|
|
Debate: Carbon tax
From Debatepedia
(Redirected from Debate:Carbon tax)
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Should a carbon tax be part of plans to combat global warming? Pros and cons?
|
Background and context
A carbon tax is an environmental tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The primary purpose of a carbon tax is to discourage the inefficient use of fossil fuels, which when burnt release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. In addition to discouraging the use of fuels that contribute to global warming, the intention of a carbon tax is to, by extension, encourage the use of non-combustion energy sources, such as wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear, which do not directly emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
The main question confronting governments is: should governments adopt a carbon tax system as part of their comprehensive plans to combat global warming?  While the European Union considered a carbon tax covering its member states, it ultimately initiated an emissions trading scheme in 2005. The United Kingdom, however, unilaterally introduced a range of carbon taxes and levies to accompany the EU ETS trading regime. For the rest of the world, the question of whether to adopt any of these approaches, and which one, remains an open question.
|
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Emissions: Is a carbon tax effective at lowering emissions and combating global warming?
|
[  ] Yes
- A carbon tax adds a clear cost to pollution that incentivizes reductions Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Member Steve Chapman, "Saving the Earth Sensibly". Chicago Tribune. 12 Apr. 2007: "The free market is the best system ever created for providing what we want at the lowest possible cost. The way to get affordable amelioration of climate change is to put the market to work finding solutions. To achieve that, we merely need to make energy prices reflect the potential harm done by greenhouse gases. How? With a carbon tax that assesses fuels according to how much they pollute. Coal, having the highest carbon content, would be taxed the most, followed by oil and natural gas. The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use them less and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels. This approach also would affect all sources — not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions."
|
[ ] No
- Emissions trading incentivizes finding the best ways to cut emissions. Bill Chameides, Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense. "Cap-and-trade: more effective than a carbon tax". Grist.org. 12 Feb. 2007 - "A carbon tax is a bad idea. First, most pundits see the chances of Congress passing a new tax as somewhere between zero and nil. But let's say it did. Then Congress would have a whole new pot of subsidy money to pass out to industry. Would you trust them to give it the right companies?...Subsidizing one or two targeted technologies with a carbon tax would discourage investment in others that may turn out to be more effective. Which technologies should receive these tax dollars? No one has a crystal ball that can determine for sure which will turn out to be most useful. History has shown that the marketplace does a better job of developing new technologies, and a tax takes money out of the marketplace. The solution is cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade strategy provides the incentive for all segments of the economy to compete to discover the best ways to cut emissions."
- Cap-and-trade can respond more flexibly to global warming. Felix Salmon. "The Carbon Tax Debate: Why a Cap-and-Trade System is Better". Portfolio. 13 Nov. 2007 - "the most compelling argument is the flexibility/optionality argument. Think of a cap-and-trade system, Pizer says, as a big machine with a whole bunch of dials. "You can dial certainty on the cap versus certainty on the cost, and you can dial free allocations versus auctioned allocations," he says. By fiddling with the controls, you can basically get anything you want – which is a crucial feature given that we really don't know exactly what problems the cap-and-trade system is going to be asked to solve in the future. If Congress is worried about the price uncertainty inherent in a cap-and-trade system, they should be much more worried about the cost-of-environmental-damage uncertainty inherent in global warming mechanisms – something which demands flexibility in terms of our response."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Fairness: Is a carbon tax fair?
|
[ ] Yes
- A carbon tax fairly treats all carbon emissions as "bad": A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis.
|
[ ] No
- It is wrong to tax all carbon emissions, and call them all "bad": Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. Is is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "bad", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming.
- A carbon tax will cost all taxpayers, not just polluters. "Carbon tax a bad idea". Vernon Morning Star. 8 Aug. 2008 - "we believe the polluters should pay, not the Canadian taxpayer. The proposed Liberal “Green Shift” plan does not put into place legislation that would set mandatory targets for industry and the plan has no incentive for industry to cut emissions. It sounds just great: if we all pay just a little more tax the government can address the environmental issues facing the country."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Economics: Is a carbon tax economical?
|
[ ] Yes
- A carbon tax is less volatile than a cap-and-trade system A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Additionally, predictability is a trait desired by corporations.
- A carbon tax would not damage an economy Paul Volcker, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Egypt: "[The argument that taxes on oil or carbon emissions would ruin an economy is] fundamentally false. First of all, I don’t think [such a step] is going to have that much of an impact on the economy overall. Second of all, if you don’t do it, you can be sure that the economy will go down the drain in the next 30 years. What may happen to the dollar, and what may happen to growth in China or whatever pale into insignificance compared with the question of what happens to this planet over the next 30 or 40 years if no action is taken."[1][2]
- A carbon tax would be more efficient "Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?". Wall Street Journal. 8 Feb, 2007 - "David Wyss at Standard & Poor’s Corp. 'We’re already in the danger zone' because of the outlook for oil supplies and concerns about climate change, he said. A majority of the economists said [in a Wall Street Journal Survey] a tax on fossil fuels would be the most economically sound way to encourage alternatives. A tax would raise the price of fossil fuels and make alternatives, which today often are more costly to produce, more competitive in the consumer market. 'A tax puts pressure on the market, rather than forcing an artificial solution on it,' said Mr. Wyss."
- Carbon taxes are simple and easy to understand Like most taxes, a carbon tax is very straight forward, assigning a specific cost to the emission of greenhouse gases. Companies will have no difficulty adjusting and governments will not have to spend as much time managing the system. This compares favorably to more complicated emissions trading schemes.
|
[ ] No
- A carbon tax is "regressive". A "regressive" tax is one that disproportionately burdens poorer groups. Energy consumption generally makes up a larger portion of the personal budgets of poorer groups. Because energy consumption would be taxed equally across social groups with a carbon tax (it's a "flat tax"), the costs of the tax would disproportionately affect poor groups.
- A carbon tax passes costs on to consumers A carbon tax makes it more expensive for companies to do business. To compensate, businesses will raise the price of the products they are selling, which diminishes the pockets of the consumer. The consumer, therefore, pays a significant portion of a carbon tax. In this way, a carbon tax does not merely punish polluting businesses, but ordinary citizens as well.
- A carbon tax requires substantial government monitoring In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every ton of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative burden. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Feasibility: Is a carbon tax feasible?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- A carbon tax is a tax, so is more difficult politically: The basic problem is that a carbon tax would be a new tax on the public. New taxes are typically unpopular. This makes it hard for politicians to support a carbon tax, as they are beholden to their constituents, and their likely desires to avoid such a tax.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con sources:
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
See also
External links
|
|
