Rex Nutting’s Market Watch commentary (see "Quote of the Week") properly criticizes the presidential candidates for coming up with Rube Goldberg energy plans instead of having the guts to show leadership by proposing to increase the price of fossil fuels. It’s a fair critique, but it’s the rare candidate who has Senator Dodd’s courage to propose a tax while running for office. 

After the election, when there is less concern about cheap shots distorting policy discussions just before voting, it will be far easier to consider the best approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  After the election it will be possible to explain that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a tax-shift, not a tax increase, and that will be good for both the environment and the economy. After the election it will be easier to get past the rhetoric and to recognize that both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade increase prices. After the election, when there is an opportunity for a relatively objective analysis,  citizens and elected officials will be able to compare a revenue- neutral carbon tax (which raises prices gradually with an upwards trajectory that gives families and businesses time to adjust by using energy more efficiently and substituting renewable energy for coal and other fossil fuels) to cap-and-trade (which produces volatile energy prices and, under most proposed legislation, huge windfalls for polluters). 

For now, we can wait until after the election.  Or, take a look at the headlines to the right of this page to learn about the more serious discussions taking place in Canada and Europe.  

During last night’s Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in New Hampshire, Charles Gibson, ABC-TV News Anchor, noted that none of the candidates on the stage favor a carbon tax and asked whether it’s a bad idea or just too politically unpalatable. No one would ‘fess up to lacking political courage, courage previously demonstrated by Senator Dodd (no longer a candidate), Senator Gravel (not present at the debate), and Mayor Bloomberg (possible candidate). Governor Richardson criticized a carbon tax for passing costs on to consumers and disingenuously implied the same isn’t true for cap-and-trade, Senator Obama was intellectually honest and corrected Governor Richardson. Senator Clinton avoided the question in her response and Senator Edwards didn’t say anything.

MR. GIBSON: All right. Let me turn to something else.

Reversing — you invoked the name of Al Gore a few moments ago.
Reversing or slowing global warming is going to take sacrifice. I’m
sort of sorry Chris Dodd isn’t here because he’s talked a lot about a
carbon tax in this election. Al Gore favors a carbon tax. None of
you have favored a carbon tax. Is it a bad idea? Or is it just so
politically unpalatable that you guys don’t want to propose it?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It’s — can I answer? You know, I was Energy
secretary. It’s a bad idea because when you have a carbon tax, first
of all, it’s not a mandate. What you want is a mandate on polluters,
on coal companies, on — on — on those that pollute to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by a certain target — under my plan, 30
percent by the year 2020, 80 percent by the year 2040. It takes
international leadership.

The better way to do it is through a cap-and-trade system, which
is a mandate. Furthermore, a carbon tax, that’s passed on to
consumers. That’s passed on to the average person. That’s money you
take out of the economy. So it’s a bad idea. Cap-and-trade is
mandate, but it’s also going to take presidential leadership. It’s
going to take all of us here, every American, you know, to think more
efficiently about how we transport ourself, what vehicles we purchase,
appliances in our homes.

It’s going to take a transportation policy that doesn’t just build
more highways. We have to have commuter rail, light rail, open
spaces. We got to have — we got to have land use policies where we
improve people’s quality of life.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Obama?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I agree with Bill, that I think cap-and-trade
system makes more sense. That’s why I proposed it because you can be
very specific in terms of how we’re going to reduce the greenhouse
gases by a particular l level. Now what you have to do is you have to
combine it with a hundred percent auction. In other words, every
little bit of pollution that is sent up into the atmosphere that
polluter is getting charged for it. Not only does that ensure that
they don’t game the system, but you’re also generating billions of
dollars that can be invested in solar and wind and biodiesel.

I do disagree with one thing, though, that Bill said, and that is
that on a carbon tax the cost will be passed onto consumers and that
won’t happen with a cap-and-trade. Under a cap-and-trade there will
be a cost. Plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment, and
that’s going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers. We
have an obligation to use some of the money that we generate to shield
low-income and fixed-income individuals from high electricity prices,
but we’re also going to have to ask the American people to change how
they use energy. Everybody’s going to have to change their light
bulbs. Everybody’s going to have to insulate their homes. And that
will be a sacrifice, but it’s a sacrifice that we can meet. Over the
long term it will generate jobs and businesses and can drive our
economy for many decades.

SEN. CLINTON: Charlie, let me make a connection here that I
think is really important.

I think the economy is slipping toward a recession — the
unemployment figure on Friday hitting 5 percent, the $100 a barrel oil
that we also hit this week, the fall of the dollar.

There’s a lot of pressures on middle-class families, and the kind of
costs that they have to keep up with have all gone up astronomically.
I mean, you know, the energy costs of the typical family in New
Hampshire since George Bush has been president have tripled, and
that’s far beyond what — the cost of the tax cuts that they got from
George Bush.

So what we’ve got to do is use energy as an opportunity to
actually jump-start economic recovery. We need to quickly move toward
energy efficiency. We should require the utilities to begin to work
for energy efficiency and conservation, costs that will be shared and
decrease the pressure on families. We need a weatherization and low-
income heating emergency program that is out there now helping
families in New Hampshire and elsewhere to cover their costs. And we
need to look at how doing what is right about energy is not only good
for our security and good for the fight against global warming, but it
will be essential in dealing with the economic challenges that we
face.

Imagine Mayor Bloomberg had been on the stage and had repeated what he said at the United States Conference of Mayors in November:

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.

Or, Senator Dodd might have repeated his earlier statement that "The American people handle the truth very, very well. What they don’t handle well is people in public life promising results without talking about what has to be done to get those results." Senator Gravel might have repeated his earlier response to the statement that some people say supporting a carbon tax would be political suicide, "I back it in any case."

Political courage is hard to find in a presidential campaign. Fortunately, the real decisions on how to address climate change will likely be made after the November elections when Congress and the new Administration will be able to focus more on economics and good policy.

We established the Carbon Tax Center in January 2007. As we look back on our first year, we are thrilled by what we’ve accomplished.

CTC has established a reputation as the go-to web site for objective, non-partisan information on carbon taxes, with hundreds of hits almost every day. We have participated in conferences and debates in New York, Washington and Boston, we have appeared on national television, and we’ve been featured in newspapers, magazines and blogs. Congressional staff, academics, students and interested citizens of all stripes and from many countries have all turned to our site to get up to speed on a topic that is going to become increasingly vital as Congress and a new President grapple with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the damage from climate change.

The good news is two-fold. One, CTC has established a very solid foundation. Two, there is widespread support for revenue-neutral carbon taxes across the political spectrum from economists, business leaders, pundits and other opinion leaders. Just take a look at our Supporters page.

But we are not naïve. We know that powerful polluters who use the atmosphere as a free dumping ground are not going to give up that entitlement without a struggle. We know that cap-and-trade has well-connected advocates, many of them with a strong economic self-interest to favor their second-best alternative over carbon taxes. We know that carbon tax opponents have tremendous financial resources they will exploit to maintain their advantages.

And we are mindful that the “T” word is unpopular with politicians. Fortunately, awareness is growing that “putting a price on carbon” is an essential element of any successful strategy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While debate continues over the two basic ways to put a price on carbon, a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, we remain convinced that the advantages of carbon taxes are becoming increasingly clear.

A legislated price on carbon is unlikely before a new Congress and President take office, providing time for careful examination of the relative merits of a carbon tax and cap-and-trade. We intend to use the time to frame the choice between an equitable revenue-neutral carbon tax and cap-and-trade schemes that provide huge windfalls to polluting industries and the financial community. This will help voters and elected officials grasp the huge benefits of the prompt reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that will result from an easily implemented revenue-neutral carbon tax, compared to the excruciatingly slow reductions that would result from the endlessly tendentious process of implementing a cap-and-trade scheme.

CTC intends to play a central role in the ongoing debate. To do so, we need your generous financial support. As you make your end-of-year contributions, please think of the Carbon Tax Center and click our Donate Now button or click here for instructions on making a contribution.

Thanks and Happy New Year!

Daniel Rosenblum
Charles Komanoff
Co-Directors

Photo: Peter Bowers / Flickr

Are cracks appearing in the United States Climate Action Partnership?

How long can USCAP keep up the appearance of agreement on the need for cap-and-trade when there are disagreements within the USCAP membership regarding such fundamental issues as whether a carbon tax is preferable to cap-and-trade and whether allowances should be auctioned or given away as windfalls based upon past pollution?

A December 16 article in the Miami Herald, Cleaning Up the Climate, suggests that tensions within USCAP are beginning to be difficult to ignore. The article noted that Lewis Hay, chairman and chief executive officer of FPL Group (Florida Power & Light), is a supporter of what he euphemistically calls a carbon fee. According to the article:

At one energy conference, Jim Rogers, Duke Energy’s chief executive, noted that Hay ”is saying fee but he means tax.” Hay responded that if his colleagues wanted to fight, "I have a Jerry Springer bouncer backstage.”

Again according to the article, Hay “erupted with an uncharacteristically irate outburst” when a Senate subcommittee approved the Lieberman-Warner legislation that includes provisions creating a cap-and-trade program that gives away some of the allowances to utilities.

Hay believes that giveaways would favor the polluters. Better for the government to auction off the credits, so each utility need buy only what it needs. Hay issued a statement saying the bill "would reward the country’s biggest emitters of carbon dioxide with billions of dollars of free allowances that they don’t need. . . . That’s like giving a bigger rebate to those of us who dump the most trash on our sidewalks.”

Rogers at Duke Energy maintains that the big coal plants need a lot of free allowances to start off, or their customers might be unduly burdened by dramatically higher electric bills.

Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council urges senators to "reduce the total amount of emissions allowances polluters are given for ‘free.’" NRDC is apparently not arguing that all allowances should be auctioned, but at least it wants to limit the windfalls to industry.

Tensions will inevitably increase as USCAP begins to move past its broad statement of principle and recommendations. In fact, in an October 23 letter from USCAP to Senators Lieberman and Warner, USCAP explicitly noted that it does not yet have a position on a number of fundamental issues:

The Act includes much more detailed provisions than contained in the Call for Action. USCAP members are continuing to discuss the issues raised by a number of these provisions, such as:

• Scope of coverage and complementary policies and measures.
• Sector-specific emission reduction timelines and targets.
• Allocation of allowances.
• Cost containment measures.
• Credit for early action.
• Domestic offsets.
• International offsets.
• Relationship of state and federal GHG programs.
• Implementation of the GHG registry.
• Addressing disproportionate economic impacts.

It’s going to be interesting watching USCAP attempt to find common ground on issues such as the allocation of allowances. Will it support the windfalls in the current draft of Lieberman-Warner (see Friends of the Earth analysis)? How will it address “disproportionate economic impacts”? Will USCAP recommend auctioning all allowances and returning all of the revenues to those who incur the costs of cap-and-trade (similar in some ways to a revenue-neutral carbon tax)? Will it recommend an increase in the already huge windfalls to polluters included in Lieberman-Warner? Or, will it be unable to reach a consensus? Stay tuned.

Photo: Terry Bain / Flickr

Google Inc. has a new project, Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal. Google is preparing to bet megabucks, mega-engineers and its cutting-edge reputation on its ability to propel solar thermal power, wind turbines and other renewable electricity up the innovation curve and under the cost of coal-fired power, Reuters reported Tuesday.

"Our goal is to produce one gigawatt [1,000 megawatts] of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades," said Larry Page, Google’s co-founder and president of products, according to Reuters.

To which we at the Carbon Tax Center say: Good luck, and don’t forget to hire the lobbyists. You’re going to need them to help win a carbon tax, ’cause without the tax, your goal of renewable energy cheaper than coal is likely to remain out of reach.

Don’t look to "market forces" to jack up the cost of coal-fired power. Unlike the 1970s, when the price of coal marched in lockstep with skyrocketing oil, coal prices are stuck in a proverbial peat bog. The national average coal price so far this year, $1.77 per million btu, is barely higher in nominal terms (and 40% less in real terms) than the 1982-1985 plateau of $1.65. The resource is abundant, mining technology is technically mature (if socially and ecologically devastating), and there’s barely a mine workers union to speak of. The power plants themselves are no harder to build, even with SOx and NOx scrubbers, than my kids’ Harry Potter lego’s, they just take a few years longer.

Coal-fired power isn’t about to get much more expensive by itself. Are renewables going to get much cheaper? Arguably not — at least not enough to win Google’s bet.

What about electricity from wind, my personal favorite energy-supply source and one for which I’ve done my share of advocacy? Wind power has gotten fabulously cheaper over the past two dozen years, as this DOE cost curve attests. But the rate of decline has slowed. Past advances — taller towers to capture higher wind speeds, larger blades to sweep larger areas, gearing to grab every available erg — appear pretty much tapped out. Further declines in wind costs will be incremental, not quantum. And to compete toe-to-toe with coal as baseload power, wind will need a support system of storage and transmission that will only add to its per-kWh cost.

Photovoltaics have more cost-cutting ahead but are starting from a much higher cost plane. I’m less up to speed on solar-thermal, but I suspect it sits somewhere between wind and PV — cheaper than PV now but with less scope for innovation. The bottom line, then, as I see it, is that coal will continue to undercut renewables in cost for the foreseeable future.

Unless a price is put on coal’s head.

An average kilowatt-hour from a coal-fired power plant sends 2 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. A megawatt-hour (1,000 kWh) puts up a ton. Charge $10 a ton of CO2 (or $37 a ton of carbon — precisely what we at the Carbon Tax Center recommend as the yearly increase in a phased-in tax) and you lift the price per coal-fired kilowatt-hour by one cent. If the gap between wind power (sans the federal Production Tax Credit) and coal power is conservatively put at 4 cents/kWh, then $40/ton of CO2 ought to give Google its Holy Grail.

There’s already a couple of carbon tax bills rattling around the House Ways & Means Committee. The Larson bill (that’s John B. Larson of Connecticut, a member of the Democratic leadership) calls for $15/ton of CO2 in starting in 2008, with the level increasing by 10% annually along with an additional inflation-offsetting adjustment. That could bring wind halfway to parity with coal in just a few years.

Hiring genius engineers and pouring Google’s coffers into renewables are terrific moves. But nothing beats getting the prices right. Earth to Google: start pulling for a carbon tax.

New polls are showing increasing support for carbon taxes as concern about climate change grows. We’re pleased with these results, but we’re frustrated that as yet no polls have included questions that would indicate whether support for revenue-neutral carbon taxes exceeds that for carbon taxes for which the revenue uses are either unspecified or earmarked. While we strongly suspect the answer would be Yes, it would be helpful to have our suspicions confirmed by actual polling data.

The most recent poll, a Field Poll published on Nov. 9, reports that a majority of Californians are in favor of a carbon tax. Some 72% support a carbon tax on business, although this declines to 53% if the tax were to result in Californians’ paying higher prices for goods and services. Support for the tax grows to 65% if the tax revenues are spent solely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Approximately 65% of those polled also favor the idea of a cap-and-trade system. However, those stating a preference for cap-and-trade were not asked the follow-up question about higher prices that was asked of carbon tax supporters, even though increases in prices due to cap-and-trade would be similar to those from a carbon tax.

Similar results were obtained in a recent BBC poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries. In 14 of the countries, "a majority (61% on average overall) say it will be necessary to increase energy costs to encourage conservation and reduce carbon emissions." The poll found that 74% of Americans support paying a higher tax on coal and oil if the revenues are used to promote efficiency or to develop new fuels; but, unsurprisingly, Americans are divided if the revenues are not used for those purposes, with only 46% supporting such a tax. The poll did not ask about support for a revenue-neutral tax that would encourage conservation, reduce carbon emissions AND return the money to all Americans. Most Would Pay Higher Energy Bills to Address Climate Change Says Global Poll, World Public Opinion.Org, Nov. 5.

Image: Mario Zucca Illustration / Flickr.

Rising Global Demand for Oil Provoking New Energy Crisis according to today’s New York Times. Yesterday’s front page of the Wall Street Journal headlined As Energy Prices Soar, U.S. Industries Collide.

Why not just rely upon high gasoline prices to bring down demand instead of “adding insult to injury” with a carbon tax?

One reason is that high gasoline prices alone are not enough to reduce consumption of gasoline and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions. Consumers, whether businesses or households, need a clear price signal that future prices are going to remain high before they are motivated to make the investment decisions necessary to reduce consumption. The volatile gas prices of the last few years just don’t provide that kind of signal. The rising global demand for oil headlined in the Times story is faster in developing countries, but as the Times correctly noted, “Americans’ appetite for big cars and large houses has pushed up oil demand steadily in this country, too.” The problem is that while it may be a rational economic decision to invest in a more efficient car, house, truck or airplane if gas prices are expected to remain at or above current levels, the economic decision-making is very different if consumers believe prices may plummet in two months. Europe has had considerably higher gasoline prices for many years and, not coincidentally, Europeans generally drive much smaller and more efficient vehicles.

While volatile prices do not encourage investment in efficiency, a clear and certain trajectory of increasing carbon taxes would do so. The revenue-neutral carbon tax proposed by the Carbon Tax Center provides that clear price signal. And, the gradual trajectory of increased prices that we propose gives consumers time to adjust to the higher prices by both investing in efficiency and making behavioral changes that will further reduce energy use. For more on how consumer demand for gasoline responds to price, see our issue paper by clicking here.

Another important reason why a carbon tax continues to be essential even with high oil prices is that the goal of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, not just to reduce consumption of gasoline. Generation of electricity accounts for approximately 40% of carbon dioxide emissions , compared to about 21% from gasoline and 4% from aviation. Two-thirds of the emissions reductions from a carbon tax are expected to come from the electricity sector, 11% from gasoline and only 1% from aviation. Coal use is increasing and will continue to increase without a price signal that reflects the harm caused by carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electric generating plants.

In addition, high oil prices encourage the development of new sources of energy with huge carbon dioxide emissions such as the Alberta oil sands projects. Tar sands development is the single largest contributor to the increase in climate change in Canada according to Greenpeace Canada. Even worse, according to a study by the Sage Centre and World Wildlife Fund-Canada, "voracious water consumption by Alberta’s oilsands threatens the quality and quantity of water available to Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories through the Mackenzie River system." In fact, today’s New York Times cites a new study finding that "[h]igh levels of carcinogens have been found in fish, water and sediment downstream from Alberta’s huge oil sands projects." A carbon tax would reduce the economic incentive for such projects by holding down the price of oil. A carbon tax actually applied to such projects would destroy their economics.

Finally, right now the high oil prices are enriching oil producing countries and oil companies and causing severe damage to the United States economy. A revenue-neutral carbon tax will reduce demand and lead to reduced prices for the oil itself. The results? Reduced carbon dioxide emissions, less money going overseas and to big oil companies, carbon tax revenues returned to all Americans and strengthening our economy, and increased national security as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Win-win-win-win!

[To see a summary of recent Carbon Tax Center activities, see A Convenient Tax – Issue #3 immediately below.]

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.