drosenblum’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Anybody Care About the Facts?

  Why all the misleading information about carbon tax supporters?  Could it just be an attempt to distract attention from the flaws in the USCAP cap-and-trade proposal?

  How about waiting to see what Tillerson actually does, instead of assuming the worst? While it is certainly incontrovertible that Exxon-Mobil has aligned itself with and funded climate change deniers in the past, Exxon-Mobil cut off that funding last May. Since that time the company has acknowledged climate change and its support of carbon taxes is entirely consistent with a commitment to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Will Exxon-Mobil support a price on carbon that will actually make a difference?  Who knows? I hope we find out soon. Until then, there is no support for your arguments about Tillerson.

  Curiously, you don't seem to care about the information we already have about how the major polluters that belong to USCAP (such as Duke Energy, Shell, BP America and ConocoPhillips) are trying to game cap-and-trade. Fortunately, Joe Romm's NRDC and EDF endorse the weak, coal-friendly, rip-offset-heavy USCAP climate plan has demonstrated which polluters are really doing the gaming.

  Your description of Congressional support for carbon taxes is equally misleading. Reading your posts, one could understandably think that support for carbon taxes is merely an attempt by right-wing conservatives to champion their longtime agenda to implement a regressive tax shift.  

  How about looking at the facts? Congressman John Larson (D-CT), the sponsor of the leading carbon tax bill in the last Congress, has a 6.78% rating from the American Conservative Union, 85% from the LCV and 95% from the ADA.  Pete Stark (D-CA), who has consistently proposed and supported carbon taxes has a 3.66% rating from the ACU, 100% from the LCV and 90% from the ADA.  Conservative?On More on conservatives and carbon taxes posted 9 months, 1 week ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  But a Carbon Tax is Far Superior

  You left out a discussion of the problems with cap-and-trade.  Here's a quick summary from our Carbon Tax Center web site:

     1. Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
     2. Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
     3. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
     4. Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system's complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
     5. Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.
     6. Carbon tax revenues can be returned to the public through dividends or progressive tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

  For details, see our issue paper carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade.

  Dan Rosenblum
  Co-Director
  Carbon Tax Center
  On Umbra on carbon trading posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  There Already Is a Good Alternative - A Carbon Tax

  Senator Boxer and the other good actors already have a good alternative.  It's called a revenue-neutral carbon tax and it's been discussed extensively on Gristmill.  It's time for the "forces of Good & Right" to recognize that Lieberman-Warner is only marginally better than Voinovich's bill; both pass out public money to favored industry.  A carbon tax is best and cap-and-dividend is a reasonable alternative.  On New Senate alternatives to L-W would take climate policy backwards -- way backwards posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not the Carbon Tax Center This Time

  Just to avoid any confusion, "Killing Me Loudly" reflects Charlie's views rather than those of the Carbon Tax Center.  As the co-director of the Carbon Tax Center, I note the following points:
  

  1.  The "green establishment" that Charlie criticizes has been attacking Congressman Dingell, not the carbon tax.  It has legitimate reasons to be upset at Dingell about CAFE. In addition, I wouldn't have referred to a monolithic green establishment.
     
  2.  I would not have used the "clear-cutter on crank" language, which suggests an irrational drug-crazed response.  In my view, the responses to Dingell on CAFE issues are entirely rational.
     
  3.  I do agree with Charlie that Dingell has not presented the carbon tax in the most productive fashion.  Dingell has, however, done a tremendous service by adding his clout to the carbon tax legislation already proposed by Congressmen Stark, McDermott and Larson.
     
  4.  I wouldn't have compared a one-time CAFE change to the questionable assumption that the Dingell ramp-up would continue indefinitely.
     
  5.  I wouldn't have used the "crackpot realists" language.  We do differ with the political analysis of many cap-and-trade proponents, in part because we're convinced that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is politically feasible when compared to the effective tax that results from a cap-and-trade scheme.  
     
  6. I would not have used Charlie's "dirty secret" language nor his statement that 'Big Green has an equally limitless appetite for "allies" among the corporate elite.' I accept the fact that many people for whom I have great respect currently support cap-and-trade for rational reasons, although I'm distressed that some environmentalists support a form of cap-and-trade that would give away allowances.
     
  7.  I disagree with the statement that "Perhaps the environmental establishment will get its way and Congress will pass a CAFE bill while continuing to ignore the growing calls for taxing carbon."  The environmental establishment generally wants to put a price on carbon and I'm hopeful that more and more organizations will recognize that carbon taxes are the optimal approach.  The groups Charlie attacks have not attacked carbon taxes.
     
  8.  Re Charlie's final point, asking "what good are mileage standards, [etc.}?  My answer would be  a lot, but not enough.  We also need a carbon tax.
  On Big Green savages Dingell's carbon tax posted 2 years ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Carbon Tax Plus Clean Energy Investment

  While I agree with Charles that a carbon tax should be virtually revenue-neutral for political and distributional equity reasons, I would not rule out the possibility that Congress in its wisdom could decide to pass a carbon tax with a clean energy investment fund that is worth fighting for.  In addition, Charles appears to reject the idea of having both a carbon tax and a clean energy investment fund because he assumes that the former would provide the revenues for the latter.  Why not a revenue-neutral carbon tax AND $30 billion, separately funded, for clean energy investment?  On A reply to Shellenberger & Nordhaus posted 2 years, 1 month ago 20 Responses