Comments on: Politically Possible Tax for Reduction of Fossil Fuel Usage in the U.S. and Worldwide

By: Joel Gagnon

Joel Gagnon — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:35:41 +0000

A very interesting article. I was already convinced that a carbon tax has
compelling advantages, and this article effectively compares this option to
the cap-and-trade alternative being considered.

The one issue that seems to me to be the sticking point for any effective
action to curb carbon emissions is the argument that taking action here
without others doing so puts us at a competitive disadvantage that will
cost us jobs and eventually lead to our economic demise. The need to deal
with others gaining market share and subverting the efforts of
participating nations to reduce emissions seems crucial to me. The article
suggests doing that with border tax adjustments, essentially tariffs
imposed to compensate for the environmental subsidy of non-participating
nations. There are potential obstacles in trade law. It should be obvious
that these should be dealt with in any international treaties committing us
and others to a carbon tax or other scheme to reduce emissions so that
participating countries are explicitly given the authority to impose import
duties on non-participating countries. I would suggest that calculating
item-specific duties that would take into account the magnitude of the
subsidy would be administratively burdensome. Instead, a simple duty could
be levied based on the maximum subsidy likely to be present in goods and
services from the non-participating countries. The fact that taxing at that
level would result in overtaxing many products would serve as additional
incentive for the non-participants to join the family of participating
nations.

Some will no doubt argue that a tariff or duty to help assure participation
in a global carbon tax will inhibit trade. Compared to no carbon tax and no
duty, that is no doubt true, but if we are ever to take effective
collective action to address climate change, we need to put in place a
system that rewards the virtuous and penalizes the miscreants.

We can’t afford to allow the environment to subsidize the industrialization
of the emerging nations. While it is tempting to argue that we did it and
it is now their turn, the globe will not withstand that scenario. We
shouldn’t have done it but did and got away with it; a repetition would be
disastrous for all of us.

By: Jeanne Fudala

Jeanne Fudala — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:42:09 +0000

Prominent scientists and economists are increasingly asserting that the Waxman-Markey bill and cap and trade in general would not only fail to prevent climate catastrophe but by creating a system of carbon gaming would leave so many gaps and loopholes that,instead of making any improvement, would actually make that catastrophe virtually inevitable.

This article clearly states the case for a carbon tax which by getting right to the source of the problem and keeping it out of the hands of shortsighted finance gamers would give us our best chance of avoiding at least the the most devastating aspects of climate change.

By: Allegra

Allegra — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:29:59 +0000

This cap and trade bill will fail to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Decisive action in Washington that immediately reduces carbon emissions is urgently needed. instead, the 1400 page Waxman-Markey bill gives major concessions to coal and oil and a short-term emissions reduction target estimated at only 4% by 2020. We will continue at our current carbon emissions level for years.

The alternative is revenue-neutral carbon pricing, taxing carbon as it comes out of the ground and distributing the revenue back to people. That will create the framework for the last opportunity we have to build a post-carbon clean energy economy.