Comments Bikechess has made

  • Market distortion

    In my opinion, it is wiser to rebate C&T dividends (or a carbon tax) to taxpayers.  Here are some reasons:

    • Increases in energy prices are regressive.  But, if you return the money  to taxpayers in a way where everyone gets the same rebate, it becomes progressive.
    • We want to decouple government spending from auction or tax revenue.  This way, we can adjust the carbon price or cap in order to achieve the desired emissions goals without worrying how it will affect the ability to fund government programs.
    • The government will be worse than market forces at choosing the cheapest way to reduce emissions.  If the government chooses which technologies (or even energy sector) benefits directly from auction or tax revenue, then we are picking winners.  As well as coupling the revenue to a particular program (see second point above).

    -ChazOn More perspectives on tax/auction revenue allocation posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • There should be inequities

    For example, I live in northern California, where we have a mild climate and little coal power, and I don't need to drive much, so I might see my net income rise by maybe a couple thousand dollars. That would be nice, but folks back east who are paying more wouldn't like it one bit.

    It may be "unfair," but living in a non-temperate climate means a bigger carbon footprint.  A direct price on carbon would signal this loud and clear - and it should...

    And vehicle owners DO think about gas prices.  I think the summer's shift in purchasing patterns is evidence...On Some perspective on tax-and-dividend and a better alternative posted 9 months ago 26 Responses

  • its $15B a year...

    For what its worth, the budget includes $15B PER YEAR for new technologies...On Obama's first budget includes green spending and anticipated revenues from a climate plan posted 9 months ago 16 Responses

  • You must admit he inspires people,

    Not sure why its irrelevant that Obama won a red state.  Obama could actually unite the country and win in a landslide.  This would provide the mandate that environmentalists dream about...On South Carolina primary posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

  • C taxes : progressive or regressive?

    Raw Carbon taxes are regressive - while the rich use more energy (and pollute more...), the poor would have a harder time reducing the percentage of their costs that go to energy.

    That said, what the government actually does with the money matters greatly.  What if the government kept no money for "itself" but instead gave every taxpayer back an equal Carbon return.  Then the poor would actually make money off the system - but still have the incentive to reduce their emissions.

    http://www.FairPriceEnergy.com for more...On Dingell floats it; Boucher knocks it down posted 2 years, 5 months ago 10 Responses

  • How 'bout we just tax it

    I like the labelling idea - but the article correctly points out how difficult this is.

    The best solution is simply to tax carbon - this way, everyone who generates CO2 while making the product would have to pay for it.  These additional costs would force them to raise their prices (or become more efficient or use renewables).  In the end, the consumer doesn't have to read the label - only the price tag.  Carbon-intensive products would simply be more expensive.On Can a bag of potato chips point the way to saving the planet? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

  • I don't think its that simple

    The reason it isn't simple is that it is regressive.  If you 'simply' replace an existing tax, there will be a massive redistribution of wealth.  There is a reason we have income taxes instead of a national sales tax - income taxes are designed to favor the poor, while sales taxes favor the wealthy.  Therefore, to ease the regressive nature of a carbon tax, we will need some additional tax policy to counter it.  And this is where it gets complicated.

    I would suggest returning ALL of the revenue from a carbon tax back to the taxpayers in the form of a huge yearly rebate.  Every tax payer's rebate would be equal, regardless of how much carbon tax you paid during the year.  This way, if you live carbon-light, you would actually make money off of the system.  If you are carbon-heavy, you would pay more taxes than you would get back in rebates...On Conservative critique of the carbon tax posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Revenue isn't all good...

    I actually agree that a problem with taxes is that they generate a ton of revenue.  While hardly a conservative, I do believe that the market does do the best job of putting resources (ie, money) where it does the most good.  For a small amount of government revenue, this isnt a big deal.  But say we put the equivalent of $1/gallon carbon tax - this would generate ~$300B/year from gasoline alone.    So probably close to $1T/year overall.  I guess I don't really trust the government to spend that much additional money wisely.  Plus, there is the problem that a carbon tax is regressive.

    That said, I still believe that a carbon tax is the best and most helpful policy solution.  It just needs to be coupled with a PROgressive way of redistributing the tax.

    More at FairPriceEnergy.com

    -ChazOn Conservative critique of the carbon tax posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • Way to go Al.

    Thank you Mr. Gore for providing some much needed leadership on the policy side.  For the most part, I found the speech to be dead-on.  It is certainly a great starting place for serious energy policy.

    My biggest concern would be the income-redistribution affects of replacing income taxes with a carbon tax.  Income taxes are a progressive tax - the poor fair much better.  A carbon tax would be regressive - the poor would be hit harder.

    An alternative approach is to leave the income tax in place and return all of the carbon taxes to the tax payers, with everyone getting an equal tax refund (so you don't get your own carbon taxes back and would still benefit from reducing pollution).  Check it out: http://FairPriceEnergy.comOn The most noteworthy features posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • It will be interesting to see this in action

    The big question to me is enforcement.  And this comes down to fees.  How much will businesses be charged if they don't meet their targets?  Will be it be framed in terms of dollars per ton of CO2 or a flat fee?On California passes cap-and-trade bill posted 3 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses