4 ms·

Oil just dropped in price by more than $70 a barrel, a $10 tax isn't going to cause economic trouble. It's the perfect time to enact a carbon tax, even if it i

Oil just dropped in price by more than $70 a barrel, a $10 tax isn't going to cause economic trouble. It's the perfect time to enact a carbon tax, even if it is limited to oil. This will boost the ROI of new energy technology and open up more private investment dollars. One way to get bipartisan support may be to put the tax on imported (not domestic) oil.

danieltillett 11y ago
Isn't the USA basically an net exporter these days? If congress can't increase the gas tax to support the highways how are they ever going to support something like a tax on oil to support clean transport?
- paulsutter 11y ago
  New energy technology will benefit from an increased price of oil. Freeing up private investment dollars is the key. As for the government, considering the deficits I don't imagine such a tax would really free up much budget. Whether such a law can be passed is an entirely separate question from whether it's a good idea. And it is a good idea.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Yes it is a good idea - a better one would be to stop subsiding fossil fuels. Neither have much chance of getting through congress.
- greeneggs 11y ago
  In 2014, the US imported 9 million barrels of petroleum per day, and exported 4 million barrels per day. Net imports accounted for 27% of US petroleum consumption. [1] While that is from 2014, this table suggests that imports didn't change significantly, up or down, in 2015 through November [2]. [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrimus2&f=m https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
- jessriedel 11y ago
  Probably a net exporter of hydrocarbons only when you include natural gas rather than just petroleum. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20692 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20692
nostromo 11y ago
Here's what we need to do to get support for a carbon tax: don't make it a tax. Add $x to each unit of carbon and put it in a fund that the federal government has no access to. Then, at the end of each year, empty the fund completely by sending checks to each citizen.
- gohrt 11y ago
  That incentivizes making babies for profit. Also, that is a tax, as much as Social Security is a tax+redistribution program. It is sort of a reverse paygo, though, committing a spending program for all new tax dollars.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Only if you set it up to do so. Other alternatives are easily conceived.
- jsankey 11y ago
  The previous federal government in Australia introduced something along these lines: a carbon tax designed to be revenue-neutral. Compensation for lower income earners was worked into the income tax system (some also went directly to certain highly-exposed export industries). Unfortunately thanks to incompetence in how this plan was sold by the previous government and an aggressive campaign against it by the opposition, that government lost the following election and now we have the worst of all worlds: carbon tax repealed (the only country going backwards in this regard AFAIK), compensation retained (the incoming government being too spineless to scrap it, despite themselves declaring a budget emergency) and a new braindead "direct action" policy where we now give tax dollars to polluters to encourage them to tone it down (stupidly inefficient and another hit to the budget).
- computator 11y ago
  How much to each citizen? (1) According to income or need? Then it's just wealth redistribution. (2) Exactly the same amount for each citizen? The farmer who needs his truck pays a lot, and gets back $x. Stock broker who lives and works in Manhattan and doesn't own a car pays little, but also gets back $x. (3) Exactly in proportion to how much carbon each person used? This accomplishes nothing except adding a layer of bureaucracy (you pay $n in carbon tax and get back $n-20% after government processing).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

danieltillett 11y ago

Isn't the USA basically an net exporter these days? If congress can't increase the gas tax to support the highways how are they ever going to support something like a tax on oil to support clean transport?

paulsutter 11y ago
New energy technology will benefit from an increased price of oil. Freeing up private investment dollars is the key. As for the government, considering the deficits I don't imagine such a tax would really free up much budget. Whether such a law can be passed is an entirely separate question from whether it's a good idea. And it is a good idea.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Yes it is a good idea - a better one would be to stop subsiding fossil fuels. Neither have much chance of getting through congress.
greeneggs 11y ago
In 2014, the US imported 9 million barrels of petroleum per day, and exported 4 million barrels per day. Net imports accounted for 27% of US petroleum consumption. [1] While that is from 2014, this table suggests that imports didn't change significantly, up or down, in 2015 through November [2]. [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrimus2&f=m https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
jessriedel 11y ago
Probably a net exporter of hydrocarbons only when you include natural gas rather than just petroleum. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20692 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20692

nostromo 11y ago

Here's what we need to do to get support for a carbon tax: don't make it a tax. Add $x to each unit of carbon and put it in a fund that the federal government has no access to. Then, at the end of each year, empty the fund completely by sending checks to each citizen.

gohrt 11y ago
That incentivizes making babies for profit. Also, that is a tax, as much as Social Security is a tax+redistribution program. It is sort of a reverse paygo, though, committing a spending program for all new tax dollars.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Only if you set it up to do so. Other alternatives are easily conceived.
jsankey 11y ago
The previous federal government in Australia introduced something along these lines: a carbon tax designed to be revenue-neutral. Compensation for lower income earners was worked into the income tax system (some also went directly to certain highly-exposed export industries). Unfortunately thanks to incompetence in how this plan was sold by the previous government and an aggressive campaign against it by the opposition, that government lost the following election and now we have the worst of all worlds: carbon tax repealed (the only country going backwards in this regard AFAIK), compensation retained (the incoming government being too spineless to scrap it, despite themselves declaring a budget emergency) and a new braindead "direct action" policy where we now give tax dollars to polluters to encourage them to tone it down (stupidly inefficient and another hit to the budget).
computator 11y ago
How much to each citizen? (1) According to income or need? Then it's just wealth redistribution. (2) Exactly the same amount for each citizen? The farmer who needs his truck pays a lot, and gets back $x. Stock broker who lives and works in Manhattan and doesn't own a car pays little, but also gets back $x. (3) Exactly in proportion to how much carbon each person used? This accomplishes nothing except adding a layer of bureaucracy (you pay $n in carbon tax and get back $n-20% after government processing).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]