http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...se-for-a-carbon-tax-20130421,0,3576158.column

A tax everyone can love

Once we get used to the idea, taxing carbon makes sense.

Dont think this is a free ride for EV's! Taxing carbon will make the price of all energy soar!. Gas, Electricity, Airline tickets, Energy dependent industries, Food, and most goods and services. I don't agree with this tax. We pay enough without new taxes. IMO

Lloyd said:

Dont think this is a free ride for EV's! Taxing carbon will make the price of all energy soar!. Gas, Electricity, Airline tickets, Energy dependent industries, Food, and most goods and services. I don't agree with this tax. We pay enough without new taxes. IMO

Click to expand...

One of the main arguments for a carbon tax is base-shifting. More carbon tax=less income tax. You just have to trust the government to deliver. Carbon tax and cap-and-trade are basically the same in terms of the incentives they produce, but they have different information requirements for the policy maker. No other policy approach gets the job done with the same level of efficiency. And no other policy approach is less likely to happen.

Martini said:

You just have to trust the government to deliver.

Click to expand...

Never trust the government to deliver.

Yeah, the idea that the government would reduce a tax already in service is laughable.

mattjn said:

Yeah, the idea that the government would reduce a tax already in service is laughable.

Click to expand...

No kidding! Here in Canada, we still pay fuel taxes that were bumped up years ago to "nationalize" Petro-Canada (Allowed them to buy out Fina, Gulf and other gasoline retailers). Subsequent governments have sold off interest in Petro-Can (now owned by Suncor) but the tax is still there.

If it were part of a "revenue neutral" deal, in which all the taxes that came in were returned to the taxpayers some other way, it wouldn't cost a nickel.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a revenue neutral deal. At least, not one that makes it into law.

According to one reputable study, the national average effect of a $25/MTCO2e tax would be to raise energy prices from $88/MWh to $100/MWh. This increase, however, is greatest in areas in with the lowest starting price of energy: the Midwest and Southeast see a rise of $16-21/MWh, while the Northeast would see a rise of $6-11/MWh. California would only see a $5-6 increase on its $136/MWh base price (in 2020).

A carbon tax (or, equivalently, carbon cap-and-trade) is essential if we're going to spur long-term investment in low-carbon-emitting sources. It should replace the patchwork system of renewable energy subsidies. While I agree with the general proposition that we shouldn't increase the overall tax burden, I think it important that we reduce taxes on "goods" such as labor. When we have a "bad" that's sitting there untaxed, namely carbon emissions, there's an obvious policy win-win scenario.

Retire the term 'foreign oil', like domestic oil can be burned/wasted guilt-free.
--

mattjn said:

Yeah, the idea that the government would reduce a tax already in service is laughable.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look at California bill AB 1077. That would be a significant tax reduction for future EV owners. On an electric vehicle which gets a $10,000 discount thanks to tax-credits and state-rebates, that can save almost $1,000 in sales tax and more every subsequent year thanks to a reduction in the vehicle license fee.

Contrast that to other states (MI is the latest example) who are aiming to raise taxes on EVs at a cost likely greater than revenue collected for the foreseeable future thanks to low sales in those states.

So see - it can be done when govt wants to encourage certain behavior.

Because giving more money to the government will stop the climate from changing, lol.

Kaivball said:

Because giving more money to the government will stop the climate from changing, lol.

Click to expand...

Because not giving more money to the government will stop the climate from changing; ”The ’free’ ’market’ will take care of it.” Rolling around on my parquet floor and laughing out loud!

If I were the benevolent but absolute dictator of the world economy, I would announce that, as of 1 Jan 2020, there will be a $50/MTCO2e tax globally. This lag would give economies time to adjust their capital stocks to use less carbon, reducing the huge hit that people would feel because their purchase decisions (e.g. automobiles) were based on a zero price for carbon emissions.

Pricing NOx and SO2 has been enormously successful in transforming the US power sector to emit less of those pollutants; pricing CO2 emissions would have a comparable effect. If there's no price, the market won't respond with new technologies and rational capital investments.

Let's have a poll to put Robert in that position :wink:

I would like to see that announcement to ramp up by $5M/MTCO2e yearly, starting right now at current prices of the EU emissions trading platform (around $10/T CO2e -- way too low). The schedule must be defined to run at least until 2050, because investments in some power plant are calculated for 40 years.

Doug_G said:

True, but the federal government has also significantly reduced income taxes since then, and reduced the GST rate...

The only problem is holding the politicians' feet to the fire on keeping it "revenue neutral". When Stephan Dion was proposing a carbon tax here, he promised it would be revenue neutral - increase carbon tax, decrease income taxes. Unfortunately if you looked at the details, some of the "neutral" was actually increased social spending! That's NOT revenue neutral, that's tax-and-spend! With that kind of crap all the time it's no wonder no one trusts the government to implement a revenue neutral tax shift.

Click to expand...

Revenue neutral has to include social spending. Carbon taxation increases prices so you have to increase welfare benefits to match appropriately. It's especially true because people at the bottom don't have the capital or power to make rapid change. For example, people on low incomes end up driving other peoples' cast offs, so high fuel prices hit working poor first and the effects last for many years.

EDIT: note that I'm not arguing they weren't doing a Sandy, just that you can't expect all of the revenue to go back to taxpayers.

SwedishAdvocate said:

Because not giving more money to the government will stop the climate from changing; ”The ’free’ ’market’ will take care of it.” Rolling around on my parquet floor and laughing out loud!

Click to expand...

You mean we need to spend countless billions more so the government can save us just like they won the war on poverty and drugs and terrors? Lol.

This will en just another slush fund for politicians to finance more fraud, more abuse and more waste of tax payer money.

The government can't even compete at the Post office level with the private sector but will stop the earth climate from changing?

Hahahahahahahaha. Now that is really funny.

Feel free to pay your sin tax for exhaling CO2. I for one will sit back and laugh at the lemmings that follow one crisis after the other (global cooling, global famine, man made global warming, etc, etc).

I always wonder where this near religious unwavering faith in almighty government comes from. I guess the atheists must find something to believe in.

Gee Kaivball - how many half-truths, red herrings and straw-men can you build in one post? I do think you win the record. I don't even know where to begin, but I'm sure someone will take the time to write a line-by-line rebuttal.

BTW - where is Kalifornia?

Kaivball said:

I always wonder where this near religious unwavering faith in almighty government comes from..

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with all your points, but I do believe you're on to something with this. I too am amazed at how people will not want to take any responsibility for their own actions, but demand/insist that it's the government's duty to "fix" whatever is perceived to be broken. (speaking generally, of course. Not pointing fingers at anyone here :wink