9 ms·

Yes, that's why most economists I've read seem to agree that carbon tax is better than co2 credit cap-and-trade systems - simpler and harder to game, flawed onl

by Pxtl 10y ago

Yes, that's why most economists I've read seem to agree that carbon tax is better than co2 credit cap-and-trade systems - simpler and harder to game, flawed only because it includes the word "tax" which is unpalatable to the public.

Alex3917 10y ago
A tax is actually vastly more complicated and easier to game. Remember, the goal is to cap emissions, not to raise money. When you start with a cap and work backwards towards the clearing price, you are guaranteed to be meet that cap. But when you start by setting a price, there is zero guarantee that you're going to meet your emissions target. Also, the point of cap and trade is that it lets societies meet their emissions target in the least expensive way possible. Whereas a tax imposes the same fees on everyone, regardless of how much it would cost them to lower their emissions. This makes zero sense.
- fsargent 10y ago
  Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax are equivalent in outcome. Cap and trade would impose fees on everyone regardless of how much it costs them to lower emissions also. The problem with Cap and Trade is that it targets the large scale emitters rather than the item desired to be limited. Imagine that you had five major producers putting out 30% of airborne carbon, and 50,000 minor producers putting out 70%. The cost of administering a cap and trade system to the minor producers would be incredibly expensive - the legislation would instead focus on gouging the five major producers. Also imagine that the 50,000 minor producers could very easily cut their production of carbon in half. The price should be set to the amount of damage the externality causes. Current estimates of the social cost of carbon is ~$220 per ton. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2481.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc... Cap and trade punishes large players - taxes are fair because they impose the same fees on everyone. Cap and Trade being the least expensive way possible is also a terrible loss for good tax reform. If we implement a responsible carbon tax, the offset income can be used to reduce associated corporation taxes, sales taxes, or even income taxes. An optimal tax system taxes things and behaviors we don't want, and subsidises things and behaviors we do want. Let's get rid of an income tax, and replace it with a environmental tax. More money in your pocket, and cleaner air.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    As California's attempts to tax mileage of hybrid and electric vehicles proves, if you create an additional source of revenue for the government, tax levels will bear no relation to the harm they're designed to compensate for. It becomes just another way for the government to raise taxes without admitting to doing so.
    - tamana 10y ago
      It's not a secret that people pay car fees.
    - wbl 10y ago
      The gas tax was set to charge for road wear, not carbon externialities
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        And VAT in Europe was only created to rebuild after the war. Tax repeals are very rare, once they're worked into the budget they are there to stay and usually will expand to pay for other things besides the reason they were originally created.
    - lmm 10y ago
      Hybrids aren't necessarily emitting substantially less.
      - ljf 10y ago
        I was always shocked by the 'good' mpg US hybrids get, compared to Uk/Euro diesels - (though some of the difference is down to different sizes in gallons between us, but still. My 12 year old volvo v70 (not a small car) got 53mpg easily
        AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
        We have stricter (non-CO2) emissions standards and differing safety standards which result in lower fuel efficiencies.
- RockyMcNuts 10y ago
  sorry, what? A tax is simple, like a sales tax or VAT, and there is a strong incentive to collect it at a centralized source that is pretty easy to monitor. How is that complex vs. creating a new commodity in the form of carbon credits, and checking that the emission is backed up by credits? At best, cap-and-trade is equivalent to a carbon tax plus some corporate welfare to return the tax to the polluters. In the most likely scenario, it's an opportunity for rent-seeking politicians to dole out the credits to those who either currently pollute most or just have their ear, for worst current polluters to cash in on opportunity to reduce pollution, for financiers to make big bucks trading credits. At worst, it's a fraud where people will buy credits from people who don't reduce pollution or would have done so anyway.
  - tomjen3 10y ago
    You still have to check if everybody has paid their emission tax. Also a tax has to be high enough to offset the average cost of lowering Co2 emissions (since you force everybody to lower their emissions), whereas in a cap-and-trade system the price will the the lowest cost to lower the emissions, since anybody who would pay a higher price will be better of buying the emission permissions and anybody who can save co2 cheaper will be better of selling them. Thus a cap-and-trade system is always going to be more efficient.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      > You still have to check if everybody has paid their emission tax Presumably the tax attaches to fossil fuel importers and vendors, rather than trying to tax each individual consumer.
    - tamana 10y ago
      And every time I go shopping at the department store, I get 30% off, so the more I buy, the more money I get.
    - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
      I think you're confused about the mathematics here - cap and trade for cap (C tons) is EXACTLY equivalent to some carbon tax (T dollars) in the behaviors it incentivizes.
- tamana 10y ago
  Cap and trade doesn't work the way you say. It isn't an auction. See the article.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    > Cap and trade doesn't work the way you say. It isn't an auction. See the article. The initial credits can be allocated either through an auction, by giving them away to existing polluters, or through some combination. But after the initial allocation, credits are traded on the market. That's the 'trade' part in cap and trade.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      And Coase theorem says it doesn't matter who gets the credits--they'll eventually find their way to the most efficient allocation.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        It doesn't matter who gets the credits as far as efficiency in reducing carbon emissions. It matters quite a lot financially however, because the credits are worth money, so anybody who gets them for less than the market price is in for a windfall.
      - SilasX 10y ago
        The Coase Theorem says it wouldn't matter for purposes of optimal allocation if there weren't transaction costs. The Coase Theorem doesn't guarantee the absence of transaction costs in practice (and they are likely to be huge here, since the dude who likes incandescent light is going to be very far removed from the high-volume market), and it does guarantee that initial allocation will affect the wealth distribution.
- SilasX 10y ago
  It's eminently reasonable to have a different goal: prevent the activities whose environmental cost (via CO2) is greater than its economic benefit. In that case, the tax is sufficient to achieve that goal because it adds the cost in directly. Then, for every case where the economic benefit is small relative to such a cost, people will stop doing it. And even if they don't, the government now has collected an amount of money equal to the environmental costs and can work on mitigating them with it! [1] (That goal is, incidentally, the point of Pigovian taxes -- or at least, it should be, rather than "to give me cover for restricting something I disliked for other reasons", which is how they often get used.) [1] If you want to go the route of saying that the costs are unqiantifiable ... don't. That way lies insanity (and arbitrary policy).
- Retric 10y ago
  The missing Carbin tax is correcting an externality which subsidies coal and other fossil fuels. We may chose to produce zero coal or the same amount, but markets only work with accurate information.
- winstonewert 10y ago
  "Remember, the goal is to cap emissions" Is it? I would say the the goal is to reduce carbon usage to situations where the benefits outweight all (social and economic) costs. So, our goal shouldn't be to reduce emissions to some arbitrary level, but to reduce usage to the level where benefits=costs.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > When you start with a cap and work backwards towards the clearing price, you are guaranteed to be meet that cap. But when you start by setting a price, there is zero guarantee that you're going to meet your emissions target. If you can't generate a good estimate of how much tax is needed to hit your target, hitting the target no matter what is actually a bit of a problem. If the necessary tax would have been less than you expected then your emissions target is likely too conservative and you could reasonably have picked a more aggressive one. And if the necessary tax is much higher than you expected then you could end up wrecking the economy, because the cost of credits will then be outrageously high and get passed on as high energy costs.
- murbard2 10y ago
  There is another advantage to cap and trade as opposed to tax. With cap and trade, you may have a politically motivated allocation of emission rights initially, but it's a one-off transfer and soon enough they end up the hands of the people with the most productive use of emissions. With a carbon tax, people will continuously expand resources in the form of lobbying to try and receive the proceeds of the tax. The government has to stay in the loop forever.
tajen 10y ago
> "tax" which is unpalatable to the public. They're right to be concerned: A tax goes to the government and the price is set wrong. What's the correct amount? $5 per barrel[1]? $25? $250? $3000? $3000 would be insane, right? The People would rise up against those who decide that price. Plus, if it's a government tax, it goes to the pocket of the government. If it's traded on the stock exchange, at least it's not the government who's to blame if the pricing is too high, and it's not the government who gets the money - it's redistribution at its most noble name[2]. There are two axes: How high it should be to reduce demand of petrol to a sustainable level, and how high to account for the cost of the global warming. CO2 emissions were stable in 1990, meaning they were consumed by plants which would emit the equivalent O2. All those policies do is attempt to come back to the levels of 1990. So we just have to let companies purchase their emission rights and see where the price goes. If we don't succeed, it will cost trillions, so again we need to factor those trillions into the cost of barrels. If we just get the cost high enough, we'll either use alternative sources or avoid spending[3]. So, yes, basically, the right cost of a barrel of petrol is the cost of switching to an alternate source, plus the cost of the damage of the global warming: It could very well be $3000. And fact is, a government isn't going to raise a $3000 tax per barrel. So, when replacing a stock-exchange-traded price with a tax, I wonder why "most economists we read seem to agree". [1] Meaning: 5% of the price of a publicly-traded barrel of petrol that have the same effect on global warming. [2] The only thing against trading emissions on the stock exchange is that a lot of people don't trust stock trading anymore. They point out speculation, HFT, subprimes. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding of the usefulness of capitalism, sometimes the public is correct (The financial industry reaps the benefits instead of the end user does). Whether or not it's right, it's extremely sad for the Earth if we replace a $3000 emission cost with a $5 carbon tax. [3] "Avoid spending" is not a light term here. It basically means a group is going to be really, really poor because we can't build enough goods for them given the CO2 limit.

by Pxtl 10y ago

Alex3917 10y ago

A tax is actually vastly more complicated and easier to game. Remember, the goal is to cap emissions, not to raise money. When you start with a cap and work backwards towards the clearing price, you are guaranteed to be meet that cap. But when you start by setting a price, there is zero guarantee that you're going to meet your emissions target. Also, the point of cap and trade is that it lets societies meet their emissions target in the least expensive way possible. Whereas a tax imposes the same fees on everyone, regardless of how much it would cost them to lower their emissions. This makes zero sense.

fsargent 10y ago
Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax are equivalent in outcome. Cap and trade would impose fees on everyone regardless of how much it costs them to lower emissions also. The problem with Cap and Trade is that it targets the large scale emitters rather than the item desired to be limited. Imagine that you had five major producers putting out 30% of airborne carbon, and 50,000 minor producers putting out 70%. The cost of administering a cap and trade system to the minor producers would be incredibly expensive - the legislation would instead focus on gouging the five major producers. Also imagine that the 50,000 minor producers could very easily cut their production of carbon in half. The price should be set to the amount of damage the externality causes. Current estimates of the social cost of carbon is ~$220 per ton. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2481.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc... Cap and trade punishes large players - taxes are fair because they impose the same fees on everyone. Cap and Trade being the least expensive way possible is also a terrible loss for good tax reform. If we implement a responsible carbon tax, the offset income can be used to reduce associated corporation taxes, sales taxes, or even income taxes. An optimal tax system taxes things and behaviors we don't want, and subsidises things and behaviors we do want. Let's get rid of an income tax, and replace it with a environmental tax. More money in your pocket, and cleaner air.
- rayiner 10y ago
  As California's attempts to tax mileage of hybrid and electric vehicles proves, if you create an additional source of revenue for the government, tax levels will bear no relation to the harm they're designed to compensate for. It becomes just another way for the government to raise taxes without admitting to doing so.
  - tamana 10y ago
    It's not a secret that people pay car fees.
  - wbl 10y ago
    The gas tax was set to charge for road wear, not carbon externialities
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      And VAT in Europe was only created to rebuild after the war. Tax repeals are very rare, once they're worked into the budget they are there to stay and usually will expand to pay for other things besides the reason they were originally created.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Hybrids aren't necessarily emitting substantially less.
    - ljf 10y ago
      I was always shocked by the 'good' mpg US hybrids get, compared to Uk/Euro diesels - (though some of the difference is down to different sizes in gallons between us, but still. My 12 year old volvo v70 (not a small car) got 53mpg easily
      - AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
        We have stricter (non-CO2) emissions standards and differing safety standards which result in lower fuel efficiencies.
RockyMcNuts 10y ago
sorry, what? A tax is simple, like a sales tax or VAT, and there is a strong incentive to collect it at a centralized source that is pretty easy to monitor. How is that complex vs. creating a new commodity in the form of carbon credits, and checking that the emission is backed up by credits? At best, cap-and-trade is equivalent to a carbon tax plus some corporate welfare to return the tax to the polluters. In the most likely scenario, it's an opportunity for rent-seeking politicians to dole out the credits to those who either currently pollute most or just have their ear, for worst current polluters to cash in on opportunity to reduce pollution, for financiers to make big bucks trading credits. At worst, it's a fraud where people will buy credits from people who don't reduce pollution or would have done so anyway.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  You still have to check if everybody has paid their emission tax. Also a tax has to be high enough to offset the average cost of lowering Co2 emissions (since you force everybody to lower their emissions), whereas in a cap-and-trade system the price will the the lowest cost to lower the emissions, since anybody who would pay a higher price will be better of buying the emission permissions and anybody who can save co2 cheaper will be better of selling them. Thus a cap-and-trade system is always going to be more efficient.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > You still have to check if everybody has paid their emission tax Presumably the tax attaches to fossil fuel importers and vendors, rather than trying to tax each individual consumer.
  - tamana 10y ago
    And every time I go shopping at the department store, I get 30% off, so the more I buy, the more money I get.
  - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
    I think you're confused about the mathematics here - cap and trade for cap (C tons) is EXACTLY equivalent to some carbon tax (T dollars) in the behaviors it incentivizes.
tamana 10y ago
Cap and trade doesn't work the way you say. It isn't an auction. See the article.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > Cap and trade doesn't work the way you say. It isn't an auction. See the article. The initial credits can be allocated either through an auction, by giving them away to existing polluters, or through some combination. But after the initial allocation, credits are traded on the market. That's the 'trade' part in cap and trade.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    And Coase theorem says it doesn't matter who gets the credits--they'll eventually find their way to the most efficient allocation.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      It doesn't matter who gets the credits as far as efficiency in reducing carbon emissions. It matters quite a lot financially however, because the credits are worth money, so anybody who gets them for less than the market price is in for a windfall.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      The Coase Theorem says it wouldn't matter for purposes of optimal allocation if there weren't transaction costs. The Coase Theorem doesn't guarantee the absence of transaction costs in practice (and they are likely to be huge here, since the dude who likes incandescent light is going to be very far removed from the high-volume market), and it does guarantee that initial allocation will affect the wealth distribution.
SilasX 10y ago
It's eminently reasonable to have a different goal: prevent the activities whose environmental cost (via CO2) is greater than its economic benefit. In that case, the tax is sufficient to achieve that goal because it adds the cost in directly. Then, for every case where the economic benefit is small relative to such a cost, people will stop doing it. And even if they don't, the government now has collected an amount of money equal to the environmental costs and can work on mitigating them with it! [1] (That goal is, incidentally, the point of Pigovian taxes -- or at least, it should be, rather than "to give me cover for restricting something I disliked for other reasons", which is how they often get used.) [1] If you want to go the route of saying that the costs are unqiantifiable ... don't. That way lies insanity (and arbitrary policy).
Retric 10y ago
The missing Carbin tax is correcting an externality which subsidies coal and other fossil fuels. We may chose to produce zero coal or the same amount, but markets only work with accurate information.
winstonewert 10y ago
"Remember, the goal is to cap emissions" Is it? I would say the the goal is to reduce carbon usage to situations where the benefits outweight all (social and economic) costs. So, our goal shouldn't be to reduce emissions to some arbitrary level, but to reduce usage to the level where benefits=costs.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> When you start with a cap and work backwards towards the clearing price, you are guaranteed to be meet that cap. But when you start by setting a price, there is zero guarantee that you're going to meet your emissions target. If you can't generate a good estimate of how much tax is needed to hit your target, hitting the target no matter what is actually a bit of a problem. If the necessary tax would have been less than you expected then your emissions target is likely too conservative and you could reasonably have picked a more aggressive one. And if the necessary tax is much higher than you expected then you could end up wrecking the economy, because the cost of credits will then be outrageously high and get passed on as high energy costs.
murbard2 10y ago
There is another advantage to cap and trade as opposed to tax. With cap and trade, you may have a politically motivated allocation of emission rights initially, but it's a one-off transfer and soon enough they end up the hands of the people with the most productive use of emissions. With a carbon tax, people will continuously expand resources in the form of lobbying to try and receive the proceeds of the tax. The government has to stay in the loop forever.

tajen 10y ago

> "tax" which is unpalatable to the public. They're right to be concerned: A tax goes to the government and the price is set wrong. What's the correct amount? $5 per barrel[1]? $25? $250? $3000? $3000 would be insane, right? The People would rise up against those who decide that price. Plus, if it's a government tax, it goes to the pocket of the government. If it's traded on the stock exchange, at least it's not the government who's to blame if the pricing is too high, and it's not the government who gets the money - it's redistribution at its most noble name[2]. There are two axes: How high it should be to reduce demand of petrol to a sustainable level, and how high to account for the cost of the global warming. CO2 emissions were stable in 1990, meaning they were consumed by plants which would emit the equivalent O2. All those policies do is attempt to come back to the levels of 1990. So we just have to let companies purchase their emission rights and see where the price goes. If we don't succeed, it will cost trillions, so again we need to factor those trillions into the cost of barrels. If we just get the cost high enough, we'll either use alternative sources or avoid spending[3]. So, yes, basically, the right cost of a barrel of petrol is the cost of switching to an alternate source, plus the cost of the damage of the global warming: It could very well be $3000. And fact is, a government isn't going to raise a $3000 tax per barrel. So, when replacing a stock-exchange-traded price with a tax, I wonder why "most economists we read seem to agree". [1] Meaning: 5% of the price of a publicly-traded barrel of petrol that have the same effect on global warming. [2] The only thing against trading emissions on the stock exchange is that a lot of people don't trust stock trading anymore. They point out speculation, HFT, subprimes. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding of the usefulness of capitalism, sometimes the public is correct (The financial industry reaps the benefits instead of the end user does). Whether or not it's right, it's extremely sad for the Earth if we replace a $3000 emission cost with a $5 carbon tax. [3] "Avoid spending" is not a light term here. It basically means a group is going to be really, really poor because we can't build enough goods for them given the CO2 limit.