Climate change is the world’s most urgent problem and in the US, the left, at least, is taking it seriously. Earlier this year, US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and US Senator Edward Markey, both Democrats, introduced the Green New Deal (GND) resolution, which offers a blueprint for decarbonizing the US economy.
However, while a growing number of Democratic presidential contenders have endorsed their proposal, centrist Democrats and Republicans continue to cling to a different climate policy approach.
The key centrist proposal, in keeping with the prevailing neoliberal dispensation, is a carbon tax.
The idea is simple: If you tax fossil fuels where they enter the economy — be it at a wellhead, mine or port — you can fully capture the social cost of pollution.
In economic parlance, this is known as a Pigovian tax, because it is meant to correct an undesirable outcome in the market, or what British economist Arthur Pigou defined as a negative externality — in this case, the greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for global warming.
As a response to climate change, a carbon tax is immensely popular among economists from across the political spectrum and it does have an important role to play.
However, it is far from sufficient. Rapidly decarbonizing the economy in a way that is economically equitable and politically feasible would require a comprehensive package on the order of the GND.
That means combining some market-based policies with large-scale private and public-sector investments, and carefully crafted environmental regulations.
Even in this case, including a standard carbon tax involves certain risks. Just ask French President Emmanuel Macron, whose country has been roiled by months of demonstrations that were initially launched in response to a new tax on diesel fuel.
The lesson from the weekly “yellow vests” protests is clear: Unless environmental policies account for today’s high levels of inequality, voters would reject them.
Nonetheless, as progressives push for more green investment, they would look to the carbon tax as a source of revenue. After all, depending on the size, it could raise almost US$1 trillion per year.
However, rather than a straightforward levy, they should consider implementing a carbon dividend, whereby carbon would be taxed, but the proceeds would be returned to the people in equal shares. Yes, this would preclude one option for funding the GND, but it would ensure that the transition to a carbon-free economy remains on track, by protecting the incomes of low and middle-class households.
A common objection to a carbon dividend is that it would defeat the original purpose of a carbon price, which is to encourage people to reduce emissions.
However, this is not true. To see why, suppose you are a low-income American, spending US$75 per month on gasoline. Assuming that your driving behavior does not change, a carbon tax of US$230 per ton (0.9 metric tonnes) — the level needed just to put us on a path toward limiting global warming to 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels — would raise your monthly fuel expenditure by US$59, to US$134, or 79 percent. In this case, you unquestionably would feel poorer. This is what economists call an “income effect.”
Now imagine that a carbon dividend is in place: You would receive a monthly payment of US$187, more than offsetting the price increase and leaving you feeling richer.
However, would this not also leave you with a greater incentive to use gasoline? Economic theory suggests not.
Just because the price of gas increases does not mean that everything else in the economy will follow suit. Rather, goods and services that produce a lot of carbon dioxide emissions would become relatively more expensive than those that do not. Hence, you would have a choice between using the dividend to drive more and using it to increase your consumption of other things, from dinners with friends to new running shoes.
Those social gatherings and shoes are your incentive to use less carbon. This is what economists call the “substitution effect.”
In this way, a carbon dividend would gradually nudge people, large businesses and the government away from carbon-intensive consumption, and toward activities and investments that reduce their emissions.
Equally important, a carbon dividend would protect the poor. A straightforward carbon tax is inherently regressive, because it imposes the same cost on the poor as it does on the rich.
However, a carbon dividend inverts this effect, because every dollar that is returned would be worth more to a low-income household than it would be to a wealthy one.
Moreover, it is the rich who fly all over the world, heat and cool enormous homes, and drive inefficient sports cars. Because they lead far more carbon-intensive lifestyles than everyone else, they would contribute far more per capita to the carbon dividend.
More to the point, they would pay in much more than they get back, while the poorest 60 percent of Americans would get back more than they put in.
In short, a carbon dividend would distribute money from predominantly wealthy high polluters to predominantly low and middle-income low polluters, all while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On its own, it would represent a smart step in the right direction — one that would not invite a “yellow vest” reaction.
However, do not let anyone tell you it is a silver bullet. When it comes to climate change, there is not one.
Mark Paul is an assistant professor of economics at New College of Florida and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Anthony Underwood is an assistant professor of economics at Dickinson College.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, there has been a fair amount of news regarding discrimination and “witch hunts” against medical personnel, people under self-quarantine and other targets, such as the students of a school where an infection was discovered. Quarantine breakers are almost certainly on the loose and it is only natural for people to be vigilant. One in Chiayi was found by accident at a traffic stop because his helmet was not fastened. However, those who follow the rules by quarantining themselves should be encouraged to keep up the good work in a difficult situation, instead of being
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) has said that there is a huge difference between Chinese military aircraft circling Taiwan along the edges of its airspace and invading Taiwan’s airspace. He also said that whether it is US or Chinese aircraft flying along or encircling Taiwan’s airspace, there is no legal basis to say that such actions imply a clear provocation of Taiwan, and asked the Ministry of National Defense not to mislead the public. People who hear this might think that it is not a very Taiwanese thing to say. US military activity in the vicinity of Taiwan
As the COVID-19 pandemic spins out of control, many parts of the world are experiencing shortages of medical masks and other protective equipment. I am studying in Washington state, which at the time of writing is the US state that has suffered the largest number of deaths from the novel coronavirus. The week before last, UW Medicine — an organization that includes the University of Washington School of Medicine and associated medical centers and clinics — sent its volunteers an e-mail asking the public to make masks and donate them to hospitals. Attached to the message was a mask donation
As the nation welcomes home Taiwanese who had been stranded in China’s Hubei Province — arguably one of the most dangerous places on Earth since the novel coronavirus outbreak began in its capital, Wuhan, late last year — problems surrounding the “quasi-charter flights” that brought them back have been largely overlooked. The media used the term to describe the two flights dispatched by Taiwan’s state-run China Airlines because they do not count as charter flights. Taiwanese wanting to board those flights had to travel — most likely by train — more than 1,000km from Hubei to Shanghai Pudong International Airport