I wish them good luck, but if they’re serious, maybe they should be visiting Moscow.
A coalition of veteran GOP officials — including five who have either served as treasury secretary or as chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers — will meet Wednesday with top White House officials to discuss the prospect of imposing a national carbon tax, rather than using federal regulations, to address climate change.
The newly formed Climate Leadership Council — which includes James A. Baker, Henry Paulson, George P. Shultz, Marty Feldstein and Greg Mankiw — is proposing elimination of nearly all of the Obama administration’s climate policies in exchange for a rising carbon tax that starts at $40 per ton and is returned in the form of a quarterly check from the Social Security Administration to every American.
“Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too strong to ignore,” the proposal said. “While the extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks associated with future warming are too big and should be hedged. At least we need an insurance policy.”
Despite the group’s impeccable Republican credentials — Baker, Paulson and Schultz served as treasury secretaries and Feldstein and Mankiw as CEA chairs, under GOP presidents — the proposal faces long odds.
Many congressional Republicans are adamantly against a tax increase of any kind, and President Trump repeatedly emphasized he is far more interested in promoting the extraction of fossil fuels in United States than curbing the nation’s carbon emissions.
A proposed carbon tax also failed recently in a ballot initiative in Washington state, in part because it divided the environmental and social left — with many liberals wanting to use any revenue to invest in clean energy and other social causes rather than to return it to the public.
Neither President Trump’s nor Vice President Pence’s spokespeople immediately responded to requests seeking comment on the carbon tax proposal, and Pence’s public schedule did not list the meeting with the group.
Yup – making heating your home more expensive is really going to cause financially-strapped homeowners to change their plans on which power plants they are going to construct. Except wait…. homeowners don’t do power planning. Oops.
Paying more for gasoline is going to make the average American want to jump for joy to buy an EV car they can’t afford, don’t understand, and which doesn’t have the necessary support infrastructure yet. Except wait… they didn’t buy EV’s when gas was more expensive a little while ago either. Oops.
The fact is it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a carbon tax large enough do any good. It is also IMPOSSIBLE to make a carbon tax large enough to recover the costs of carbon pollution.
But mainly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a carbon tax a substitute for actual energy policy. It’s also nowhere near as useful as higher subsidies for Renewable energy which are exquisitely targeted and – need I say it? – actually REAL and not theoretical.
When you let real, actual policy structures lapse, they are gone. And you need to start all over again from scratch. Which is why we still don’t have even a carbon tax after ten years of talking about the idiotic things.
Because some huge bureaucracy moving titanic sums of money around in pursuit of some vague economic strategy is not energy policy – it is a classic boondoggle.
In today’s Washington Post, Hugh Hewitt wrote an opinion piece calling for ‘The McChrystal Commission’, a Climate Commission composed of retired general Stanley McChrystal, Oprah Winfrey, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Gates and some other billionaires, talk show hosts, luminaries, or technology giants (no scientists, economists, or engineers). It’s purpose would be to study the issue of Climate Change and recommend certain actions be taken in about a year’s time. The suggestion is so ridiculous its hard not to believe its just a delaying tactic and an attempt to turn the subject into a comedy show. It’s timing seems designed to derail this new James Baker carbon tax initiative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-climate-change-consensus-lets-form-the-mccrystal-commission/2017/02/09/1f5c346c-ee53-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html
Interesting. James Baker gets it and explains it in a way that even Gingerbaker could understand it…
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/02/08/king-baker-carbon-tax-interview.cnn
Exactly how Hansen/CCL has been pitching it for years now, except Baker’s starting point ($40/ton) is much higher than the CCL proposal ($15/ton — time is short). “Yes, prices at the pump will rise but not nearly so much that you won’t be able to cover that rise with the money that is rebated to you from the proceeds of the fee”. And most importantly, such a fee/dividend plan would come to be VERY POPULAR. James Baker, you have listened well. CCL has been doing its job.
“It’s just good policy”.
Of course, what are the chances this gets done before the Reichstag burns down?
““It’s just good policy”.”
So everyone says, bleating the mantra like LSD-besotted sheep. And it seems like it *should* be good policy. It is so surely so Economics 101 and all, and all the fashionable folks agree, it’s just dreamy and peachy keen.
But if you actually *think* about it for a moment, about its unintended consequences, and the impossibility of its effectiveness, about its potential to end the subsidy plans we have, and and to make people truly despise environmentalism, you will see that it is a very bad idea indeed whose chief value is to make shallow people who don’t insist on actually *fixing* the AGW problem something to talk about as if they really sincerely do have good intentions.
You actually shout to the heavens that it will be ! VERY POPULAR !
No, Bill, making people pay more for gas and heat and cooking and every single product they can barely afford to pay for right now is – can you see it coming? – most certainly not going to be ! VERY POPULAR ! And nobody is going to think they are getting all the money back they are supposed to be getting. They are going to hate this. And blame big-government tax and spend environmentalists for it. And they are also going to see that it is doing ! NOTHING ! to solve AGW, and hate it even more.
And they are going to be right.
All claims… no supporting facts, figures, arguments or citations. In our previous discussions you demonstrated little to no understanding of the rev-neutral concept, repeatedly equating a straight, non-refunded tax with a total-refunded fee.
Now I am supposed to believe that you have improved your understanding but somehow arrived at the same conclusions?
As to your claim that I have not spent time attempting to understand the concept, here is my spreadsheet on which I spent many hours over the span of a year or so, and posted at the time of our previous discussions:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6KqW0UlivnVeldnby1GWXlkZmM
It is in good agreement with Baker’s numbers regarding average rebate for a family of four at the $40/ton level and goes further to show what the average savings per month and per year would be. The savings will vary among the various income levels of families, the top two quintiles having negative savings, but small in proportion to their incomes, the bottom 3 having positive savings, especially pronounced in the bottom quintile, for obvious reasons.
Thus the popularity claim.
If you would prefer not to download the spreadsheet I can post a jpg image. Let me know. You will be able to see the premises and conclusions but you won’t be able to follow the calculations. All my sources are footnoted and referenced at the bottom.
Other people’s spreadsheets can be difficult to follow, so let me know if you would like explanations.
That was the wrong link for my spreadsheet. This is the most recently updated one and the one with the footnotes:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6KqW0UlivnVZEktSGhJUTBNNVU
My apologies…
Here is the Executive Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Stephen Cohen, on why the carbon tax is a terrible idea:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html
Some take-home points:
“Raising the price of energy does not magically create new renewable energy technologies. ”
“We need to lower the price of renewable energy directly and drive fossil fuels from the marketplace.”
“Renewables need to be cheaper, more reliable and more convenient than fossil fuels. That should be the basic climate policy strategy pursued by the United States and the rest of the world. ”
Get it?!?
You make renewables cheaper than fossil fuels by subsidizing them, not by making FF’s more expensive.
Raising the price of fuel incentivizes efficiency. How do you get that from investing in renewable energy? Fully half the gains in ff reduction are expected to come from efficiency gains.
By all means, invest in new renewable technologies research. The money you don’t have to spend on subsidies could be used for that. A carbon fee does not prevent government from investing in R&D. It’s not one or the other.
Of course a carbon fee encourages R&D. Companies invest where there is money to be made. A carbon fee has many ripples through the economy, finding many pathways that could not be foreseen as well as ways that could. It is widely accepted that a carbon fee would increase the rate of FF use reduction. It is science and economics. The 97% global warming consensus doesn’t make science a bunch of sheeple.
A carbon fee is easily administered, placing very little burden on the organs of government. Minuscule compared, for example, to the government tax bureaucracy.
Have you noticed the recent rash of nuclear plant closings and planned closings? A lot of that is natural gas cost competitiveness. Something that would not be happening with a carbon tax… just an example.
Cohen is wrong about the political feasibility of a carbon tax. Once it got its foot in the door there would be no looking back. The poor — the ones who would most benefit from a carbon tax — are probably mostly unaware of what it is and what it would do. Implementation would change that instantly.
What Cohen means by politically unfeasible is FF control of politics in this country and around the world. I’m not optimistic that we can have a strong carbon tax in this country, but that does not make it bad policy or incorrect to strive for it. Not sure why these prominent Republicans are making a move now. Is it sincere or a smoke screen? I know Citizens Climate Lobby has been active for many years, talking to congessmen and senators. Baker’s pitch is nearly word for word how James Hansen pitches the deal. Maybe the reality of global warming is starting to sink in and there is some remnant of integrity that is pushing back at the insanity. Or maybe they are simply realizing that global warming will be bad for business and bad for their careers.
“The money you don’t have to spend on subsidies could be used for that. “
And there you have it, folks. The death knell to any hope we will solve AGW – the clarion call to end RE subsidies made by someone who should know better – someone who actually cares about AGW. Along with every right-winger who simply hates subsidies, along with everyone who is a climate denier. Well intentioned madness.
THIS is what a carbon tax really means – the end of actual targeted RE subsidies.
Well done – you are trading in subsidies – where every single dollar actually buys us the tech we need to replace fossil fuels for some pie-in-the-sky theory that a carbon tax will magically translate into what subsidies have been giving us for decades – actual on-the-ground technology that makes FF’s irrelevant.
We really don’t need more R&D. We need (how many times must it need to be repeated?) RE built and deployed at lower cost than fossil fuels. It would also be nice – if we want to get that RE built and deployed *in time* to actually prevent Armageddon – to have government mandates for the timetable instead of relying on the “science and economics” of your carbon tax – which is nothing more than hoping that market forces will somehow carry the day. Despite the fact that for thirty years, they have not.
” The 97% global warming consensus doesn’t make science a bunch of sheeple.”
Oh no? WTF do climate scientists know about economic theory? Economic theorists don’t even know about economic theory!
But we DO know what works: Chinese policies work. The combination of government mandates and large targeted subsidies works. China built more RE infrastructure in 6 weeks than the U.S. did in its best year. And they are going to double that in 2017. Guess what they don’t need: a carbon tax.
“A carbon fee is easily administered, placing very little burden on the organs of government. “
Wow. Just wow! Every energy transaction needs to be monitored, hundreds of millions of checks cut and mailed involving billions of dollars and this, you say, is a “very little burden”? Good grief.
Bill, you like this ****. You are a nerd – you make your own spreadsheets, for heaven’s sake. You think other people are going to like this **** just like you do.
But they are going to hate it. They will see a truly regressive tax. They will see higher prices for commodities they can not do without. They will, if the system actually works, be getting payments they will absolutely not trust recompense their expenses. Every climate denier will be shouting that from the rooftops.
But you know what they will not see? RE at low prices, because now RE only has to be just under the new inflated FF price to be competitive. What a bargain.
You are trading in what actually works to deliver new RE (targeted subsidies) for a pie-in-the-sky market force theory. Which is proving, in actual practice, to be a failure:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/british-columbia-carbon-tax-failed-experiment-market-based-solutions-climate-change
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-australias-carbon-tax-bombed/article19704906/
And – yes! – even Jacobin against carbon tax:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/oil-fossil-fuel-climate-cap-trade-tax-renewables/
Why is Steven A Cohen opposed to a carbon tax. My GUESS is it’s the common syndrome wherin people go with what they know. A perfect example of this is Joe Romm who is a phyicist and policy wonk who worked at high levels in the federal government. He was a vehement enemy of Hansen’s carbon tax advocacy. Government should, expensively, micromanage energy technology and economy — why? Because that’s what I know how to do. Many years later he got in line with the rest of the sheeple, following the intuitive, OBVIOUS path. Previously posted this:
https://climatecrocks.com/2016/10/26/washingtons-carbon-tax-initiative-splits-greens/#comment-87008
The segment where Romm notes the need for a price on carbon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6ag3b1WCYc&feature=youtu.be&t=44m8s
He makes the point I was making about nuclear needing a carbon tax to remain viable (just existing plants):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6ag3b1WCYc&feature=youtu.be&t=20m16s
All in all, a concise, comprehensive, presentation.
I have been quietly watching the great debate going on here between GB and Shockley. It’s always fun to watch folks trying to find the path through the forest, especially when they bump into the same trees (but from different directions), and speak so eloquently while they do so.
I watched the Romm clip because I like Romm, and he does indeed summarize the whole thing “concisely” when he says something to the effect “Will we get it done in time to avoid catastrophe? Who knows? That’s up to the politicians”. (And he should have added to that “and the plutocracy and the corporatocracy that have bought and now own the politicians”).
IMO, no more needs to be said beyond what Romm said there. Whether or not the Climate Leadership Council is serious or some kind of smoke screen matters not. We are just going to have to wait a while and see where The Pussy Grabber and his “advisers” (puppet master Putin) take us.
Future Secretary of State in October, 2009: Smokescreen?
Along with saying some very “smart” things, he used the code words of “we must not hurt the economy”, we must be “flexible”, and others that cast doubt on his motives. Since this speech was made over 7 years ago, the answer to “Smokescreen?” is YES. And the fact that NOTHING happened re: a carbon tax since then proves the point. IMO, Tillerson was just trying to burnish his and Exxon’s image rather than seriously advocate for a carbon tax.
The thing that leans me the other way is they want regulatory relief in exchange for the tax. That smacks of realism and sincerity to me. They want a stable tax and regulatory environment within which they can confidently make business decisions. Plus other people on the council like George Schulz have swung over to carbon tax advocacy in recent years. Many if not all of the big oil companies have had “internal carbon taxes” in acknowledgment and anticipation of the direction in which the world is heading, so that they don’t overvalue their assets and get blind-sided. All in all, you could perceive this new action as prudent businessmen guiding their corporate ships. Not saying I’m optimistic, but it’s something I’m curious about.
“Not hurting the economy”, while in some contexts is a denier meme, it is also part of the rev-neutral carbon tax pitch. “We can have our cake and eat it, too”. This is more of Tillerson listening carefully and “getting it”.
Hansen interviewed in Rolling Stone in December
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/will-we-miss-our-last-chance-to-survive-climate-change-w456917
In 2013 we needed to sequester 100Gt of carbon to stay on a path to 350ppm. With the passage of more years, now we need 150Gt, and it’s not clear that we have the capability to do that. Things are close to getting out of hand if we’re not already there.
I’ve been trying to stay away from this “great debate”, but Shockley is making me crazy with some of his xcomments.
“….they want regulatory relief in exchange for the tax. That smacks of realism and sincerity to me. They want a stable tax and regulatory environment within which they can confidently make business decisions”.
What planet do you live on? Realism and sincerity? JFC! The greedy rich SOB’s want NO regulation at all so that they can “confidently” rip off the 99% and destroy the planet.
“….you could perceive this new action as prudent businessmen guiding their corporate ships”. JFC again! Yes, and those corporate ships are busily running over and sinking the small boats of the 99%.
“This is more of Tillerson listening carefully and “getting it”, you say? Lord love a dozen ducks! Yeah, Tillerson gets it—-see previous two paragraphs.
“Things are close to getting out of hand if we’re not already there” is something I will totally agree with. I question why, on the one hand, you do recognize that, while on the other hand, you display such incredible bright-sidedness and naivete?.
Climate Leadership Council
https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf
The Essential Link Between Carbon Taxes, Dividends & Regulatory Relief
For the elimination of heavy-handed climate regulations to withstand the test of time and not prove highly divisive, they must be replaced by a market-based alternative. Our policy is uniquely suited to building bipartisan and public support for a significant regulatory rollback. It is essential that the one-to-one relationship between carbon tax revenue and dividends be maintained as the plan’s longevity, popularity and transparency all hinge on this. Allocating carbon tax proceeds to other purposes would undermine popular support for a gradually rising carbon tax and the broader rationale for far-reaching regulatory reductions.
https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf
I have a comment here waiting since 2/10 for approval because of 3+ links.
Bill complained I had no facts. I provide 3 links showing how carbon tax failed to do anything positive around the world.
Is there a single example of a carbon tax delivering on its supposed potential? Or am I the only player in this discussion who is required to provide evidence?
You might want to google “carbon tax”.
https://www.google.com/#q=carbon+tax
First hit (on my computer) is the Carbon Tax Center, who have been compiling info on carbon taxes around the world for years.
Examples of special interest are Australia (poor/instructive implementation), British Colombia “Its carbon tax is straightforward and transparent in both administration and revenue treatment, and it easily qualifies as the most significant carbon tax in the Western Hemisphere” and Sweden, where they’ve had a carbon and energy tax regime since the 80s and have lowered emissions by 40%.
Using BC as a template/pilot, where the tax was both successful and popular, Canada has now passed a law requiring all provinces to have a carbon tax in place beginning in 2018.
BC is one of the links I provide in comment that is awaiting moderation because it has been deemed a failure.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/british-columbia-carbon-tax-failed-experiment-market-based-solutions-climate-change
Thanks for the link but quite frankly did you read past the title?
Pot meets kettle:
HUH?? So, new residents in the region are expected to not drive cars, not heat their homes and not turn on the lights? Contortions, indeed!
Best for what? So, recession-related drops in emissions are not valid but GDP- or population-related increases are? Cherry-picking, defined.
An honest evaluation of the success or failure of the carbon tax would make comparisons that make sense.
How about emissions reduction (growth) relative to GDP, per capita or relative to the rest of Canada?
https://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/british-columbia/
Since BC has almost entirely carbon-free electrical generation, there was no room for improvement there — a segment some say is the lowest hanging fruit (I can’t verify this claim). Furthermore the BC carbon tax plan rebates not only to individuals but to business also because of competitive concerns. The national plan proposed by CCL/Hansen/Council of Economic Advisers doesn’t dilute the effect by rebating to businesses, instead maintaining competitiveness as much as possible by using border tarrifs on carbon content. You are not going to completely eliminate disadvantages to companies. Some will have to downsize or go out of business. That’s part of the price for keeping a livable planet.
Plus, the BC tax maxed out at $22/ton, which is barely scratching the surface compared to the ultimate goal of $115 (Hansen/CCL) or compared to the much higher rates used in Sweden, for example. Really, there is no limit to what you could charge — you just have to be careful about doing it too quickly so as not to be unnecessarily disruptive to individuals and companies. Rebating to companies destroys the whole purpose, telling them, yes, go ahead, make carbon-intensive products and services — exactly what you’re trying to eliminate.
Wrong link, above. Should be:
https://www.carbontax.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Figure-1-_-extracted-from-CTC-report-on-BC-_-5-Feb-2016.png
Not sure if the .png extension is going to work. Click the link if the image does not show in the reply.