americans to face reality. One such case is emerging in New York City, where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has proposed a “congestion fee” on cars and trucks driving into Manhattan.

Backers from the mayor on down tout the fee as a cure-all: it will unsnarl traffic, relieve pollution and create a revenue stream to upgrade subways and buses, while also cutting global warming emissions.

These claims are a bit overstated. More probably there will be a single-digit increase in traffic speeds, a one percent drop in emissions citywide,
and perhaps a $400 million revenue infusion for a transportation system whose annual costs top $30 billion.

But even though the immediate benefits of the congestion charge are relatively modest, the act of imposing such a charge is transformative in itself.

The real significance of the congestion charge is this: it establishes the principle that safeguarding “the commons” — our air, water and public space — requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses that damage or deplete it.

The congestion charge puts our money where our mouth is.

Although it has mostly gone unstated, the congestion charge rests on ironclad economic logic: street space, being both coveted and finite, has a value; hence, our failure to charge a price for its use in effect substitutes rationing by waiting, for rationing by pricing — which is why New York, Los Angeles, and every city in between have traffic jams.

Accordingly, a congestion charge that confronts those of us who would drive with the cost of traffic delays we impose on each other isn’t just one means of reducing congestion — it’s the only way to do so.

Mayor Bloomberg could place traffic cops at every intersection, airlift every double-parked car and truck, and make the subways free — and gridlock would reappear within a week, as the improvement in traffic flow attracted drivers now deterred by the too-crowded roads.

The only way to permanently open up road space is to impose some form of road valuation, and Mayor Bloomberg’s pricing plan, while blunt and imperfect, is a very good start. Most important of all, though, it establishes the principle.

Much the same applies to the prevailing green paradigm for combating global warming. It’s essentially a scattershot approach built around individual technological fixes: rooftop solar cells, low-wattage fluorescent lights, high-mileage automobiles and so on.

What’s missing — crucially, fatally missing — is a valuation of the atmosphere’s limited capacity to absorb carbon emissions without damaging the climate. Just as the high value of street space in New York demands a congestion fee, the high value of a carbon-stable atmosphere demands a fee on carbon use — i.e., a carbon tax.

This isn’t to say that tech fixes don’t have their place. They will be needed to help get off carbon, just as car and truck alternatives such as expanded subway service, exclusive bus and bicycle lanes, and, in New York, a cross-harbor rail freight tunnel, must supplement the congestion fee. But without congestion charges and revenue-neutral carbon taxes that in effect reward every traffic-busting or carbon-reducing choice, the fixes and alternatives will be systematically underused.

The obvious, first-order, unmediated choices that will reduce congestion and carbon are things that no one can make money from — things like fewer and shorter trips, smaller homes, turning stuff off. Congestion charges and a carbon tax will cause people to make these choices, and that is the only way killer traffic and killer climate change will be brought under control. It won’t happen just by subsidizing technological fixes whose investors have the advantage of an effective lobby.

What, then, is standing in the way of congestion fees and a national carbon tax? The power of an entrenched minority, for one thing. In New York City, fewer than one in 20 working residents drives toll-free into the intended congestion charging zone, but they know who they are and are not shy about protecting their self-awarded entitlement to a toll-free commute.

Conversely, the benefits of congestion pricing will be broadly distributed but not life-changing. Indeed, judging from polls, many New Yorkers don’t even realize they are potential beneficiaries.

“Losers cry louder than winners sing,” wrote University of Michigan professor Joel Slemrod in explaining the near-impossibility of overhauling the U.S. tax code, and the What is more, the benefits from road fees or carbon taxes aren’t just diffuse; because they lie in the future they are by necessity uncertain.

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand,” Machiavelli observed in The Prince, “than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things … the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.”

That is why enacting the Bloomberg congestion plan is so hard, and so necessary. America’s civic polity is stuck in traffic, so to speak. Getting it moving again will require us to imagine something other than permanent stalemate and act upon that vision.

Photo: National 911 Memorial / Flickr.

"A significant portion of the business community would prefer a carbon tax" to a carbon cap-and-trade system, an official of a leading pro-business lobby group declared today.

In an interview on E&E TV, Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, honed in on one of the key advantages of carbon taxes over the competing cap-and-trade approach — price certainty:

An advantage of a carbon tax … is that an investor knows, given the projected … set of increases in carbon prices from one year to the next, he knows what the carbon price will be and he can factor that in to what kind of capital equipment he buys, what sort of transport fleet he puts in place, and it provides more certainty.

ACCF’s board has been called "a who’s-who in big business," with past or present directors from the American Petroleum Institute, American Forest & Paper Association, Edison Electric Institute and other pro-industry trade associations, thus lending corporate gravitas to Thorning’s remarks, excerpted (and slightly edited) here (Note: subscription probably required):

E&E TV: One of the bill’s ideas is to set
up a financial board of sorts that would oversee the new greenhouse gas market. What’s your take on setting up a board of regulators?

Margo Thorning: I think the idea of expecting regulators to know what the price of carbon should be is probably not very well grounded. It does serve as a backstop in that if prices got so high that producers and households were experiencing severe economic pain they could say, well, just go ahead and emit. But it creates uncertainty, because for someone trying to invest in new equipment, if they don’t know what the price of carbon will be, that adds to the risk of the investment. That’s the problem with a cap-and-trade system and that’s what’s happening in Europe. Investors don’t know what the price of carbon will be from one month to the next or one year to the next and it’s been very volatile. So that makes the
cost of capital higher, investment more uncertain, and produces less investment. An advantage of a carbon tax, if you want to impose some sort of penalty on carbon use, is that an investor knows, given the projected set of increases in carbon prices from one year to the next, he knows what the carbon price will be and he can factor that in to what kind of capital equipment he buys, what sort of transport fleet he puts in place, and it provides more certainty. And a carbon tax provides a stream of revenue for the government to spend on new technology or to pay for offsetting the burden on low income
individuals of higher energy prices.

E&E TV: So, if you were given the opportunity to write your own proposal of how the U.S. should
reduce emissions and not hurt itself economically, you’d go with the carbon tax?

Margo Thorning: I would go with the carbon tax and more incentives for new technology development.

E&E TV: So, if a cap and trade is not the way to go as you’re saying, why has the business community come out in support of a cap and trade?

Margo Thorning: Well, a significant portion of the business community would prefer a carbon tax and there’s beginning to be more discussion about that. I think one reason some in the business community have supported a cap and trade is they expect to make money on it. They’ve maybe made emission reductions or expect to be able to make emission reductions. They expect to be winners. On the other hand, new companies or companies that are expanding that need more credits will be losers. So the winners under a cap-and-trade system, for example in Europe, the big electric utilities have been winners because they’ve been able to pass forward to consumers the price of the carbon credit even though they were given those credits by the government. So people who expect to make money on it naturally are supportive.

*    *    * 

ACCF’s clear acknowledgment of the price-certainty advantage of a carbon tax, coupled with its outspoken criticism of carbon cap-and-trade, follows the contours of the American Enterprise Institute’s June report contrasting the two approaches. The myth that business unanimously favors carbon cap-and-trade over carbon taxes (or monolithically opposes carbon pricing in the first place) is crumbling.

Photo: le_rez / Flickr.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, appearing alongside Al Gore at an environmental forum in Paris, today called for a national
"carbon tax" on global-warming pollutants and a European levy on imports from countries outside the Kyoto Protocol, according to Agence France-Presse.

Following are excerpts from AFP’s report posted on the Web in the last hour:

Wrapping up a four-month forum on the environment that brought together the government, industry and the green lobby, Sarkozy said he would consider shifting part of France’s tax burden from labour to pollutants, a key demand of environmentalists.

"We need to profoundly revise all of our taxes… to tax pollution more, including fossil fuels, and to tax labour less."

Addressing European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, who had taken the podium before him, Sarkozy urged Europe to "examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol."

As Europe was setting tough standards on its producers for the benefit of the global climate, it was unfair for their competitors to be exempted, he argued.

"I suggest to you that in the next six months, the European Union discuss the implications of this unfair competition," he said.

Guest of honour at the ceremony, the Nobel-winning former US vice president Al Gore paid a powerful tribute to the forum — pledged by Sarkozy before his election in May — saying it was a "tremendous boost" for global efforts to fight climate change.

"Today you become known as a great friend of the people of this planet," said Gore , 59, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to raise awareness about climate change. The Kenyan green advocate Wangari Maathai, Nobel winner in 2004, was also present.

Sarkozy endorsed a raft of measures to slash
France’s greenhouse-gas emissions, cut pollution and foster biodiversity, hammered out at a series of round tables over the last
two days of the forum.

"Your ideas, I make them my own. I will support them and I will carry them out," Sarkozy told participants.

Pledges ranged from a freeze on the building of new highways and airports, to a
vast plan to shift freight traffic from road to rail, to a commitment to try to slash pesticide use by half within 10 years in Europe’s
biggest farm producer.

Tramway and TGV high-speed train networks are to be extended, and drivers coaxed into buying cleaner cars through bonuses and penalties.

Sarkozy promised a nationwide push to improve the energy efficiency of all new and existing buildings.

Asked to rule on the divisive issue of a carbon tax, Sarkozy pledged to study the creation of a "climate-energy tax", "in exchange for an alleviation of labour taxes", but was careful to reassure French business leaders there would be no increase in overall taxation.

Environmentalists suggest such a tax, calculated from the greenhouse gases emitted to produce and market goods, would be "painless" for consumers and business, starting at a few cents per litre of fuel.

France’s star environmentalist Nicolas Hulot, who pushed green issues to the top of the agenda of the last presidential campaign, said he was "happy and confident" following
Sarkozy’s speech.

Arnaud Gossement, spokesman for France Nature Environment, an umbrella group of 3,000 associations, also reacted positively.

"For the first time, we have a president who does not pit economy, growth and ecology against each other… even though he was elected on a pro-growth platform," he said.

Laurence Parisot, the head of the French employers federation, MEDEF, said Sarkozy’s speech was "well balanced" but that it was too soon to judge the impact on business.

Photo: Feuillu / Flickr

A major new report commissioned by the governments of China and Brazil has called for a carbon tax — or a carbon cap-and-trade system that would also impose a carbon price.

Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future, authored by leading scientists and
energy experts from 13 countries including Russia, India, Canada,
Kenya, Egypt, Japan, and the U.S., along with Brazil and China, calls for "a wide variety of policy instruments [including] market incentives such as a price or cap on carbon emissions (which can be especially effective in influencing long-term capital investment decisions)." (The quote is from Section 4, The Role of Government and the Contribution of Science and Technology. Our Quote of the Week is drawn from the final "Conclusion" section, Lighting the Way.)

How high a price? Here’s what the report authors, who were assembled by the InterAcademy Council, a group representing the world’s 150 scientific and engineering academies, and were chaired by Nobel Laureate Stephen Chu, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and José Goldemberg, Professor, University of São Paulo, Brazil, had to say:

Opinions vary as to the level of price signals that are warranted, but many experts believe that a price on the order of US$100–150 per ton of carbon equivalent emissions (in other widely used units, US$27–41 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions) may be necessary to overcome current cost differentials for many low- and non-carbon technologies and to stimulate the large-scale changes that will be required to eventually stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

It is important … to emphasize … that establishing in every market that there eventually will be an emissions price—in the range of US$100–150 per avoided metric ton of carbon equivalent (US$27–41 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent)—is more important than establishing exactly the number of years in which such a transition will occur. For many countries, pragmatic considerations are likely to argue for a phased and multi-pronged approach, wherein an initial carbon price signal is gradually increased over time and complemented by other policies to address remaining market barriers and accelerate the commercialization of more efficient,
lower-carbon technologies.

(from Section 4.3 The importance of market signals)

Without indicating a preference, the report states clearly that the carbon price must come about from either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, which it compares clearly and fairly here.

In putting its imprimatur on the report, the Chinese government has taken a major step in dismantling what The New York Times earlier this year called "an alliance of denial [in which] China and the United States are using each other’s inaction as an excuse to do nothing" about the global climate crisis.

Co-chairs of the InterAcademcy Council are Bruce Alberts, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and Lu Yongxiang, President, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Photo: nataliebehring.com / Flickr

The Carbon Tax Center recommends that a carbon tax be revenue-neutral for both equity and political reasons, as discussed in an issue paper on this site. We recognize, of course, that Congress will inevitably see carbon tax revenues as the funding source for a variety of needs such as: paying for advanced technology, energy efficiency and renewables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; providing Americans with decent health care; or, at the other extreme, paying the huge costs of the disastrous war in Iraq.

Carolyn Lochhead, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle this week, describes other possibilities in her column excerpted below:

Rep. Charlie Rangel, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, is hunting for $1 trillion to repeal the alternative minimum tax. Sen. Barack Obama, like every Democratic candidate, wants to end global warming.

One day, someone’s going to put two and two together and discover that East Bay Rep. Pete Stark’s carbon tax could address global warming and budget troubles at the same time.

San Francisco pols are ahead of the curve, proposing a gas tax — a close cousin of the carbon tax — to fight global warming.

Of course a carbon tax is about as popular in Washington as leprosy. Obama, like most Democrats, is still talking about making "polluters pay," as if only businesses burn fossil fuels, not those people you see driving cars and living in houses.

In policy circles, a carbon tax is a no brainer, embraced by lefties like Stark and conservatives like former Bush economic advisor Gregory Mankiw. It’s a highly efficient way to reduce demand for fossil fuels and induce alternative energy supplies by using market forces. That’s also why it gags politicians: it incorporates the true cost of fossil fuel consumption in prices. Polluting consumers would pay too.

But politicians like the money it could raise. Mankiw estimates that a $1 a gallon gasoline tax could bring in $100 billion a year; a carbon tax could generate much more by hitting all fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the onrushing baby boom retirement is about to bankrupt the country — nevermind the alternative minimum tax that promises to swallow 23 million more people this year unless Rangel miraculously finds his $1 trillion.

Friends of the Earth released an important analysis today revealing who would be the real winners from the type of carbon cap-and-trade program being promoted by large corporate polluters. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) are expected to introduce cap-and-trade legislation tomorrow that would reward polluters by giving them a substantial number of emission allowances for free. The Friends of the Earth analysis is based upon the allocation in an August draft and will be updated to reflect precise numbers in the pending legislation, but the message is clear — polluters would receive a windfall.

The Lieberman-Warner bill has exposed an important split in the environmental community, with Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation supporting the legislation while Friends of the Earth, U.S. PIRG and Clean Air Watch oppose it, according to a story in E&E News (subscription required). According to the E&E News story, Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sanders (I-Vermont) today issued a joint statement in which they:

outlined their demands today for legislation whose targets are "bold, aggressive, and comprehensive enough to prevent the devastating effects of catastrophic climate change." They called for pollution credits to be distributed by an auction rather than being given for free to electric utilities and other U.S. sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

An auction isn’t ideal, but it is far closer to the "gold standard" of a carbon tax than a cap-and-trade program that gives away allowances. Friends of the Earth’s press release is reprinted verbatim below:

Lieberman climate bill could have record corporate giveaways

Oct. 17, 2007

For Immediate Release

For more information contact:
Nick Berning, 202-222-0748

Legislation’s allocation of permits to polluters could be worth trillions, says analysis from Friends of the Earth, and the coal industry stands to be the biggest winner

WASHINGTON — Global warming legislation expected to be introduced tomorrow could provide giveaways worth hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to polluting industries, according to an analysis of a draft of the legislation conducted by Friends of the Earth.

The cap-and-trade legislation, sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), would attempt to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by setting annual emissions limits for each industry. Under this legislation, a set amount of greenhouse gas pollution would continue to be allowed — and the way in which these transferable allowances, or permits, would be allocated could richly reward the country’s largest global warming polluters, as each permit could be sold or traded for cash just like a stock or a bond.

"What we’re looking at is the potential for corporate giveaways that are orders of magnitude larger than anything environmentalists have ever faced — potentially the biggest corporate giveaways in American history," said Erich Pica, one of the authors of the Friends of the Earth analysis of the August draft of the legislation. "Polluters should have to pay for their pollution, not be rewarded for it."

The Friends of the Earth analysis found that the coal industry in particular stands to benefit from this legislation, precisely because it is currently the industry most responsible for global warming pollution. Depending on market conditions, the coal industry could receive permits worth up to $231 billion in the first year alone, 48 percent of the total permit allocation. It could then sell or "trade" its permits to others for their cash value, or it could emit at no cost carbon that less fortunate industries would have to pay to emit.

"If Congress is going to implement a cap-and-trade system, it should auction off 100 percent of permits so that taxpayers reap the financial rewards. We could use that money to help Americans adjust to higher energy costs, and to subsidize clean, alternative forms of energy," Pica said. "Instead, Senators Lieberman and Warner have proposed auctioning off only 24 percent of permits at the outset of this legislation, setting up a rigged market in which most permits are handed out to polluting industries for free. If you see a lot of polluters lining up in support of this legislation, that’s why."

While the specific language of the legislation being introduced tomorrow could differ somewhat from the draft circulated in August, permit allocations will reportedly continue to be a problem. Friends of the Earth will update its analysis after the legislation is introduced to reflect the final numbers in the bill.

Friends of the Earth’s analysis of the Lieberman-Warner draft can be found here.

FoE’s August statement responding to the initial release of the Lieberman-Warner draft can be found here.

After being roundly ignored, or worse, by the mainstream environmental groups, Rep. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal finally gained a ringing defense last weekend in the Financial Times (U.K.), reprinted below.

While we don’t share Clive Crook’s disdain for CAFE standards — he overplays the "rebound effect," for one thing — we appreciate his clear expression of the need for carbon taxes.

Incidentally, according to ACEEE, the enviro-backed Markey-Platts CAFE bill would save an estimated 2.1-2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, reducing CO2 emissions by roughly a third of a billion metric tons a year. By our estimates (see spreadsheet), Dingell’s hybrid carbon tax would save 4.5 million barrels of petroleum and over 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 — nearly double the oil and almost five times the carbon — if the 5-year ramp-up in Dingell’s proposed bill is extended to 2025.

Still, regulatory mandates and market-correcting price incentives are complementary, not mutually exclusive. How much more must the climate spin out of control before the environmental community figures that out?

Posturing will not save the planet

By Clive Crook

[Published in the Financial Times (registration required), Oct. 7 2007]

The website of the Sierra Club, the environmental group, says that "the biggest single step" America can take to reduce global warming and save consumers tens of billions of dollars is to adopt a stricter corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standard. Legislation that would force carmakers to sell more fuel-efficient cars is being debated again on Capitol Hill. A lot of people think the Sierra Club is right.

Last week Thomas Friedman, the trope-injected megapundit of The New York Times, assailed the country’s big three carmakers for resisting. He especially deplored their allies, Toyota – green Toyota, for shame – and the congressional delegation from Michigan, led by John Dingell. In opposing a strict new rule, they are helping Detroit to "commit suicide". America’s car industry got into trouble in the first place only because of its reluctance to be made to innovate, Mr Friedman explains. Washington offers to compel it to make the cars people want (and hence become more profitable) and the idiotic manufacturers, cheered on by Toyota and Mr Dingell, object. This is not pork-barrel politics, Mr Friedman says, but "empty-barrel politics". Empty barrel, you see, as in a barrel of oil.

Far from being the biggest single step the US can take on this issue, tighter Cafe standards might be the smallest single step – apart that is, from doing nothing, and doing nothing at least has the virtue of being cheap. The endless posturing and counter-
posturing over Cafe is Washington displacement activity in its purest form – something to entertain the voters while failing to confront the actual problem. Support for a stricter Cafe rule is not a sign of being serious about climate change but just the opposite.

Greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and light trucks account for about 20 per cent of the US total and Cafe rules affect only new vehicles. The initial effect of the rules is therefore on the margin of a margin. Yes, the impact would increase over time, but over time other things will change as well. If you make driving cheaper, people will drive more. Some of these savings will be spent on more cars or bigger cars or on sport utility vehicles. New cars get dearer relative to old cars because the regulation adds to costs, so people hang on to older, less efficient cars longer.

All these self-nullifying effects were seen in response to the existing Cafe standard. In the end, a tighter rule would make America burn less gasoline and emit less carbon dioxide than otherwise – but not that much less.

Mr Friedman would put this in terms you can understand. It is not small beer but low-carb beer, in a bigger glass, with a whisky chaser.

Cafe is a kind of tax, of course – but a tax that is hidden. This is both its greatest political attraction and the clearest proof of its supporters’ unseriousness. Put this mandate on the car companies, its advocates say, and they must deal with it: everybody else is better off. The companies themselves would gain, for heaven’s sake, if only they had the wit to see it.

But if this is true, then the tight new standard is surely too loose. Why not tighten it more, and forget about phasing it in? Instant innovation for free. Before you know it the carmakers will be paying pensions again and we shall be getting 500 miles to the gallon. Why not run the whole economy this way?

It is bad that the underlying cost of Cafe is hidden, but worse that its effects are misdirected. The climate does not care whether greenhouse gases come from Hummers or Priuses, or from cooling your house or heating your swimming pool. We can set
stringent fuel-economy rules for all energy-consuming activities, or we can recognise that the problem is carbon emissions, whether they come from tailpipes or power plants, and tax those instead. Make all carbon-based energy dearer and innovation on a wide front will follow, as it must if this problem is to be seriously addressed. If people want SUVs, fine – so long as they pay the full costs of driving them and economise efficiently on other forms of carbon-releasing energy too.

If Americans chose to, of course, they could buy fuel-efficient cars already – no innovation required. While nobody was looking, engineers in Europe and Japan were cunningly designing smaller cars. Yes, you just make them smaller! And drivers there
snap them up because they have to pay two or three times as much for gasoline as Americans. Makes you think.

Switching to a lower-carbon economy has a cost. A high tax on gasoline makes it explicit, and is therefore dismissed as politically impossible. But the idea that the Cafe approach is costless, or that its costs will fall entirely on companies that had it
coming anyway, is infantile. Given a choice between the ambitious and the fatuous, is it not better to press for the first?

And is the carbon-tax approach really so unrealistic?

Its chances are not improved by calling for inferior alternatives. A lot depends on who speaks up for the idea. Mr Dingell, so criticised by Mr Friedman and others on this issue, is trying to drum up support for a gas tax, a carbon tax and a cap on mortgage-interest tax relief for energy-guzzling houses. He has put draft legislation out for comment. Sure, Michigan’s Mr Dingell is in the pocket of America’s car companies. That does not mean he is wrong.

Note: Thanks to Tom Stokes of the Climate Crisis Coalition for posting the FT piece and supplying our headline.

Fourteen years after the Clinton health care debacle, Americans may finally be ready to accept and adopt universal health care, Paul Krugman argued in his New York Times column last Friday, Sept. 21.

There was another political debacle in 1993, over the Clinton btu tax, a levy on all forms of energy, with a surcharge on gasoline and other petroleum products. The tax’s ignominious defeat in favor of a watered-down version has helped poison the well for taxing carbon and/or gasoline ever since. Here we juxtapose Krugman’s actual column on health care with an imagined column we’d like to see him write on "climate care" later this year or next. Our hypothetical version uses Sen. Clinton as a foil only because she is so used in Krugman’s piece.

Health Care Hopes By PAUL KRUGMAN The New York Times, Sept. 21, 2007	Climate Care Hopes By the CARBON TAX CENTER The New York Times, March 21, 2008??
All the evidence suggests that it has finally become politically possible to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have: guaranteed health insurance. The economics of universal health care are sound, and polls show strong public support for guaranteed care. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.	All the evidence suggests that it is becoming politically possible to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have: a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The economics of a carbon tax whose revenues are returned to the public are sound, and polls show growing support. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that around.	Unfortunately, there’s a lot of that around.
True, one kind of fear seems, provisionally, to have been overcome: the timidity of Democratic politicians scarred by the failure of the original Clinton health plan.	True, one kind of fear seems, provisionally, to have been overcome: the timidity of Democratic politicians scarred by the failure of the original Clinton Btu tax in 1993.
To see how much things have changed, consider Hillary Clinton’s evolution. Just 15 months ago, The New York Times reported that "her plans to expand coverage are tempered and incremental," and that "she continues to shy from the ultimate challenge: describing what a comprehensive Democratic health care plan would look like."	To see how much things have changed, consider Hillary Clinton’s evolution. Just 15 months ago, the famously cautious Senator parried questions about taxing carbon by citing her support for the less controversial (but less effective and equitable) carbon cap-and-trade route for putting a price on carbon emissions.
Indeed, when she was asked how costs might be controlled, she demurred: "It depends on what kind of system you’re devising. And that’s still not at all clear to me, what the body politic will bear."	Indeed, nothing in Clinton’s history of defending entitlements suggested that she would ever tell Americans that cheap fossil fuels stood in the way of both climate protection and energy security.
But that was then.	But that was then.
John Edwards broke the issue of health care reform open in February, when he proposed a smart and serious plan for universal health insurance — and bravely announced his willingness to pay for the plan by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. Suddenly, universal health care went from being a distant progressive dream to something you could actually envision happening in the next administration.	Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd broke the issue of taxing carbon open in 2006, when he made a "corporate carbon tax" a centerpiece of his own presidential bid. Campaigning in Iowa, Dodd forthrightly stated, "As long as it’s cheaper to use fossil fuels, we’re not going to move to these alternative technologies and fuels," It took time, but more quickly than many thought possible, the American people came to agree.
Senator Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own plan — a delay that created a lot of anxiety among health care reformers, and may, as I’ll explain in a minute, be a bad omen for the future. Still, this week she did deliver a plan, and it’s as strong as the Edwards plan — because unless you get deep into the fine print, the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan.	Sen. Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own carbon tax — a delay that created anxiety among climate campaigners. Behind the scenes, however, Clinton’s policy wonks were ironing out crucial details, including protecting American families without diluting the price incentives that bring about carbon reductions. The plan she delivered this week is as strong as the 2007 Dodd plan — maybe stronger.
That’s not a criticism; it’s much more important that a politician get health care right than that he or she score points for originality. Senator Clinton may be politically cautious, but she does understand health care economics and she knows a good thing when she sees it.	That’s not a criticism; it’s much more important that a politician get climate care right than that he or she score points for originality. Senator Clinton may be politically cautious, but she does understand climate care economics and she knows a good thing when she sees it.
The Edwards and Clinton plans as well as the slightly weaker but similar Obama plan achieve universal-or-near-universal coverage through a well-thought-out combination of insurance regulation, subsidies and public-private competition. These plans may disappoint advocates of a cleaner, simpler single-payer system. But it’s hard to see how Medicare for all could get through Congress any time in the near future, whereas Edwards-type plans offer a reasonable second best that you can actually envision being enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president just two years from now.	The Dodd and Clinton plans as well as the similar Obama plan achieve climate-care coverage through a phased-in tax on the carbon content of coal, oil and natural gas. These plans may disappoint advocates of a new Manhattan Project who want massive government spending on renewable solar and wind plants, hybrid cars and mass transit. But these politically popular programs, Clinton discovered, actually carry less carbon-reducing bang for the same investment buck. Only taxing-up the price of fossil fuels can create the clear, rapid, across-the-board incentives needed to propel a massive shift to clean alternatives.
To get there, however, would require overcoming a lot more fear.	To get there, however, required overcoming a lot more fear.
There won’t be a serious Republican alternative. The health care plans of the leading Republican candidates, such as they are, are the same old, same old: they principally rely on tax breaks that go mainly to the well-off, but will supposedly conjure up the magic of the market. As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect cruelly but accurately puts it: "The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don’t have — and can’t get — on their taxes."	The genius in Sen. Clinton’s climate-care plan was to insist that the carbon tax revenues be rebated. Clinton dusted off the Alaska Permanent Fund model, which divvies up North Slope oil revenues equally among the state’s residents. She showed how that approach makes a carbon tax progressive, since each income bracket uses more energy (and emits more carbon) than lower groups on the ladder. "Revenue-neutral" proved more potent politically than both "no new taxes" and a Manhattan Project for energy.
But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare the dwindling fraction of Americans who still have good health insurance by claiming that the Democrats will take it away.	But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, probably won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare Americans by repeating the word "tax" over and over and ignoring the revenue-neutrality built into the Democrats’ carbon tax.
The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as "European-style socialized medicine." And Fred Thompson claims that the Clinton plan denies choice — which it actually offers in abundance — and relies on "punishment" instead.	The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Clinton carbon tax bears a strong resemblance to the revenue-neutral carbon tax championed by Romney adviser and former Bush (43) Administration chief-economist Greg Mankiw. Indeed, a carbon tax is supported by economists and opinion leaders across the political spectrum, from the American Enterprise Institute to Friends of the Earth. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as "just one more Democratic tax."
These attacks probably won’t be effective enough to prevent a Democrat from winning next year. But that won’t be the end of the story: even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.	These attacks probably won’t be effective enough to prevent a Democrat from winning this year. But that won’t be the end of the story: even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the coal and utility lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.
That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.	That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her climate care plan made supporters of a carbon tax, ourselves included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good climate care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

Epilogue: Sen. Clinton made the rounds of the Sunday morning political talk shows following her health plan rollout. Carbon tax advocates shouldn’t hold our breath till Rep. Dingell gets invited to discuss his innovative "hybrid" carbon tax. Let’s organize instead.

With a mighty creak of long-rusted hinges, a door is finally opening in Washington. The present Congress will apparently be asked to consider a carbon tax.

The measure — actually, a hybrid carbon and petroleum tax — will be introduced by the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan).

Today Dingell posted on his Web site a summary of the bill, which he began drafting in June. The current version would phase in, each year for five years, a charge of $10 per ton of carbon content of coal, oil and natural gas; plus an additional 10 cents/gallon for gasoline and jet fuel (kerosene). By the end of the five-year period the charges would reach $50/ton of carbon plus 50 cents/gallon of gasoline and jet fuel. These equate to 63 cents a gallon of gas and 90 cents for one hundred kilowatt-hours assuming the nationwide average fuel mix.

Dingell is asking the public for comments. Here’s ours: we think the bill is terrific. In line with what we said when we founded the Carbon Tax Center, and as Dingell himself wrote last month in the Washington Post, "[S]ome form of carbon emissions fee or tax … would be the most effective way to curb carbon emissions and make alternatives economically viable."
Moreover, as we elaborate below, his supplemental tax on gasoline and jet fuel has the look of genius.

How much carbon and petroleum would Dingell’s hybrid carbon tax eliminate? A lot, if you change one key parameter; instead of
halting the tax after year 5, continue ramping it up. If the tax works and the impacts on families and businesses can be offset through tax-shifting and rebates, why stop?

We examined a 20-year ramp-up — starting Dingell’s "10/10" tax in 2008 and continuing through 2027 to a level of $200 per ton of carbon plus $2/gallon on gasoline and jet fuel. Here’s where the U.S. would be in the representative year 2025:

• Carbon dioxide emissions would be down by 1.55 billion metric tons from projected levels, a 20% drop — a decrease equivalent to current emissions from England, France and Italy combined.
• Petroleum consumption would be 4.5 million barrels a day less than otherwise, an 18% decrease from projected usage, and more than 10% greater than Iran’s current production.

Moreover, these reductions could be supplemented by savings from other targeted policies and programs to reduce use of petroleum, natural gas and coal-fired electricity. (Indeed, a companion section of Dingell’s bill will call for phasing out the federal tax deduction on mortgage interest on very large homes, thus ending a subsidy through which middle and working class families subsidize gargantuan sprawl homes for the wealthy.) No other single policy measure — not broader CAFÉ standards, not a national Renewable Energy Standard, not a massive biofuels push, and certainly not a new generation of subsidized nuclear power plants — can produce nearly the carbon and petroleum savings promised by the Dingell hybrid carbon tax, provided it extends beyond the initial five-year period.

The brilliant touch in the Dingell bill is the supplemental tax on gasoline and aviation fuel. Dingell obviously grasps that a carbon tax alone can’t end America’s dangerous oil dependence. A straight carbon tax falls most heavily on coal, both because coal’s carbon content is so high and because electricity, the form in which coal’s energy is delivered, is more price-elastic than gasoline.

Using CTC’s four-sector spreadsheet model, which looks individually at electricity (40% pf U.S. CO2 emissions), gasoline (21%), jet fuel (4%) and "other" (35%), we estimate that without the annual 10¢/gallon levy on gasoline and jet fuel, the oil savings in 2025 would be nearly 40% smaller — 2.8 million barrels a day vs. 4.5 mbd. The hybrid tax thus saves 60% more petroleum, and
20% more CO2, than a straight $10/ton-a-year carbon tax.

Is the Dingell tax set at the best level? We would like to see it higher — considerably higher. The U.S. economy and America’s millions of vulnerable households could almost certainly handle a steeper ramp-up, provided the tax was made revenue-neutral. The climate crisis demands more than just the provisional $10 rate; CTC has been urging a $37/ton-a-year tax. But getting started at all is a tremendous step, and Dingell’s clear-sightedness and courage, in a Congress little characterized by either, deserve our
admiration.

What should be done with the revenue from the hybrid carbon tax? Needless to say, the quantities are enormous — $180 billion
annually after Dingell’s initial five years, and much more if the ramp-up is extended. While CTC strongly favors the revenue-neutral route, Rep. Dingell has his own ideas for using the revenues — as will just about everyone else.

For now, we urge you to read Dingell’s Web statement and post a comment on his site and at other sites that cover climate, energy, oil, national security, and politics. Having a legislator of Dingell’s stature even float a carbon-tax trial balloon is a very important and positive development — possibly a breakthrough. There’s a lot riding on it. Be heard.

Sept. 27 addendum: Two carbon-tax bills have already been submitted to the House Ways & Means Committee in 2007: the Stark-McDermott Save Our Climate Act
and the Larson American Energy Security Trust Fund Act. The Dingell proposal is certain to give these bills some of the prominence they deserve.