This is interesting. One of the big dings on a carbon tax has been that it's regressive -- it will hurt the poor (who pay a higher percentage of their income for energy) more than the rich.
But according to a new study, it ain't so:
But the new study, based on data from Indonesia, shows that in terms of energy consumption, the impact on the rural poor would be much less than that on wealthy people in cities, as the poor use comparatively little energy.
The poor could actually benefit from a carbon tax. Rising energy prices mean that small scale farmers -- who make up the majority of Indonesia's poor and use little machinery -- could compete better with large farms that rely on machinery with high energy consumptions.
Of course, the study was focused on developing countries. I suspect the situation is different in the developed countries.
New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Flat
d41295 Posted 3:55 am
18 May 2007
David Roberts, please wise up.
Permalink
GtoeOne Posted 4:06 am
18 May 2007
People have little tolerance for taxes. In the near term I suspect some form of carbon taxes will make it through congress. Best estimates are for an additional $8.00/MwHr in power cost will probably make it through. At this level industry could justify more spending on energy efficiency without choking off manufacturing completely. The effect on residential will be negligible. (.938MwHr/month * $8 = $7.50/month)
Above is most likely what will happen, the other half of the discussion is what should happen. The biggest problem with a tax or cap and trade is the unintended consequence of driving up manufacturing costs, driving industry to areas of the world where manufacturing is not as efficient and having a net increase in energy used per unit. The obvious way to avoid this is to add another tax on imported goods to increase the cost and try and maintain jobs. But I don't think there will be any support for a double tax, one on energy and one on imported goods, because of the possibility of reducing the economy. Also arguing against the tax is the regressive nature of the tax. The poor spend a high percentage of their income on consumable goods not on stocks, bonds and real estate.
So the next idea is to fund the poor so they can buy more stuff, but here we make a complete circle, we drive industry to un-regulated countries, tax the goods as they enter the country and use the tax to pay people so they can buy more things.
Some of the ideas I like better are usage taxes, for example:
1. A monthly tax on large houses, anything over 1000 ft2/person in the house
2. Monthly tax on automobiles based on GVW
3. Tax on marine fuels
4. Slowly increasing tax on gasoline
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:38 am
18 May 2007
deferring the date of operation perhaps by several years,
when we face a global energency today,
and owing to the fact of that debate and conflict being triggered when national unity of purpose is more urgently required now than for many decades,
and owing to the low efficacy of a C Tax in generating new options,
meaning that high tax rates are required to cause significant effect, which,
in tandem with its regressive impacts would, very likely,
result in a single term presidency.
All in all, if I owned a chunk of Detroit, or of Heuston for that matter,
I'd not only have my shills encouraging the environment movement
to demand a Carbon Tax,
I think I'd also start showing interest in Cap, Allocate & Trade
as a pretty sure were of further encoraging that demand.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
ngoddard Posted 4:56 am
18 May 2007
There would need to be equivalent import taxes on carbon embodied in incoming goods/services. And a refund of carbon tax on goods/services exported. These import taxes and export refunds could be eliminated for other countries joining in a Free Carbon Area which would have a uniform carbon tax.
Not a new idea by any means but the time might be right.
Nigel
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:18 am
18 May 2007
We can't afford to continue to give corporate polluters a free ride.
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 11:05 am
18 May 2007
When proposing such a solution (or when bringing it up for that matter) proper framing is needed. Start people in the right frame of mind. "What we need is tax reform in this country. We need immediate tax credits for all Americans and a system that makes polluters pay" is just one example.
Conservatives took hold of this country in the recent past due to skillful framing and the emotional appeal of their views.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:46 pm
18 May 2007
http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progress ...
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 1:50 pm
18 May 2007
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:11 pm
18 May 2007
A monthly tax on large houses, anything over 1000 ft2/person in the house
Monthly tax on automobiles based on GVW
Tax on marine fuels
Slowly increasing tax on gasoline
Item by item:This would encourage people to drive more.
This would encourage people to drive more.
This would encourage people to boat less.
This would encourage people to drive less.
Permalink
GtoeOne Posted 3:45 am
19 May 2007
These four are examples only, I understand where you are going, if your home is too small you would not want to spend any time in the house so you go out driving. Maybe, maybe not. I travel a lot and sometimes end up in a small hotel room in the middle of nowhere. I don't hop in my car and drive somewhere. Normally I go on a walk.
I think the logic is a bit weak.
Permalink