Transcript PowerPoint Presentation - Why Carbon Taxes? Charles

Carbon
Taxes First
Charles Komanoff
& Dan Rosenblum
Carbon Tax Center
www.carbontax.org
April 24, 2007
Global Warming Is …

Triggering a climate crisis that threatens
massive and irreversible damage to our
global environment, public health, world
peace, national security and economic wellbeing.

No longer seriously contested by anybody
other than vested interests, their hired
“experts” and indebted politicians.

See An Inconvenient Truth and IPCC Fourth
Assessment.
Warmer Winters: 4.3ºF, 1971-2002
Boston is the new
Philly; NYC is the
new D.C. (winter
temps.)
43
Boston
o
Latitude ( N)
42
New York
41
Philadelphia
40
Washington, DC
39
38
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
o
Winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) Mean Temp (ºF)
36
37
Cameron
More Extreme Weather
Extreme Precipitation Events,
% Increase 1949-2002
Cameron Wake, UNH
The Problem:
Unsustainable CO2
Emissions Worldwide



World must reduce emissions ~80% by
2050, with big cuts starting now.
Americans are emitting many times our
share of CO2 (next slide).
Americans must reduce by >80%.
Americans Emit in a Day
What Others Emit in a Workweek
20
16
12
USA
non-USA
8
4
0
CO2 metric tons per capita (2002)
What about China?
“In an alliance of
denial, China and
the United States
are using each
other’s inaction as
an excuse to do
nothing.” – New
York Times
editorial, 4-20-07
China
X
U.S.
Chemistry → Responsibility
Because CO2 stays
“resident” in the
atmosphere for at
least a century, one
hundred years of
fossil-fuel use drive
climate responsibility. U.S. still has
a 40-50-year lead.
X
U.S.
China
No More Free Dumping
“Since the dawn of the industrial revolution,
the atmosphere has served as a free dumping
ground for carbon gases. If people and
industries are made to pay heavily for the
privilege, they will inevitably be driven to
develop cleaner fuels, cars and factories.”
— Avoiding Calamity on the Cheap, Nov. 3, 2006
New York Times editorial
Putting a Price on CO2 Emissions
High taxes on carbon emissions from
coal, oil and natural gas will:


Reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions

Substitution of clean fuels and technology

More efficient use of energy
Provide a revenue stream to enable

Progressive tax-shifting, or

Rebate to all U.S. residents
Additional Benefits
of a Carbon Tax

Carbon tax receipts may also be used to finance

Energy efficiency, further reducing use of fossil
fuels and related emissions.

Energy R&D.

Will also reduce dependence on foreign oil,
with major national security benefits.

Economically, will keep dollars in USA instead
of flowing overseas.
Rely on “Market Forces”?
Here Come Synfuels
Only a carbon
tax can subject
CO2-intensive
oil sands,
oil shale,
coal-into-oil, etc.
to a climateappropriate
market test.
Clean-Energy Subsidies:
A Limited Answer

Selecting the next best energy technology by
fiat has largely benefited lobbyists + special
interests



Oil shale, nuclear power, synfuels, ethanol, etc.
Many new sources also emit CO2
Renewable Portfolio Standards: helpful – but
not enough
Efficiency Standards:
Vital, but Not Enough

Too slow



Corporate gaming



Corporate resistance
Inherently reactive
(e.g., “CAFE” loophole that enabled SUV’s)
Scattershot – impossible to regulate the
hundreds of important energy-usage sectors
1-dimensional

(e.g., CAFE doesn’t affect miles driven)
More than Half of U.S. Oil Use
Is Not Gasoline for Cars
Freight
Heat, Power
Other
Cars
Air
RV’s Paving
Example - Gas Use Decisions
CAFE impacts:
 Mfg’er mpg decisions

What car to buy
Gas Tax-Shift impacts:
 How high CAFE is set

Mfg’er mpg decisions

What car to buy

Which car to drive

How to drive

VMT (miles traveled)





Share (carpool)
Chain trips
Transit
Walk/Bike
Proximity
Dynamic Capitalism & CO2: I
“ … specially equipped,
privately owned jumbo
jets – the kind that
normally carry 300-400
passengers … reconfigured … for the
enjoyment of, at most,
a couple of dozen.”
New York Times, 17-Oct-2006: For the SuperRich, It’s Time to Upgrade the Old Jumbo Jet
Dynamic Capitalism & CO2: II
Backyard Blizzards:
“Snowmaking, since the
mid-1960s the provenance
of ski resorts and, more
recently, some party
planners, has gone
domestic,” with 2-kW
plug-in snowmakers that
run ’round-the-clock.
New York Times (Home Section) 15-Feb-2007:
Not Enough Snow For You? Talk to Your Father
Example - Electricity

Utilities and other generators will

Respond to price signal by substituting
lower-carbon fuels
Renewables
 Natural Gas



Invest in efficiency on demand- and
supply-side
Consumers will


Respond by using less
Substituting low- or non-carbon energy
Carbon Tax Proportions
2
1
Gas
Oil
Coal
0
Relative tax
rate per btu
Fuels are
taxed by
their
carbon
content
per btu
A “Starter” Carbon Tax-Shift

$37 / ton of carbon =

10¢ / gallon of gasoline, jet fuel, etc. =

0.72 ¢ / kWh (U.S. retail average)

Reduces U.S. CO2 emissions ~ 4%

Repeat 10 X (while standards and incentives
also cut emissions)
Energy Use: Not Inelastic

Gasoline usage grew only 3.5% from 2003 to
2006, while the economy grew 11%.

Pump prices have risen < 50% since 2003
(adjusted for inflation) – not the doubling
commonly believed.


The modest growth in demand points to a “shortterm price elasticity” of around 0.1, and 0.4 in the
long term.
Finding: Demand for gasoline (and other fuels) is
at least somewhat price-sensitive.
Elasticity (long-run) Assumptions


Gasoline: 0.4
Electricity




Residential (37%) - 0.5
Commercial / Industrial
(63%) - 1.0
Fuel-switching
Leverage: 1.2 x
“Other” – midway
bet. Gasoline/Elect.
U.S. CO2
Electricity
Gasoline
Other
Reductions
Electricity
Gasoline
Other
Starter Tax – Why Ramp Up?

Win broad consensus

Implement ASAP

Help people and businesses adapt

Empirical validation of efficacy

Mid-course corrections

Establish long-term price trajectory

Complement w/ investment in EE and renewables
USA After “Starter Tax x 10”




CO2 emissions down by a third
Oil use down by ~5 million barrels/day
Energy
 Coal-fired generation reduced
 Wind and other renewable generation increased
 Incandescents / halogens out, CFL’s + LED’s in
Transportation and Land-Use
 SUVs out, sedans in
 Costlier air and highway travel creates market
pull for 300-mph intercity rail
 Urban trips by bicycle up 10x, to 10%
 Urban revitalization
The Wealthy Will Pay More
“Progressive” Use of
Carbon Tax Revenues
EITHER
 Distribute pro rata to 320
million Americans
(~ $1,500 each, per year)
500
400
Sales
taxes
Soc Sec
(workers)
Carbon
(10 yrs)
300
OR

Tax Shift out of regressive
taxes (green bar at right
assumes 2.5%/yr drops in
emissions (net of +1.5%/y
income, - 4%/y price)
200
100
0
Tax Revenues
$Billions (2004)
Two Fossil Fuel Subsidies
By Taxpayers: Relatively Small
By Climate: Enormous
600
FF Industry Tax
Breaks (tax
preferences,
agency support,
lease discounts)
500
400
300
CO2 Damages to
Climate, est'd @
$1/gallon of gas
($370 per ton of
carbon)
200
100
0
Annual U.S. Subsidies, $ billions
Existing Carbon Taxes
(1st-year Starter Tax shown for comparison)
$50
$40
Per
ton
of
carbon
$30
$20
$10
$0
Sweden
EU #1
EU #2
Boulder "Starter"
Politics?

Concerns about carbon tax-shifting
Contrary to Americans’ sense of
entitlement to “cheap energy”
 Anti-tax ideology of past 25 years
 Elected officials wary of another
defeat

Clinton’s 1993 Btu tax
 Rep. John Anderson’s “50-50”
program (1980 presidential campaign)

But: Growing Support for
Taxing Carbon Emissions

Opinion leaders





Al Gore
Scientists such as James Hansen (NASA)
NY Times op-ed columnists Brooks,
Friedman, Kristof, Krugman & Tierney
Conservatives including Gregory Mankiw,
Bush chief Economic Advisor, 2003-2005
CEO’s of Dynegy & FPL Group
Some Support in Opinion Polls

Feb. 2006 New York Times poll
55% would support increased tax on gasoline if
it reduced dependence on foreign oil.
 59% would support if the increased tax would
curb energy consumption and global warming.


Oct. 2006 M.I.T. survey

Over three years, 50% increase in respondents’
willingness to pay more for electricity to reduce
global warming.
Carbon Tax v. Cap-and-Trade


Cap-and-trade is alternative vehicle for “putting a
price” on carbon
Proposed by US CAP – coalition of large
environmental groups and large corporations

Emissions are capped at a level determined through
the political process

Allowances/permits to emit CO2 up to the cap are
distributed or auctioned

Market participants can buy or sell as necessary
Cap v. Tax: Predictable Prices


Carbon taxes provide predictable prices
necessary to encourage investment in

less carbon-intensive technology

carbon-reducing energy efficiency

carbon-replacing renewable energy
Cap-and-trade aggravates price volatility
that discourages beneficial investments
Are We Over-Valuing Cap-andTrade’s “Emissions Certainty”?

“Safety-valve” would authorize auctioning
additional allowances if allowance prices
exceed predetermined level

Emissions cap could be politically fragile
without public support

No magic emissions level (except as low as
possible)
Tax v. Cap: Timing

C&T design and implementation: complicated,
contentious, prolonged
Level of cap
 Timing
 Allowance allocations
 Certification procedures
 Offsets
 Penalties
 Permit banking
 Inevitable requests for exemptions


Tax can be in place promptly with quick results
Tax v. Cap: Equity

Cap-and-trade

Practice has been to allocate based on past use



Allowances can be auctioned off to highest
bidders




Rewards polluters with windfall
Perverse incentive to pollute more now to increase
base for allocations
Proposed in RGGI program
Proceeds used to provide public benefits
Lawyers and consultants are other big winners
Carbon tax would be revenue-neutral
Tax v. Cap: Understandability

Carbon taxes provide direct, transparent and
understandable price signals to consumers


Perceived political liability, but essential to
transform societal climate-awareness
Cap-and-trade is complicated and opaque

Perceived political asset, but limits public
participation and could backfire
Tax v. Cap: Comprehensiveness

Carbon taxes address emissions from every
sector


All users must respond to price of carbon
Most current cap-and-trade programs, as
proposed, only target the electricity industry


Only 40% of emissions
If allowances are allocated, polluters with
sufficient allowances have less incentive to
reduce emissions
Keys to Political Success

Progressive Tax-Shifting



Provisions to Protect Low-Income Families



Not a tax increase
Carbon tax revenues used to reduce regressive
payroll and sales taxes
Reductions in payroll/sales taxes will offset all
or a portion of the carbon tax
Other measures to reduce low-income energy
use
Message: Taxing pollution instead of
productive work
Summary


Principles
 Tax-shifting – not a tax
increase
 Full-cost pricing
 Polluter pays
Responds to concerns about
 Climate crisis
 Inequitable taxes
 Security / Oil dependence
 Basing economy on
vulnerable energy
www.carbontax.org