Comments on: My Climate Plan http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Frank http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5887 Frank Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:55:54 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5887 I also favor a carbon tax that is returned to all citizens rather than used to grow the government. Rather than cutting payroll taxes, however, I would return the money directly to citizens. Since everyone uses energy, equal rebates should be made to every citizen; either by direct deposit (for those who sign up) or annually or quarterly through tax filings. Investments in the energy sector are made based on prices expected over decades. To influence investment in low-carbon energy sources, businesses need to be sure that a carbon-tax will last for much longer than 4 years. I suggest a carbon tax that gradually rises over the next 10 years and is guaranteed to remain stable over the following 10 years. To protect American jobs, all energy taxes used to make manufactured goods will be rebated to companies who ship their products overseas. Furthermore, all imports will be subject to an carbon tax when they enter the US. The size of the tax should depend on how much the originating country spends on carbon abatement as a fraction of their GDP. Every country could be responsible for their own plan for reducing CO2 emissions, but we should provide a level playing field so that foreign workers don't gain an economic advantage over American workers from our carbon tax. How large should a carbon tax be? Several lines of thinking suggest that a tax that gradually doubles the cost of carbon fuels would be in the right ballpark: a) If the price of gasoline doubled due to an energy tax (estimate $5/gallon fuel cost and $5/gallon carbon tax in 2020), would that be enough to change your habits buying cars? If your monthly energy bill doubled, would you spend money to upgrade insulation, install CFL's, and buy energy-efficient appliances? How much less than doubling would be enough to make you change? b) California is successfully offering 50% tax rebates on installing solar power making this energy source a financially sound investment for many. c) Any form of low-carbon energy that isn't economically viable with a doubling of carbon cost certainly isn't worth pursuing. d) Estimates for reducing carbon emission inside the US (rather than buying dubious "offsets" from other countries) run on the order of $50-100 per ton of carbon which is about $1.50-$3.00 per gallon of gasoline. If US citizens are going to be willing to pay such high carbon taxes, they will want to see the cost rebated directly to them (not returned in the form of reduced employment taxes). Stan's comment: "The wealthy get screwed" with higher taxes could be answered with "the wealthy also create more of a CO2 problem (and a dependency of foreign oil) and they have the resources to invest in increasing their personal energy efficiency". If the rich spend a little money, their carbon footprint could be no greater than average. What is the true cost? Overall, American citizens as a whole theoretically lose nothing when they pay double for energy and then have the whole carbon tax rebated to them. They actually only "lose" money when they buy a more expensive form of energy (say solar) to avoid a high carbon tax. This reduces the total funds available for rebate. I also favor a carbon tax that is returned to all citizens rather than used to grow the government. Rather than cutting payroll taxes, however, I would return the money directly to citizens. Since everyone uses energy, equal rebates should be made to every citizen; either by direct deposit (for those who sign up) or annually or quarterly through tax filings.

Investments in the energy sector are made based on prices expected over decades. To influence investment in low-carbon energy sources, businesses need to be sure that a carbon-tax will last for much longer than 4 years. I suggest a carbon tax that gradually rises over the next 10 years and is guaranteed to remain stable over the following 10 years.

To protect American jobs, all energy taxes used to make manufactured goods will be rebated to companies who ship their products overseas. Furthermore, all imports will be subject to an carbon tax when they enter the US. The size of the tax should depend on how much the originating country spends on carbon abatement as a fraction of their GDP. Every country could be responsible for their own plan for reducing CO2 emissions, but we should provide a level playing field so that foreign workers don’t gain an economic advantage over American workers from our carbon tax.

How large should a carbon tax be? Several lines of thinking suggest that a tax that gradually doubles the cost of carbon fuels would be in the right ballpark: a) If the price of gasoline doubled due to an energy tax (estimate $5/gallon fuel cost and $5/gallon carbon tax in 2020), would that be enough to change your habits buying cars? If your monthly energy bill doubled, would you spend money to upgrade insulation, install CFL’s, and buy energy-efficient appliances? How much less than doubling would be enough to make you change? b) California is successfully offering 50% tax rebates on installing solar power making this energy source a financially sound investment for many. c) Any form of low-carbon energy that isn’t economically viable with a doubling of carbon cost certainly isn’t worth pursuing. d) Estimates for reducing carbon emission inside the US (rather than buying dubious “offsets” from other countries) run on the order of $50-100 per ton of carbon which is about $1.50-$3.00 per gallon of gasoline. If US citizens are going to be willing to pay such high carbon taxes, they will want to see the cost rebated directly to them (not returned in the form of reduced employment taxes).

Stan’s comment: “The wealthy get screwed” with higher taxes could be answered with “the wealthy also create more of a CO2 problem (and a dependency of foreign oil) and they have the resources to invest in increasing their personal energy efficiency”. If the rich spend a little money, their carbon footprint could be no greater than average.

What is the true cost? Overall, American citizens as a whole theoretically lose nothing when they pay double for energy and then have the whole carbon tax rebated to them. They actually only “lose” money when they buy a more expensive form of energy (say solar) to avoid a high carbon tax. This reduces the total funds available for rebate.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5855 Jay Alt Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:22:42 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5855 The plan can't make an agreement that binds targets globally, it is far too vague. Without the prospect of a global agreement, no US legislation will be forthcoming. Such a tax could have been tried back in the 1990s to send a price signal to investors. But Congress could not tolerate the idea of even the teeny little BTU tax that Clinton proposed. No economist can tell us the necessary level of tax to achieve cutbacks, the task is beyond them. All our tax codes are riddled with exceptions and loopholes and are subject to political adjustments almost annually. Such a plan once had a chance but it was deliberately scorned and orphaned; the time for it is long since gone. The plan can’t make an agreement that binds targets globally, it is far too vague. Without the prospect of a global agreement, no US legislation will be forthcoming. Such a tax could have been tried back in the 1990s to send a price signal to investors. But Congress could not tolerate the idea of even the teeny little BTU tax that Clinton proposed. No economist can tell us the necessary level of tax to achieve cutbacks, the task is beyond them. All our tax codes are riddled with exceptions and loopholes and are subject to political adjustments almost annually. Such a plan once had a chance but it was deliberately scorned and orphaned; the time for it is long since gone.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5806 hunter Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:58:05 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5806 An Inquirer, You have outlined the reasons why our leaders are in such a hurry to impose cap-n-trade in the first place: Huge sources of revenue by imposing taxes on the air we breathe and the very act of creating wealth. It is precisely because cap-n-trade is so corrupt, ineffectual and amenable to graft and favoritism that our leaders want it now. An Inquirer,
You have outlined the reasons why our leaders are in such a hurry to impose cap-n-trade in the first place:
Huge sources of revenue by imposing taxes on the air we breathe and the very act of creating wealth.
It is precisely because cap-n-trade is so corrupt, ineffectual and amenable to graft and favoritism that our leaders want it now.

]]> By: An Inquirer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5804 An Inquirer Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:24:51 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5804 Yes, Warren, I like the idea and have been suggesting similar moves for more than a couple of years. One key tweak that I would add: replace the corporate income tax with CO2 tax. And I would add a few more advantages. 1. Cap-and-trade favor past emitters, penalizes those who undertook efficiency improvements on their own, and creates hurdles for new entrants. 2. Cap-and-trade creates an inviting playground for graft and political favors. We see this in Europe where the political-connected gets discounted or free emission rights, and the current proposed U.S. legislation is full of political buy-offs and paybacks. 3. A consumption tax discourages consumption and promotes growth whereas an income tax discourages savings. 4. Our tax system has become dysfunctional because over half of households pay no income tax or pay an inconsequential amount. The majority sees no immediate effect of tax increases. 5. We should eliminate the corporate income tax because it is double taxation, distorts investment decisions, puts our corporations at a disadvantage in world trade, and is ultimately paid by consumers anyway. (Political note: if a CO2 tax is construed as a tax on business, then using a CO2 tax to replace the corporate income tax may be more accepted to shallow-minded MSM types. If the CO2 tax raises more funds than the corporate income tax, then reduce the payroll tax. The payroll tax is technically an insurance premium for a government sponsored pay-as-you-go system -- for private businesses, that would be called a Ponzi scheme -- but most people view OASDI contribution as taxes.) Yes, Warren, I like the idea and have been suggesting similar moves for more than a couple of years. One key tweak that I would add: replace the corporate income tax with CO2 tax. And I would add a few more advantages.
1. Cap-and-trade favor past emitters, penalizes those who undertook efficiency improvements on their own, and creates hurdles for new entrants.
2. Cap-and-trade creates an inviting playground for graft and political favors. We see this in Europe where the political-connected gets discounted or free emission rights, and the current proposed U.S. legislation is full of political buy-offs and paybacks.
3. A consumption tax discourages consumption and promotes growth whereas an income tax discourages savings.
4. Our tax system has become dysfunctional because over half of households pay no income tax or pay an inconsequential amount. The majority sees no immediate effect of tax increases.
5. We should eliminate the corporate income tax because it is double taxation, distorts investment decisions, puts our corporations at a disadvantage in world trade, and is ultimately paid by consumers anyway. (Political note: if a CO2 tax is construed as a tax on business, then using a CO2 tax to replace the corporate income tax may be more accepted to shallow-minded MSM types. If the CO2 tax raises more funds than the corporate income tax, then reduce the payroll tax. The payroll tax is technically an insurance premium for a government sponsored pay-as-you-go system — for private businesses, that would be called a Ponzi scheme — but most people view OASDI contribution as taxes.)

]]> By: Pedro X http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5795 Pedro X Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:05:21 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5795 Good idea. It will be interesting to see when the emissions trading bills probably fail by say 2015 if tax ideas like this are not adopted. Emissions trading was probably effective for S02 and acid rain ( although some argue against this ) but that is because there were easy ways and substitutes around. C02 is harder. A tax would be better. It is interesting to see the number of skeptics who advocate a similar position. OH! You're my new favorite blogger fyi Good idea.

It will be interesting to see when the emissions trading bills probably fail by say 2015 if tax ideas like this are not adopted.

Emissions trading was probably effective for S02 and acid rain ( although some argue against this ) but that is because there were easy ways and substitutes around. C02 is harder.

A tax would be better. It is interesting to see the number of skeptics who advocate a similar position.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

]]> By: Pedro X http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5793 Pedro X Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:11:42 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5793 Good idea. It will be interesting to see when the emissions trading bills probably fail by say 2015 if tax ideas like this are not adopted. Emissions trading was probably effective for S02 and acid rain ( although some argue against this ) but that is because there were easy ways and substitutes around. C02 is harder. A tax would be better. It is interesting to see the number of skeptics who advocate a similar position. Good idea.

It will be interesting to see when the emissions trading bills probably fail by say 2015 if tax ideas like this are not adopted.

Emissions trading was probably effective for S02 and acid rain ( although some argue against this ) but that is because there were easy ways and substitutes around. C02 is harder.

A tax would be better. It is interesting to see the number of skeptics who advocate a similar position.

]]> By: ADiff http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5788 ADiff Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:30:47 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5788 Actually this is one of the most intelligent approaches I've encountered. It uses the rationing power of the market to capture estimated externalities (however realistic and accurate they may be...or not!). The problem is it creates very little opportunity to use political influence to achieve ulterior ends, and hence would probably be unattractive to politicians dependent on favors to yield revenues (and other inputs) toward maintaining their own positions and power. Between the members of Congress, the various sponging NGO technocrats and the lobbying apparatchiks surrounding both, it's probably just a non-starter. It does however possess the great virtue of being a useful foil to rather dramatically point out the depths of hypocrisy, band-standing and jobbery of most of the AGW advocacy community, both in and outside of government. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that even optimally efficient interference in the market in pursuit of any social agenda can be done without absolute costs in economic efficiency and equity. But at least this proposal does keep those to a minimum, and has a realistic chance of actually achieving its purported social goals; unlike 'Cap and Trade', which amounts to nothing more or less than a government sponsored raid on the commonwealth imposing huge material costs across huge swaths of the population both here and abroad. Actually this is one of the most intelligent approaches I’ve encountered. It uses the rationing power of the market to capture estimated externalities (however realistic and accurate they may be…or not!). The problem is it creates very little opportunity to use political influence to achieve ulterior ends, and hence would probably be unattractive to politicians dependent on favors to yield revenues (and other inputs) toward maintaining their own positions and power. Between the members of Congress, the various sponging NGO technocrats and the lobbying apparatchiks surrounding both, it’s probably just a non-starter. It does however possess the great virtue of being a useful foil to rather dramatically point out the depths of hypocrisy, band-standing and jobbery of most of the AGW advocacy community, both in and outside of government.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that even optimally efficient interference in the market in pursuit of any social agenda can be done without absolute costs in economic efficiency and equity. But at least this proposal does keep those to a minimum, and has a realistic chance of actually achieving its purported social goals; unlike ‘Cap and Trade’, which amounts to nothing more or less than a government sponsored raid on the commonwealth imposing huge material costs across huge swaths of the population both here and abroad.

]]> By: Gad Levin http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5786 Gad Levin Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:05:20 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5786 There is no global waring, just global stupidity! Therefore there is no need to cut CO2 emissions - no new taxes. Even if somebody is so blind to think that there is, it is definitely not caused by men, so again there is no need to cut Co2 emissions - no new taxes! There is no global waring, just global stupidity!
Therefore there is no need to cut CO2 emissions – no new taxes.

Even if somebody is so blind to think that there is, it is definitely not caused by men, so again there is no need to cut Co2 emissions – no new taxes!

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5784 hunter Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:51:49 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5784 The Cap-n-Trade bill will be an economic Katrina to the energy producing sectors of the economy. The Cap-n-Trade bill will be an economic Katrina to the energy producing sectors of the economy.

]]> By: stan http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/my-climate-plan.html/comment-page-1#comment-5782 stan Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:03:55 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1336#comment-5782 While revenue neutral, it would cause wealth to shift. People who use a lot of gas get screwed, those who don't get a big windfall. City folks get richer. Rural folks get the shaft. While revenue neutral, it would cause wealth to shift. People who use a lot of gas get screwed, those who don’t get a big windfall. City folks get richer. Rural folks get the shaft.

]]>