The Case for a Global Carbon Tax

[jpak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17996839/site/newsweek/

April 16, 2007 issue - The Bush administration made two notable statements on energy policy early in its tenure. They were both highly controversial. The first was that the Kyoto accords, as negotiated, were "dead." The second was Dick Cheney's declaration in a 2001 speech that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." As it happens, both are accurate and should be at the heart of any new, ambitious policy to tackle global warming and energy use. If you haven't fainted yet, let me explain what I mean.

The administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO2 mandated by the accords.

Here's the math. These 800 new plants will burn about 900 million extra tons of coal every year. By 2012 they will have emitted about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. During that period, if the countries that have signed the Kyoto accords implement them fully—a big "if"—they will cut their CO2 emissions by 483 million tons.

Understanding the causes and cures of global warming is actually very simple. One word: coal. Coal is the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy around and is being used in the world's fastest-growing countries. If we cannot get a handle on the coal problem, nothing else matters.

<more>

[phantom power]

1. At least one major problem with a "global tax" is...

the question of who collects it, and who enforces it. Although it's a more or less moot question, since the most important CO2 polluters are never going to sign over their autonomy to make it work.

[jpak]

2. It could be assessed on imported goods upon landing

The importing country could collect the taxes based on an agreed international formula - and those costs would be passed on to the consumer.

High carbon products (from China for example) would cost more - low carbon products (produced in the US for example) less.

It would put an end to globalization as we know it...

[phantom power]

6. I see a political problem and an accounting problem

The political problem is asking Americans to voluntarily pay more for their cheap stuff from China. That and (for example) China's reaction to us adopting a massive import tarrif. The accounting problem is figuring out how much carbon is embodied in a particular product. Continuing with the China/US example, technically only China knows how much carbon goes into making any given product. I imagine that figuring such a thing out isn't easy even if your intentions are pure. They will be motivated to lie. In that arena, enforcement would be difficult, even if everybody knew they were fibbing.

[pscot]

3. The Europeans say that carbon taxes are a flop

The action is all on the surface. They don't actually reduce emissions. No link, and I can't recall where I read it.

[razzleberry]

4. of what tax, do you speak?

to my knowledge, the Europeans have
done next to nothing as far as taxes on carbon.

just my opinion, but,
the EU carbon trading scheme looks
like it was structured to be
exactly a 'non-tax'.

Of course, EU could try something like
a carbon 'VAT'. That would have the
problem of taxing exports, and if EU
rebated the tax, it would be a
public relations problem.

[ohio2007]

5. It's all carbon smoke and mirrors

loopholes favoring "developing nations" ( ie China ) are a farce to the whole plan to put in place what would be a consumption tax and and pool the funds into slush fund.