February 2016 NSDA Public Forum Debate:
Carbon Taxes
Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a carbon tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Table of Contents
META...................................................................................................................... 4
CARBON TAX DEFINED .................................................................................................................................................. 4
CARBON TAXES DISTINCT FROM CAP AND TRADE ........................................................................................................ 6
PRO ........................................................................................................................ 7
CARBON TAX GOOD: EFFECTIVE POLICY ....................................................................................................................... 7
CARBON TAX GOOD: EASY TO IMPLEMENT .................................................................................................................. 9
CARBON TAX GOOD: ENCOURAGES GREEN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 10
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALTERS INCENTIVES IN THE MARKET ......................................................................................... 12
CARBON TAX GOOD: EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICALLY FRIENDLY ............................................................................... 16
CARBON TAX GOOD: CAN KEEP MONEY LOCAL .......................................................................................................... 18
CARBON TAX GOOD: COULD BE MADE REVENUE NEUTRAL ....................................................................................... 19
CARBON TAX GOOD: COULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF TAX REFORM ......................................................................... 20
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ...................................................... 22
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY BUSINESS INTERESTS ........................................................................................ 24
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY THE ENERGY INDUSTRY .................................................................................... 25
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY ECONOMISTS ................................................................................................... 26
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALLOW US TO ENGAGE OTHER NATIONS ON CLIMATE ............................................................. 28
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALLOWS THE WORLD TO FOCUS ON THE BIGGEST OFFENDERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE ............. 29
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN ALL ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 30
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN REGULATION ...................................................................................................... 32
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN SUBSIDIES ........................................................................................................... 34
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN CAP AND TRADE.................................................................................................. 35
CARBON TAX GOOD: BC MODEL SHOWS EFFECTIVENESS........................................................................................... 40
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE ........................................................................................................................ 41
A/T: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE AGAINST CARBON TAXES ......................................................................................... 42
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE TOO BIG OF A POLICY CHANGE ........................................................................................... 43
A/T: CONSUMERS WILL PAY OUTRAGEOUS PRICES FOR ENERGY AND GOODS .......................................................... 44
A/T: ALL TAXES ARE BAD!! ........................................................................................................................................... 45
A/T: MARKET IS ALREADY TAKING CARE OF CARBON! ................................................................................................ 46
A/T: CARBON TAX MAY NOT HELP GREENHOUSE GASSES .......................................................................................... 47
A/T: EXEMPTIONS WILL KILL SOLVENCY ...................................................................................................................... 48
CON ...................................................................................................................... 49
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO CERTAIN IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GASSES ...................................................................... 49
CARBON TAXES BAD: SUCK MONEY OF THE ECONOMY .............................................................................................. 51
CARBON TAXES BAD: HURTS MANUFACTURING ........................................................................................................ 54
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEIR NATURE MAKES THEM EASY TO INCREASE WITHOUT POLITICAL BACKLASH.................. 55
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEY REALLY ARE AWFUL, BUT LESS AWFUL THAN OTHER PROPOSALS ................................... 56
CARBON TAXES BAD: HURT THE ENERGY SECTOR....................................................................................................... 57
CARBON TAXES BAD: NOT REVENUE NEUTRAL ........................................................................................................... 58
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEY DEMONIZE YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING! ........................................................................ 59
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL BE POLITICALLY FORCED TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS, HURTING IMPACT ............................. 60
CARBON TAXES BAD: US ACTION ALONE WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM ..................................................................... 61
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO INTERNATIONAL MODELING BASED ON US ACTION ........................................................... 63
CARBON TAXES BAD: US CARBON TAX WOULD JUST SHIFT CARBON AND MANUFACTURING OVERSEAS.................. 64
CARBON TAXES BAD: DO NOT CREATE CLEAR INCENTIVES AS PRO WOULD CLAIM .................................................... 65
CARBON TAXES BAD: REGRESSIVE AND HURT THE POOR ........................................................................................... 66
CARBON TAXES BAD: ARE JUST TAXES ON BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS! ................................................................... 68
Page 2
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 3
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO POLITICAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................................ 69
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL HURT WORLD FORESTS .................................................................................................... 70
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FORCE SHIFTING TO NUCLEAR POWER ............................................................................ 71
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO BIOFUELS ............................................................................................... 72
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO HYDROELECTRIC POWER ....................................................................... 73
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO WIND POWER ........................................................................................ 74
CARBON TAXES BAD: REVENUES ARE USED TO GROW BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS ................................................ 75
CARBON TAX UNNECESSARY: BUSINESS ALREADY RESPONDING TO STATUS QUO INCENTIVES TO WORK TOWARDS CARBON
REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 76
A/T: BRITISH COLUMBIA MODEL PROVES EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................... 78
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN!! ......................................................................................................... 79
A/T: US COULD MITIGATE BUSINESS IMPACT OF A CARBON TAX ............................................................................... 80
A/T: CARBON TAX = ECONOMIC GROWTH .................................................................................................................. 81
A/T: CARBON TAXES = GREEN ENERGY INNOVATION ................................................................................................. 82
A/T: CARBON TAXES DECREASE REGULATION ............................................................................................................ 83
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 4
META
CARBON TAX DEFINED
CARBON TAX SIMPLY DEFINED-Arup '15
[Ton; CARBON TAX OR EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME; The Age; 16 July 2015; page 6]
While all kinds of programs are now included under this banner, it is actually a fairly simple concept. Under a carbon tax
a government places a set price on greenhouse gas emissions, and then makes industry pay it. Nobody likes paying more
tax than they need, so in theory a financial incentive is created for a company to cut emissions where they can.
CARBON TAXES DEFINED-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
A carbon tax approaches the issues from a different perspective. In that system, the “right to emit” is not limited by
capping the amount of GHGs that are emitted. Instead, anyone who wishes to emit must pay a tax. Since it will be more
expensive to emit than before, GHGs will decline, albeit by an unknown amount: The higher the tax, the more the
emissions will decline. Many environmentalists prefer the cap-and-trade system because the cap ensures that the
environmental purposes of the act are met.
CARBON TAX DEFINED-Harvey '15
[Chelsea; These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon - and give their residents a nice paycheck; The Washington
Post; 10 November 2015; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-couldbe-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/; retrieved 5 January 2016]
The idea of a carbon tax is pretty simple: It's a form of carbon pricing that aims to drive greenhouse gas emissions down
by requiring people to pay a tax or a fee on either the carbon they emit or the fossil fuels they purchase, and then either
returning the revenue to the public or using it for new government programs (Washington state would do the former).
CARBON TAX DESCRIBED-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
An upstream carbon tax arguably is the most straightforward approach to the global climate change problem. A carbon
tax would be imposed on all oil, coal, and natural gas production in the United States, as well as all imports. The tax rate
would be based on the marginal cost of carbon dioxide emissions (also referred to as the "social cost of carbon") n112
and would be increased annually to reflect the increase in the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions. A carbon tax
thereby would provide a price signal that captures what is now an externality, namely the harmful effects of carbon
dioxide emissions. n113 Tax credits would be provided for carbon sequestration programs, which eliminate or reduce
carbon dioxide emissions (and, in some circumstances, could be used to generate energy). Tax revenues would be used
to expand tax credits for development of alternative energy and to address any regressive effects of the carbon tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 5
CARBON TAXES DEFINED-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
In its simplest form, a carbon tax would be imposed on the production of fossil carbon, whether by mining coal, pumping
petroleum, or extracting natural gas. The tax would not be based on the value of the product or on its energy content,
but solely on its carbon content. Coal consists overwhelmingly of carbon, so all of the material removed would be taxed.
Natural gas consists largely of methane or CH4, in which each molecule consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen
atoms, so only a portion of the material removed would be taxed. Petroleum is a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules that
is intermediate between coal and natural gas, with each petroleum molecule including both hydrogen and carbon
atoms, but with more carbon and less hydrogen than natural gas.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 6
CARBON TAXES DISTINCT FROM CAP AND TRADE
CARBON TAX IS NOT A TRADING EMISSIONS SCHEME-Arup '15
[Ton; CARBON TAX OR EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME; The Age; 16 July 2015; page 6]
Is it the same as an emissions trading scheme?
No. There are several types of emissions trading schemes, but the most common is "cap and trade". Here government
periodically sets a limit (or "cap") on the emissions that can collectively be released across different highly polluting
industries. Then permits are created for each tonne of greenhouse gas that is allowed under that cap and are sold or
given to companies. A company will need to hold enough permits to cover what it emits. If they don't, they have to buy
more permits from other companies or from overseas, or face a fine. If a company cuts its emissions it can sell (or
"trade") excess permits to others for profit. The market establishes what cost is put on pollution, not the government.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 7
PRO
CARBON TAX GOOD: EFFECTIVE POLICY
CARBON TAXES ARE THE BEST WAY TO DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS-Coyne '08
[Andrew; Why the public might buy into a carbon tax; Maclean's; 26 May 2008; page 12]
Certainly the idea can be defended on its merits. If you attach any significance at all to the global warming thesis, then
the best and cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on them--whether by means of the capand-trade system already in the works for large emitters, or the carbon tax the Grits would apply to the 50 per cent or so
of emissions that remain. Exhortation has no effect. Regulation is too costly. Subsidies are if anything counterproductive.
The only way you really bring about long--term changes in behaviour is by embedding the cost of environmental damage
into the prices of things. That's what prices do everyday, in a market economy: send signals about costs, allowing
consumers to make informed choices.
ONLY A CARBON TAX CAN SUCCEED IN THE TASK AT HAND, STOPPING THE RISE OF EMISSIONS-McKie '10
[Robin; Science Editor of the Observer; The World Must Curtail Greenhouse Emissions Even Faster than Previously
Thought; Conserving the Environment; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
Only a carbon tax, agreed by the west and then imposed on the rest of the world through political pressure and trade
tariffs, would succeed in the now-desperate task of stopping the rise of emissions, he argued. This tax would be imposed
on oil corporations and gas companies and would specifically raise the prices of fuels across the globe, making their use
less attractive. In addition, the mining of coal—by far the worst emitter of carbon dioxide—would be phased out entirely
along with coal-burning power plants which he called factories of death.
"Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels combined and it still has far greater
reserves. We must stop using it." Instead, programmes for building wind, solar and other renewable energy plants
should be given major boosts, along with research programmes for new generations of nuclear reactors.
A CARBON TAX IS MOST EFFECTIVE AIMED AT A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF MAJOR CARBON BOTTLENECKSNader and Heaps '10
[Ralph, Consumer Advocate and Toby, Coordinator of Option 13; A Carbon Tax Will Help Curb Global Warming; Global
Warming; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
The most efficient way to apply a carbon tax is at a relatively small number of major carbon bottlenecks, which cover the
lion's share of GHGs. The key points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated include: trunk pipelines for gas,
refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals, cement, steel, aluminum and GHG-intensive
chemical plants.
BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVES THAT CARBON TAXES ARE EFFECTIVE-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
British Columbia started phasing in a carbon tax in 2008 and used the revenue to reduce income taxes. The province's
fossil fuel use fell after the tax was put in place, even as fuel consumption increased in the rest of Canada, and the
economy of British Columbia has grown faster than that of the rest of the country. The tax is currently capped at 30
Canadian dollars per ton of carbon, or about 24 cents per gallon of gasoline.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 8
EVEN IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS, A CARBON TAX IS A GOOD POLICY ALTERNATIVE THAT PROVIDES BENEFIT-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
The carbon tax proposal is based in part on agnosticism and humility. First, while there appear to be solid reasons to
believe that human activity is contributing to global warming and that global warming may present serious risks to
humans and other inhabitants of this planet, neither of those statements is entirely free from doubt. Even accepting
those statements, it is not clear how serious the impact will be or how soon it will arrive. There is also uncertainty as to
the trade-off between alleviating these risks and other social values, such as freedom and economic well-being. n4
Second, it is not clear how best to proceed. The Appendix briefly describes and evaluates systems of subsidies,
regulation, and cap-and-trade. These systems might promise more definite reductions in carbon emissions, but the value
of that definiteness is constrained by the limits of our knowledge. Those approaches thus [*4] might reduce carbon too
little or too much, and they might impose excessively or too little on other values such as freedom and economic wellbeing. With experience, a system of carbon taxes can be modified more easily than subsidies that may already have
been spent (perhaps unwisely), regulations that may require substantial business expenditures for compliance and
government expenditures for enforcement, and purchases of carbon emission rights that may lose value. It is clear that
the carbon tax will have the desired effect of putting downward pressure on the level of carbon emissions, and that
pressure may be adjusted relatively easily by increasing or decreasing the tax rate in light of experience. However, it
must be admitted that all of these approaches will have substantial costs and are likely to involve mistakes and false
starts.
CARBON TAXES ARE AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MARKET-BASED APPROACH-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
A more efficient and effective market-based approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would be a carbon tax
imposed on [*7] all coal, natural gas, and oil produced domestically or imported into the United States. A carbon tax
would enable the market to account for the societal costs of carbon dioxide emissions and thereby promote emission
reductions, just like a cap and trade system. A carbon tax would be easier to implement and enforce, however, and
simpler to adjust if the resulting market-based changes were either too weak or too strong. A carbon tax also would
produce revenue that could be used to fund research and development of alternative energy and tax credits to offset
any regressive effects of the carbon tax. Because a carbon tax could be implemented and become effective almost
immediately, it would be a much quicker method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than a cap and trade system. In
addition, because a carbon tax could be effective in advance of any international treaty regarding greenhouse gas
emissions, a carbon tax would provide the United States much needed credibility in the negotiations over international
carbon dioxide limits. A carbon tax could then supplement an international cap and trade system, combine with
emission caps in an international hybrid "cap and tax" approach, or become the focal point for the next international
treaty to address global climate change.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 9
CARBON TAX GOOD: EASY TO IMPLEMENT
CARBON TAXES WOULD BE SIMPLE TO SET UP-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
At its core, a carbon tax is fairly simple because relatively few entities control virtually all carbon production. Although
particular entities may own thousands of coal mines or petroleum or natural gas wells, these entities tend to be
relatively large and their extraction activities have fixed locations at the source - unlike sellers or transporters or
manufacturers, whose locations may easily shift - which simplifies the process of identifying them and collecting the
carbon tax. There are about 13,000 oil and natural gas extractors in the United States, although the largest fifty control
over seventy percent of both markets. n13 Thirty "major coal producers" control eighty-six percent of the U.S. coal
market. n14 The tax need not be collected from other entities along the chain of extraction, refining, manufacturing,
distribution, and finally consumption, because of two effects. First, the tax may cause a reduction in carbon output,
making less carbon available along the chain and thus lowering carbon emissions. Second, the tax will be passed along
the [*11] chain to a substantial extent, giving entities and individuals at all places along the chain an incentive to reduce
carbon consumption.
CARBON TAXES ARE INHERENTLY SIMPLE-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
[*38] Why is cap and trade so much more complicated than the carbon tax? A carbon tax is inherently simple: a tax is
imposed at X dollars per ton of carbon content on the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the economy, namely
coal, oil, and natural gas. (Other greenhouse gas sources, such as methane, are not included because energy accounts
for nearly eighty-five percent of the 7147 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in the U.S. economy. n132) The tax is
imposed "upstream," i.e., at the point of extraction or importation, which means than it can be imposed on only about
2000 taxpayers (500 coal miners and importers, 750 oil producers and importers, and 750 natural gas producers and
importers). n133 Credits can be given to carbon sequestration projects and to other projects that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (although this would need to be addressed in a way that does not dilute the price signal or create undue
complexity), and exports are exempted. Beyond that, the main question is what to do with the revenue, which will be
discussed below.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 10
CARBON TAX GOOD: ENCOURAGES GREEN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
A CARBON TAX ENCOURAGES LOW OR NO CARBON EMISSION ENERGY SOURCES-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
A carbon tax would raise the price of fossil fuels, with more taxes collected on fuels that generate more emissions, like
coal. This tax would reduce demand for high-carbon emission fuels and increase demand for lower-emisson fuels like
natural gas. Renewable sources like solar, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric would face lower taxes or no taxes. To be
effective, the tax should also be applied to imported goods from countries that do not assess a similar levy on the use of
fossil fuels.
CARBON TAXES WILL ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS AND ENCOURAGE US TO
LIVE WITH LESS ENERGY USE-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
The counterargument to the preceding paragraph is that carbon consumption per se is not valuable, but energy is
necessary to our society, and much of that energy is likely to come primarily from fossilized carbon for the foreseeable
future. There are two responses to this counterargument. First, the carbon tax should be gradually phased in, so that
there will be time to develop new sources of energy to replace carbon. Second, we may simply have to live with less
energy. Most sources of energy have potential problems: nuclear reactors create plutonium and other radioactive
materials with long half-lives, risking accidents or terrorism; bio-fuels seem to be driving up food prices; hydroelectric
power requires dams that harm fish and other wildlife and that may fail catastrophically; windmills may endanger birds
and bats, [*8] and some consider windmills to be visual pollution. However, to use less energy need not mean a lower
standard of living. Our society, our machines, our homes, and our lives have evolved to their present state only in the
very recent past and in a world of very inexpensive energy. With energy becoming more expensive, design and habits
should change as we learn to substitute more time, labor, material, and engineering for some of the energy we now
expend. The historic link between energy consumed and quality of life need not control the future. n9
MARKET-BASED APPROACHES LIKE A CARBON TAX ALLOW FOR INNOVATIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE ACTION AGAINST
CARBON EMISSIONS-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
The major driving force behind market-based approaches is the belief that harnessing market forces is critical to
developing the operational changes and alternative technologies needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Theoretically, reliance on market-based forces would allow development of the most innovative and cost-effective form
of carbon dioxide reductions, which may be less likely to occur if the government mandates particular types of emission
controls under the Clean Air Act or a comparable statutory scheme focusing on carbon dioxide emission controls. n105
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 11
A CARBON TAX COULD ENCOURAGE ENERGY PRODUCERS TO FIND LOWEST-COST WAYS TO REDUCE CARBON
EMISSIONS-Lehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
A carbon tax, properly constructed, could encourage energy producers to find the lowest-cost ways to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions while leveling the playing field for energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. A first step
might be for the EPA to allow states flexibility to pursue their own carbon taxes in lieu of subjecting themselves to new
greenhouse gas regulation. Such an approach could prove a hugely attractive political option for Republican officeseekers, who would be able to promise cuts to state income, property, or sales taxes, while giving the boot to EPA
busybodies. In private discussions, OMB officials have made positive noises about the possibility of allowing this to
happen under the current law, and states including Virginia and Washington have discussed the possibility. Rep. John
Delaney (D-Md.) has introduced a bill that would make state-level carbon taxes an option.
CARBON TAXES CAN BE COUPLED WITH ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON LOW-EMISSIONS SOLUTIONS LIKE NATURAL GASLehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
Finally, to bring conservatives around to the idea, a carbon tax should also be coupled with a general easing of
restrictions on energy development, particularly natural gas. As research by the Berkeley Earth Group has shown, new
natural gas development has done more than any other single factor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the past
decade. Allowing ample gas development over the next 50 or so years could do a lot to mitigate whatever energy price
changes might come from a new carbon tax.
SWEDEEN PROVES THAT CARBON TAXES ENCOURAGE INNOVATION-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
Innovation and economic development may be more enhanced when the correct price signals are sent. n123 Examples
of the effectiveness of carbon taxation include the Swedish NO<x> tax. This tax actually pays the proceeds of the tax
back to the polluters "in proportion to the amount of electricity generated." n124 If the Swedish polluters can efficiently
produce electricity without producing excess NO<x> emissions, then they will be paying less in taxes and receiving the
benefits of their own innovation. n125
A proper carbon tax may be better at encouraging innovation than cap-and-trade because the price signal is steadier.
n126 Risk-averse investors will be more cautious about investing when the prices are volatile and will generally demand
a higher rate of return. n127
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 12
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALTERS INCENTIVES IN THE MARKET
PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON ALTERS INCENTIVES IN MANY WAYS-Mankiw '15
[Gregory; Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon; the New York Times; 6 September 2015; page 6]
One reason is that putting a price on carbon alters incentives in many ways. It encourages utilities to switch to cleaner
forms of generating electricity, like wind and solar instead of coal. It encourages people to buy more fuel-efficient cars,
form car pools with their neighbors, use more public transportation, live closer to work and turn down their
thermostats. A regulatory system that tried to achieve all this would be heavy-handed and less effective.
Motivated by this thinking, Washington Carbon, an advocacy group in the state, is now trying to put a carbon tax on the
2016 ballot. Initiative Measure 732 would institute a tax on fossil fuels of $25 a metric ton of carbon dioxide (which
translates to about 25 cents a gallon of gasoline).
CARBON TAXES SET UP INCENTIVES FOR PICKING LESS DAMAGING FORMS OF ENERGY AND INNOVATION TO CREATE
NEW ONES-Bailey '13
[Ronald, Science Coorespondent; Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?; Reason; 16 January 2013;
https://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/should-the-us-adopt-a-carbon-tax-to-cont; retrieved 3 January 2016]
In terms of mitigating future climate change, a revenue neutral carbon tax would encourage producers and consumers
to economize on energy produced by burning coal, natural gas, and oil that produce climate-damaging carbon dioxide
emissions. Boosting the price of fossil fuels aims to enable actors in markets, not politicians and bureaucrats, to pick the
least costly ways to cut emissions. Taxing carbon is also supposed to call forth innovation that would eventually create
low-cost no-carbon sources of energy.
CARBON TAXES PROVIDE A CLEAR SIGNAL TO POLLUTERS-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
A carbon tax sends a clear signal to polluters: pollution imposes a negative externality on others, and you should be
forced to internalize that cost by paying the tax. n148 There is no ambiguity about the message that is intended to be
conveyed. Greenhouse gas emissions are costly, and even if people are willing to pay the price, they should be aware of
the societal cost they are imposing.
A cap and trade system, however, sends a different and more ambiguous message. On the one hand, its goal is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, it achieves that goal by either allowing polluters to purchase the
right to pollute (from the government or from each other), or to receive permits to pollute for free. The underlying
message is that the government permits you to pollute as long as you are willing to pay. Of course, the message (and the
cost imposed) may be the same, regardless of whether a tax is paid or whether an allowance is purchased, although it is
not the same if allowances are distributed for free. Labels are important, however, and calling the cost a tax sends a
different signal than calling it the purchase price for a right to pollute. n149
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 13
A CARBON TAX WILL SPEED UP OUR INEVITABLE SOCIETAL CHANGES TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS OF CARBON
BASED FUELS-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
A carbon tax will merely speed up inevitable societal changes and cause them to occur in a more orderly manner. The
extent of the Earth's fossil carbon resources is uncertain and although there are likely to be further major discoveries,
these resources are ultimately finite. World economic growth is consuming them at accelerating rates. The recent
sudden rise in petroleum prices warns us of what might happen in the future unless we smooth the transition to a less
carbon-intensive world.
CARBON TAXES ARE IMPORTANT TO CREATE A PRICE SIGNAL THAT CREATES INCENTIVES FOR BUSINESSES THAT
CREATE OR RELEASE CARBON-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
[*30] Some may question whether it is wise to rely on market forces to respond to a crisis that has been described as a
market failure of epic proportions, since free market forces have failed to account for the enormous economic and social
costs that would accompany global climate change. n106 From an economic standpoint, however, carbon dioxide
emissions are the classic externality: emissions occur at no cost to the emitting facility, but at an enormous cost to
society as a whole. n107 A central feature of the market-based approaches, therefore, is developing a price signal for
carbon that incorporates the costs of that externality and drives the market toward finding acceptable alternatives. n108
A CARBON TAX IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT CREATES THE RIGHT INCENTIVES TO DECREASE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Along with the benefits discussed above, there is an additional reason why a carbon tax is desirable. Taxes are necessary
to provide revenue to pay for government programs, but any tax has ill effects. There will always be inefficiencies in
collecting taxes. Taxpayers incur costs to plan and comply with taxes, to avoid taxes, or perhaps to evade taxes. Tax
collectors incur costs to enforce taxes. Tribunals incur costs to resolve disputes over taxes. These costs waste resources.
In addition, any tax distorts behavior, slowing economic activity by withdrawing funds from the economy and reducing
incentives to work, innovate, and take risks. What is taxed may affect these harms. A tax on income, for example, may
reduce incentives for working, saving, and financial risk-taking. A tax on consumption may reduce expenditures on food,
clothing, shelter, health care, and entertainment, which are some of the main goals of human activity and should not be
discouraged unnecessarily. In contrast, a tax on carbon discourages carbon use, which should have two major benefits.
The first is the reduction of carbon emissions that threaten to accelerate global warming. The second is the value of
carbon in its native form. Coal and petroleum can be the raw materials for chemicals and medicines that can have great
value to society. n8 To burn those raw materials unnecessarily is wasteful. We will, of course, continue to tax incomes
and consumption, but we must ask how much higher to push the marginal tax on each, or how much of a tax reduction
on either to forgo, as opposed to imposing a tax on carbon. While there are clear losses to society in discouraging either
income or consumption, it is hard to see a comparable loss to society from a reduction in carbon usage.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 14
CARBON TAXES WORK TO DECREASE CARBON BY CREATING THE APPROPRIATE INCENTIVES-Hirsch '15
[Todd; Chief Economist, ATB Financial; Our new carbon direction is just, and just in time; Globe & Mail; 29 November
2015; page B7]
Second, charging a higher price to emit carbon works to nudge behaviour in certain directions. British Columbia is held
up internationally as the example. Given a price incentive to burn less carbon, consumers will burn less carbon. It's
classic economics. Remember Econ 201? The downward-sloping "demand curve"?
That's what this is all about. Price goes up and quantity demanded goes down.
CARBON TAXES WOULD SHIFT INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR THAT MAKES HUMAN ACTIVITY MORE CARBON NEUTRALWaggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Third, individuals can change their conduct to reduce their carbon tax liability. Although some users of certain carbon
products, such as gasoline, may have little ability to reduce their carbon-based purchases, [*6] other users may be
flexible even in the short run, and even more users should be flexible in the long run. In the short run, possibilities for
decreasing carbon use include: reducing recreational driving; planning accordingly to accomplish several social,
shopping, and business excursions in one trip; walking, bicycling, carpooling, or using mass transit more often; and
scheduling work for four days rather than five, reducing commuting by twenty percent. Many persons may be able to
choose to use their fuel-efficient sedan more than their fuel-guzzling SUV, minivan, or pickup truck. Moreover, in the
long run, individuals can buy or rent more fuel-efficient cars, homes, and appliances; live closer to work or to mass
transit; invest in alternatives such as hybrid, plug-in, or perhaps hydrogen or fuel cell n7 vehicles; and use energy
collected from solar, wind, water, geothermal, biomass, or other sustainable sources.
MARKET BASED APPROACHES ARE THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS ALL SOURCES OF CARBON-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
It may be a leap of faith to focus on market-based solutions for environmental problems that have their origins in the
dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions that have accompanied industrialization and development around the
world during the last 150 years. Yet, precisely because the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is occurring throughout
the world and across all sectors of the global economy, a market-based approach may be the best way to address all
sources of carbon dioxide emissions. n109 In contrast, the regulatory approaches described above necessarily target
individual market sectors, which may lead to uneven emission controls.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 15
MARKET-BASED APPROACHES ALLOW SPREADING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF DECREASING CARBON
EMISSIONS ACROSS THE ECONOMY-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
In addition to promoting cost-effective solutions, market-based limits allow the significant costs of carbon dioxide
emission reductions to be distributed more evenly across the economy. Any carbon mitigation strategy will have
economic impacts, n110 and no approach can eliminate all disproportionate effects, but a market-based [*31] strategy is
likely to allow costs to be shared most equally, because it affects the entire economy. Finally, a market-based approach
can be implemented more rapidly than the regulatory approaches described above, particularly if a carbon tax is
utilized.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 16
CARBON TAX GOOD: EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICALLY FRIENDLY
A CARBON TAX WOULD ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY AND IMPROVE OUR TAX BASE-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
To address the challenge of global warming more effectively, and to improve its tax base, the United States should
impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax on all domestic production and importation of coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
The United States should seek to persuade other nations that carbon taxation is a critical tool in confronting the dangers
of global warming.
BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVES THAT CARBON TAXES DECREASE EMISSIONS WHILE PROTECTING OR EVEN IMPROVING
THE ECONOMY-Mankiw '15
[Gregory; Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon; the New York Times; 6 September 2015; page 6]
Environmentalists in the United States would do well to look north at the successes achieved in a Canadian province. In
2008, British Columbia introduced a revenue-neutral carbon tax similar to that being proposed for Washington.
The results of the policy have been what advocates promised. The use of fossil fuels in British Columbia has fallen
compared with the rest of Canada. But economic growth has not suffered.
What is most noteworthy, however, is that the policy was championed by a right-of-center government that did not
previously have close ties to the environmental movement.
CARBON TAXES HAVE MANY FINANCIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING PUTTING MONEY BACK INTO THE ECONOMY-Harvey
'15
[Chelsea; These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon - and give their residents a nice paycheck; The Washington
Post; 10 November 2015; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-couldbe-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/; retrieved 5 January 2016]
A carbon tax's primary goal is to address carbon output and climate change, but it also provides certain economic
benefits, said Bill Finkbeiner, another member of Carbon Washington's executive committee and a Republican who
served in the Washington State Legislature for years, including as Senate majority leader. A revenue neutral scheme
returns leftover funds to the citizens in the form of either tax breaks or rebates, meaning more money goes back into
the economy, and low- and middle-income households in particular get a boost.
EXISTING CARBON TAXES ARE WORKING WELL, DECREASING INDUSTRIAL CARBON WHILE NOT DAMAGING THE
ECONOMY-Reguly '15
[Eric; On carbon tax, Harper has fallen behind; Globe & Mail; 6 June 2015; page B1]
As Mr. Harper digs himself deeper into his ideological hole, the world is passing him by. Carbon taxes in the developed
world are going from rare to common.
Most are working, in the sense that the countries that use them, such as Norway, are seeing their industrial carbon
emissions fall without inflicting damage on their energy industry or overall economic growth. The taxes can even help
the industry and spur growth. "The world is shifting to a low-carbon approach," says Stewart Elgie, a law and economics
professor at the University of Ottawa. "Norway has seen it as an opportunity; Canada has seen it as a threat."
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 17
EUROPEAN CARBON TAXES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DECREASING CARBON ADMISSIONS WILL HAVING A POSITIVE
EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY-Reguly '15
[Eric; On carbon tax, Harper has fallen behind; Globe & Mail; 6 June 2015; page B1]
According to a recent study called Competitiveness Effects of Environmental Tax Reforms, countries that introduced
carbon taxes, including Germany, Sweden and Denmark, saw their fuel demand fall by 4 per cent between 1994 and
2012. The reduction in planet-warming greenhouse gases fell even further than fuel demand, proving the efficiency of
the taxes as an environmental cleanup tool.
And economic growth? The report found that, "as a general rule, the effects of [carbon taxes] will be positive on
economic activity." That's because of revenue recycling. The amounts raised from the tax are used to lower taxes
elsewhere, from income taxes to social security contributions by employers.
ECONOMISTS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT CARBON TAXES-Mankiw '15
[Gregory; Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon; the New York Times; 6 September 2015; page 6]
Policy wonks like me have long argued that the best way to curb carbon emissions is to put a price on carbon. The capand-trade system President Obama advocates is one way to do that. A more direct and less bureaucratic way is to tax
carbon. When polled, economists overwhelmingly support the idea.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 18
CARBON TAX GOOD: CAN KEEP MONEY LOCAL
A CARBON TAX CAN KEEP MONEY LOCAL, IN THE STATE OR COUNTRY, THAT LEVIES THE TAX-Hirsch '15
[Todd; Chief Economist, ATB Financial; Our new carbon direction is just, and just in time; Globe & Mail; 29 November
2015; page B7]
First, unlike a carbon cap-and-trade system that induces companies to buy and sell carbon permits, a carbon fee on the
end user really does keep the money in the province. It isn't quite revenue neutral (as some of the Premier's comments
have suggested), at least not in the sense that individual taxpayers will see an equally offsetting reduction in other taxes.
But it is revenue neutral within Alberta. Money collected by users in the province will stay in the province.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 19
CARBON TAX GOOD: COULD BE MADE REVENUE NEUTRAL
CARBON TAXES SHOULD BE COUPLED WITH TAX BREAKS TO MAKE THEM REVENUE NEUTRAL-Moylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
The first and arguably most important component is absolute, bona fide revenue neutrality. The federal government is
already too large and expensive. Conservatives routinely oppose efforts by the left to raise revenue in order to shore up
lavish spending and broken entitlement programs. A carbon tax should no more be used to fund bigger government
than any other tax. Every single dollar raised by a carbon tax must be devoted to tax reductions elsewhere in the code.
There are alternative carbon-tax proposals that make bogus claims of revenue neutrality. For example, the so-called "fee
and dividend" model pushed by some climate advocates and members of Congress would levy a fee on carbon dioxide
emissions that then would be returned to citizens through some sort of flat dividend payment. Such a scheme easily
could prove vulnerable to abuse: one can imagine dividends would be suspended in years of high deficits or that the
program would morph into a slush fund that flows to progressives' pet projects.
Instead of empowering government to generate a pot of money and relying; on the beneficence of elected officials to
return it to the people, reform must devote every dime of carbon-tax revenue to reducing other tax rates or abolishing
other taxes altogether. Turning on one revenue stream while turning off others is how we prevent growth in
government.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 20
CARBON TAX GOOD: COULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF TAX REFORM
MANY RIGHT-LEANING ECONOMISTS SUPPORT A CARBON TAX AS A STRATEGY TO REFORM TAXES IN THE UNITED
STATES-Lehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
For those on the right who do support a carbon tax--primarily conservative and libertarian-leaning economists like
Gregory Mankiw, Kevin Hassett, and Irwin Stelzer--a primary attraction is the opportunity to use carbon tax revenues to
cut taxes on productive activity, like labor and investment, and instead substitute a price on externalities that hurt the
public. Adele Morris of the Brookings Institution has shown how a very modest carbon tax could easily help the United
States bring its highest-in-the-world corporate income tax rates down to around the average for wealthy nations
without eliminating the research and development tax credit and other widely supported tax breaks. The centrist
environmental think tank Resources for the Future has done excellent work on how it might be used to cut payroll taxes.
A CARBON TAX IS BETTER TAX POLICY THAN OUR EXISTING SYSTEM OF TAXES-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
The second major purpose of taxing carbon would be to create a more efficient and equitable means of raising revenue
than taxing income, consumption, or other typical bases for taxation. Because of this efficiency and fairness, it is less
important to determine precisely how much and how fast the emission of CO2 is changing the world's climate, or to
determine the possible consequences of those changes on humans and other inhabitants of the planet.
CARBON TAXES CAN BE AN EXCELLENT VEHICLE OF RELIEF FROM INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
First, the proposed carbon tax is a substitute for other taxes, not an addition to them. For example, an individual's
average income tax rate might be twenty percent, and that individual might use seven percent of his or her income for
carbon products. That individual would be no worse off after taxes, if a carbon tax increased the cost of the carbon
products by five percent of that taxpayer's income (from seven percent to twelve percent of income), so long as the
average rate of the income tax were lowered by five percent (from twenty percent to fifteen percent). In this situation,
the extra cost of the carbon tax would be offset by the reduction in the income tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 21
A CARBON TAX CAN BE COUPLED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF CONTROVERSIAL TAXES TO CREATE A MORE FAIR TAX
SYSTEM-Moylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
Which brings us to the second component of a conservative carbon tax: outright elimination of some of the most
damaging and anti-growth levies on the books. For example, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis estimates
that a $20 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions could generate roughly $1.5 trillion in revenue over ten years. That's
enough to allow for the complete elimination of several levies that conservatives rightly regard as structurally deficient
or duplicative: capital gains and dividends taxes, the death tax and tariffs.
If the average economist sat down to draft an ideal tax code from scratch, it's unlikely that any of the aforementioned
levies would exist. Capital gains and dividends already are taxed at the corporate level, and taxing them again when
received by individuals is duplicative. Similarly, the death tax places a new levy on assets on which taxes already were
paid. And tariffs, though they now produce a relatively small share of federal revenue, erect substantial barriers to
international trade.
COUPLING CARBON TAXES WITH OTHER TAX REFORM HAS BROUGHT GROWTH TO BRITISH COLUMBIA IN CANADAMoylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
The good news is that this debate isn't entirely theoretical. There are various forms of carbon taxes already in effect
around the world. Perhaps the example most comparable to the policy described here is in the Canadian province of
British Columbia. That province has had a tax on carbon emissions since 2007, a levy now set at 30 Canadian dollars per
metric ton, with the revenue devoted to reducing other taxes.
Early returns on the policy are quite positive. A recent study found that the province's gross domestic product growth
has outpaced the rest of Canada, while its corporate income tax rate has been reduced to among the lowest anywhere
in the G8 countries. Despite concerns that it might grow government, the tax has stayed revenue neutral and enjoys
broad public support. Polling of business and community leaders by the Pembina Institute found 64 percent believe the
tax has been a positive move.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 22
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
A CARBON TAX COULD WE A WAY TO GET POLITICAL CONCESSIONS WITH GIVE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CLIMATE
ISSUE-Lehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
Conservatives will never support a carbon tax so long as they fear it will be used to promote more intrusive government,
more spending, and more control over individuals' lives. But if the left convincingly made the case that they are willing
to give up new revenue, new regulations, and new resource development restrictions to make it happen, conservative
support for a carbon tax is within the realm of possibility. But progressives will have to make certain policy concessions
to get there.
IF THE LEFT GIVES UP ON CARBON TAXES GOING TO EXPAND "GREEN GOVERNMENT," A POLITICAL COALITION CAN
BE BUILT TO SUPPORT CARBON TAXES-Lehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
But all of these possibilities would require those on the left to come to the table by giving up their own dreams of
recycling carbon tax proceeds into "green jobs" schemes and other boondoggles beloved of progressives. Some
environmentalists are on board with the notion of a revenue-neutral carbon tax (although many insist on difficult-toadminister schemes that would provide a "dividend" to taxpayers), but that cohort shrinks significantly when it's
proposed that the tax replace EPA regulations, much less preempt energy-related regulations like fleet fuel-economy
standards for automobiles. To have any chance of political success, a carbon tax would have to do exactly these things.
CARBON TAXES COULD BUILD COALITIONS OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS-Harvey '15
[Chelsea; These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon - and give their residents a nice paycheck; The Washington
Post; 10 November 2015; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-couldbe-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/; retrieved 5 January 2016]
"We're hoping to build kind of a coalition between environmentalists and businesses and Republicans and Democrats,"
he said. "It's going to be a challenge. You know, there's a lot of Republican constituencies who maybe haven't had
climate change on the top of their list, but we think also that the awareness is that something needs to be done about
climate change."
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 23
A CARBON TAX CAN PROVIDE A SOLUTION THAT EVEN THE POLITICAL RIGHT CAN SUPPORT: ONE WITH A SMALLER,
LESS POWERFUL GOVERNMENT-Moylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
The best policy to address greenhouse gas emissions, while adhering to conservative principles, is a carbon tax
combined with tax and regulatory reform. Merely uttering the phrase "carbon tax" strikes fear into the heart of many on
the right. This is understandable, to the extent that what conservatives actually fear is a plan that would layer energy
taxes on top of the overly burdensome tax and regulatory regime we already have.
But one need not engage in climate alarmism or capitulate to big government to make a case for a revenue-neutral
carbon tax. In fact, President Obama's recent speech helps illustrate why the right needs to consider one more seriously.
A conservative carbon tax has three key components: revenue neutrality, elimination of existing taxes, and regulatory
reform. When combined, these policies would yield a smaller, less powerful government; a tax code more conducive to
investment and growth; and the emissions reductions the law says we must achieve.
CARBON TAXES COULD BE USED FOR TAX REFORM THAT DECREASES TAX RATES ELSEWHERE, CREATING POLITICAL
SUPPORT ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM-Davenport '12
[Coral; Carbon and the Tax-Reform Conversation; The National Journal; 3 May 2012; Gale Group Databases]
The overall objective will be to boost U.S. global competitiveness and to simplify the code by lowering the 35 percent
corporate tax rate and eliminating a host of breaks and loopholes. Lawmakers will also be grappling with the nation's
staggering budget deficit and how to close it. That's where a potential deal on carbon comes in.
A tax on carbon--which is produced by almost every aspect of the U.S. energy economy, from coal-fired power plants to
gasoline-burning automobiles--would raise the cost of coal and oil, drive consumers to new forms of energy, and
potentially increase the nation's tax revenues. Republicans and fossil-fuel interest groups have slammed the idea for
years as an unacceptable drag on the economy. But the bet is that in a broader fight about billions of dollars, corporate
America might be willing to accept a new tax on carbon pollution in exchange for lower rates somewhere else.
PROMINENT CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT CARBON TAXES-Davenport '12
[Coral; Carbon and the Tax-Reform Conversation; The National Journal; 3 May 2012; Gale Group Databases]
The carbon tax has lots of other conservative friends, starting with Mitt Romney's economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw.
An influential Harvard economics professor, Mankiw wrote a 2007 op-ed in The New York Times calling for a carbon tax
as a solution to climate change. Conservative economist Arthur Laffer, a member of Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy
Advisory Board who is sometimes known as the father of Reaganomics, is also a supporter. Even the right-leaning
American Enterprise Institute has put forth a budget proposal that includes a carbon tax. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
who advised Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and is now president of the conservative think tank
American Action Forum, has endorsed various forms of carbon-pricing policy.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 24
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY BUSINESS INTERESTS
CARBON TAXES ARE SUPPORTED BY CORPORATE INTERESTS IN AMERICAN, INCLUDING THE ENERGY INDUSTRYDavenport '12
[Coral; Carbon and the Tax-Reform Conversation; The National Journal; 3 May 2012; Gale Group Databases]
Despite that history, the carbon tax has some powerful corporate allies, chief among them Exxon Mobil. Two years ago,
the energy giant let the White House know that although it didn't support the complicated cap-and-trade bill that
ultimately passed the House, it did support a straight carbon tax. Exxon Mobil, a lobbying force and a major donor to
Republican political campaigns, stands by that position today.
CARBON TAXES WOULD ADVANTAGE BUSINESSES THAT CAN DECREASE THEIR CARBON FOOTPRINT WHILE BEING
ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
On the positive side, however, if a particular business can reduce its carbon tax liability more than others in its industry
while matching competitors' prices and earning higher profits, it [*7] would have a substantial incentive to widen the
gap between its carbon use and that of the industry norm.
CARBON TAXES OFFER TAX CERTAINTY, WHICH GIVES BUSINESSES A BETTER FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING, MAKING
THE POLICY MORE BUSINESS FRIENDLY-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
A carbon tax ensures Cost Certainty: the cost is the amount of the tax, and whatever the incidence of the tax (i.e.,
whether it can be passed on to consumers or not), the cost cannot rise above the tax rate. This enables businesses to
plan ahead, secure in the knowledge that raising the tax rate beyond any automatic adjustment, which can be planned
for, requires another vote in Congress that they can hope to influence.
A cap and trade regime, on the other hand, suffers from inherent Cost Uncertainty. While allowances may be initially
distributed for free, the key question for polluting businesses that need to acquire allowances to address a reduction in
the cap is what would be the future price of allowances. Existing cap and trade programs like the Southern California
RECLAIM system for nitrogen oxide emissions, in which the allowance prices spiked in 2000 to more than twenty times
their historical level, and the EU Emission Trading [*43] Scheme (ETS), in which the price of allowances collapsed when
it became clear that too many allowances had been distributed, illustrate the problem of Cost Uncertainty in cap and
trade programs. n143 Cost Uncertainty makes it inherently difficult for businesses to plan ahead. n144 The fundamental
problem is that the reduction in the cap that is built into cap and trade would necessarily make allowances more
expensive. How much more expensive depends on the development of future technologies, which cannot be predicted
with any accuracy over the longer time period (fifty years or more) required for a cap and trade program to achieve its
environmental goals.
Cap and trade proponents argue that Cost Uncertainty can be mitigated by provisions for banking extra allowances for
use in future years, and borrowing allowances from future years to use in the present. n145 These provisions add
complexity, and it is unclear whether they will be effective: in the early years of the program, there are few allowances
to bank, while borrowing risks leaving the business with insufficient allowances in the future when the cap is lower.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 25
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
LARGE MULTINATIONAL ENERGY COMPANIES HAVE COME OUT IN FAVOR OF CARBON TAXES-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
In a welcome development, businesses are asking world leaders to do more to address climate change. This week, the
top executives of six large European oil and gas companies called for a tax on carbon emissions.
These companies -- the BG Group, BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil and Total -- are not taking a bold environmental
stand. They are being pragmatic. They want an efficient and predictable policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions
because they realize something must be done. Numerous scientists, economists, environmentalists and political leaders
have previously proposed similar ideas.
EVEN THOSE THAT ECONOMICALLY DEPEND ON PETROLEUM SUPPORT CARBON TAXES-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
Even energy companies like Exxon Mobil that did not sign the letter have previously said they can support a carbon tax if
lawmakers cut other taxes by an equal amount. In addition, oil companies in Alberta, the home of Canada's tar sands,
have endorsed a carbon tax. Exxon Mobil and other large energy companies potentially stand to benefit from a carbon
tax, because a tax on emissions would force many electric utilities to use more natural gas, which those businesses
produce.
THE ENERGY INDUSTRY HAS COME OUT IN FAVOR OF CARBON TAXES-Reguly '15
[Eric; On carbon tax, Harper has fallen behind; Globe & Mail; 6 June 2015; page B1]
Mr. Harper is also apparently deaf to the cries of the energy industry itself. Steve Williams, chief executive officer of
Canadian oil sands giant Suncor Energy, has endorsed the need for a "broad-based carbon price." Two months ago, in an
open letter to Canada's premiers, the heads of several companies, including Shell Canada, Loblaw, McKinsey & Co. and
Desjardins Group, urged the use of carbon-pricing mechanisms to help make Canada a leader in clean technologies.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 26
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY ECONOMISTS
CARBON TAXES HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF SUPPORTERS ACROSS THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SPECTRUM-Davenport
'12
[Coral; Carbon and the Tax-Reform Conversation; The National Journal; 3 May 2012; Gale Group Databases]
What do Exxon Mobil, the nation's biggest oil company and a powerhouse of GOP influence, and Rep. Henry Waxman,
the liberal California Democrat and a well-known foe of big oil, have in common? They both--along with a long list of
influential economic thinkers from across the political spectrum--support the idea of putting a price on the carbon
pollution that causes global warming.
ECONOMISTS ARE CONSIDER NEAR CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF A CARBON TAXES, EVEN THOUGH IT IS CONSIDERED
POLITICAL SUICIDE-Davenport '12
[Coral; Carbon and the Tax-Reform Conversation; The National Journal; 3 May 2012; Gale Group Databases]
"There's a silent consensus on this in the country among thinking economists," Robert McNally, who served as a senior
energy adviser to President George W. Bush and an energy adviser to Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, told
National Journal, "but it's considered political suicide."
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
CARBON TAX GOOD: SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC
Page 27
THE PUBLIC WOULD BE OPEN TO ACTION ON GREENHOUSE GASSES, LIKE A CARBON TAX OR CAP AND TRADE-AviYonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
However, 2009 is not 1993. The public has shown overwhelming support in the United States for decisive action to curb
greenhouse gas emissions. When asked, Americans express just as much willingness to support a carbon tax as a cap and
trade regime (which is more difficult to explain). n151 If a new administration were to propose a carbon tax in 2009, the
political consequences might be less than past experience suggests, especially if the revenue is segregated and used to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although this clearly is the most significant practical challenge facing a carbon tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 28
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALLOW US TO ENGAGE OTHER NATIONS ON CLIMATE
WHILE A CARBON TAX WILL NOT FIX GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE, IT COULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF THE KIND
OF ACTION REQUIRED TO MEET THE CHALLENGE-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
The global climate change crisis will not be resolved simply by implementing a carbon tax or a cap and trade system - or
by any other legislative approach. Fundamental changes in energy production, development, and conservation, as well
as changes in transportation, land use, and natural resource policies, must be pursued alongside efforts to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions.
An effective carbon mitigation strategy, however, will be the centerpiece of any successful program to combat global
climate change. While the widespread embrace of cap and trade is a positive development after decades of inaction,
before we move forward we should pause to consider whether a cap and trade system is the best approach to
combating global climate change. This Article demonstrates that a better response to global climate change would be a
carbon tax that is adjusted over time to achieve the necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the
corresponding improvements in alternative energy sources and land and resource management practices that are
essential to conserving our planet for future generations.
A CARBON TAX IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR ENGAGING OTHER POLLUTERS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES-Nader and
Heaps '10
[Ralph, Consumer Advocate and Toby, Coordinator of Option 13; A Carbon Tax Will Help Curb Global Warming; Global
Warming; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
If President Barack Obama wants to stop the descent toward dangerous global climate change, and avoid the trade
anarchy that current approaches to this problem will invite, he should take [former vice president and environmental] Al
Gore's proposal for a carbon tax and make it global. A tax on CO2 emissions—not a cap-and-trade system—offers the
best prospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., while avoiding the prospect of unhinged environmental
protectionism.
A CARBON TAX OR EVEN CAP AND TRADE SHOW THE WORLD WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASSES AND
PROVIDE NEEDED GLOBAL LEADERSHIP-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
From this perspective, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, both a carbon tax and a
cap and trade system serve the essential function of persuading the rest of the world that we are serious, and therefore
that they should cooperate in a global policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Both cap and trade and a carbon tax are
equally useful from that perspective, but for the reasons explained above, a carbon tax can be implemented much faster
than cap and trade and, therefore, is preferable from the standpoint of international leadership. Stated differently,
Benefit Certainty requires bringing large developing countries to the bargaining table, and a carbon tax is better and
faster in doing so than cap and trade.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 29
CARBON TAX GOOD: ALLOWS THE WORLD TO FOCUS ON THE BIGGEST OFFENDERS ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
A WORLD WIDE CARBON TAX MOVEMENT WOULD SHIFT TAX BURDEN TO COUNTRIES THAT DO HOLD RESPONSBILITY
FOR PEDDLING PRODUCTS THAT ARE HEAVY CARBON EMISSION PRODUCERS-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
This second point may have great potential. If only one nation imposes a carbon tax, it may be that much of that tax
would be borne by that nation's population. Under these conditions, world carbon prices will largely be set in carbontax-free markets, and the few carbon-taxing nations' populations will have to pay much of the carbon tax. If most
nations impose a carbon tax, however, it may be that more of the tax will be borne by the producers of carbon; world
carbon prices will be set in largely carbon-taxed markets, with more of the tax absorbed by the producers. This shift of
carbon taxes to carbon producers could help undo the recent shift in world balances of power to the carbon-exporting
nations such as Iran and Venezuela - with their arguably authoritarian regimes - and return world power back to carbonconsuming nations.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 30
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN ALL ALTERNATIVES
CARBON TAXES ARE MORE EFFICIENT THAN OTHER ALTERNATIVES AIMED AT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS-Zycher
'14
[Benjamin; Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and
Broadly Wrong; The American; 31 January 2014; https://www.aei.org/publication/the-efficiency-of-a-carbon-taxbroadly-accepted-and-broadly-wrong/; retrieved 3 January 2016]
Making an argument broadly accepted among economists, Sita Slavov, my colleague at the American Enterprise
Institute, recently wrote that a carbon tax “set to reflect the spillover costs of carbon emissions” would be a policy more
efficient than such interventions as light-bulb bans and energy consumption standards for appliances, sometimes called
“command-and-control” policies. The tax would allow consumers to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG)
attendant upon their energy consumption patterns in ways that minimize the costs of doing so. Bans and performance
standards, on the other hand, allow for far less flexibility, and thus would achieve a given GHG reduction at a cost higher
than necessary.
CARBON TAXES HAVE LESS OVERALL IMPACT ON THE FREE MARKET THAN OTHER SOLUTIONS-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
With a carbon tax, the price of goods fluctuates with the market and carbon taxation follows the market; that is, if more
of a certain carbon-intensive good is being used, then more carbon taxes are collected. n110 Carbon taxation doesn't
require spending on market studies to determine the appropriate "cap" the way a cap-and-trade system does; carbon
taxation needs no such model. n111
A carbon taxation system is superior to other systems because it creates less interference overall with the market.
"Government policy can and should correct market failures, but should do so by sending simple price signals, not by
trying to simulate an efficient economy through governmental policy and expenditures." n112
CARBON TAXES DO THE BEST OF ALL SOLUTIONS OF CORRECTING ISSUES WITH THE MARKET-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
The Government should allow the private market to make market decisions as much as possible while identifying
sources of market failure and determining how to correct those market failures in the least disruptive manner possible.
Carbon taxation does this better than any of the previously described methods. n120 The Government should not make
decisions about particular carbon-reducing technologies, because "it is important that [*289] climate policy remain
"technology-neutral' - that it not push vast economies and governments toward any particular technology, no matter
how attractive." n121
When the Government sets the incentives through a Pigouvian tax system, the polluters generally respond to those
incentives by reducing their emissions. Using the optimal solution may differ depending upon the industry. For instance,
"[a] polluter could find a way of running low-NO<x> burners more efficiently that costs more, but that improves
emissions rate and reduces pollution. If the pollution savings offset the extra cost, the polluter would pursue it under a
Pigouvian tax system ... ." n122
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 31
THE CARBON TAX CAN REPLACE INEFFICIENT MEANS TO ACHIEVING ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS-Bailey
'13
[Ronald, Science Correspondent; Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?; Reason; 16 January 2013;
https://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/should-the-us-adopt-a-carbon-tax-to-cont; retrieved 3 January 2016]
Let’s take a look. Most economists prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would be imposed at the mine-head for
coal, the wellhead for natural gas, and at the refinery-gate for petroleum products. Revenue neutral means the tax
would not increase government revenues, but would replace other taxes. One often-heard proposal is a dollar-for-dollar
reduction in taxes on labor (the payroll tax) and on capital (the corporate income tax). One significant upside is that
reducing taxes on labor and capital boosts economic growth by encouraging people to work harder and invest more.
Another plus is that carbon taxes would ideally displace top-down command-and-control regulations such as the
Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules on electric power plant emissions and subsidies to wind, solar, and
bioethanol energy production.
A CARBON TAX IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHER TOOLS FOR ADDRESSING CARBON EMISSIONS AND WARMINGWaggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
This carbon tax would have two major purposes. First, imposing a tax on carbon production would create an incentive to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This reduction is desirable because carbon dioxide emissions appear to be contributing
significantly to global warming and climate change, developments that may cause serious environmental damage. n2
The carbon tax may be a better tool for carbon reduction than [*3] alternatives such as subsidies, regulation, or capand-trade. n3 However, the solution for reducing carbon emissions may include all four of these and other approaches,
as a matter of both practical politics and administrative feasibility.
But…
CARBON TAXES CAN EASILY CO-EXIST WITH OTHER SOLUTIONS-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
Choosing to implement a carbon tax system does not necessarily preclude implementing other effective solutions. "A
carbon tax could coexist with all of the... alternative policy measures considered... (though implementing the others may
undermine the efficiency benefits of the carbon tax)." n119
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 32
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN REGULATION
PARTICULARLY TO CONSERVATIVES, A CARBON TAX IS PREFERABLE TO HEAVY-HANDED REGULATION SCHEMESLehrer '14
[Eli; Better Than Regulation; A carbon tax won't happen without some give from the left; The Weekly Standard; 10
November 2014; Gale Group Databases]
The precipitating event that forces consideration of such trade-offs was the Supreme Court's 2007 decision more or less
requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. While there
are reasons to question the court's ruling, it will be nearly impossible to overturn. With bureaucrats set to regulate
carbon dioxide, a carbon tax begins to look like an attractive alternative to the morass of costly regulations the Obama
administration's EPA intends to impose. The only other commonly discussed alternative--enacting a carbon-trading
scheme, such as the cap and trade bill that passed the House in 2009--has proved nearly impossible to implement in any
democracy. The European Union's scheme has already collapsed twice, and a major one in California seems to be
degenerating into a slush fund.
REGULATORY APPROACHES WOULD BE TOO PRONE TO LITIGATION TO TAKE THE IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED-AviYonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
While regulatory tools are available to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and their use may be desirable as part of a
broad-based approach to climate change mitigation, most of the debate among policymakers and scholars has focused
on market-based approaches to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The emphasis on market-based approaches may reflect
in part the inherent complexity [*29] of the Clean Air Act and the delays that would face any regulatory system to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, if past experience under the Clean Air Act is any guide, litigation would ensue
once a new regulatory regime was established, leading to even greater delays in carbon dioxide reductions. n104
CARBON TAXES ARE SUPERIOR TO REGULATIONS-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Regulations might set limits on the allowable emissions of CO2. The problem with a limit is that it gives no incentive to
those already below the limit to improve further even though a significant increase in efficiency could be obtained
inexpensively, and it may close operations above the limit whose output is still needed.
Regulations may be effective, but they may also have unintended consequences. The original Corporate Average Fuel
Economy ("CAFE") standards attempted to reduce gasoline consumption by increasing the miles per gallon of cars sold in
the United States. n72 Although CAFE improved gas mileage in cars, CAFE did not apply to trucks such as minivans, sport
utility vehicles, and pickup trucks, so CAFE contributed to the expansion of production of these gas-guzzling vehicles.
A carbon tax would not present problems like these, although it would raise other issues, as discussed in the text.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 33
EXISTING TOOLS FOR DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, LIKE EPA ACTION, DO NOT GET TO THE GLOBAL NATURE OF
THE PROBLEM-Moylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
Even if Congress does nothing, the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide emissions through the
spectacularly ill-fitting mechanisms of the Clean Air Act. That law, a creature of the 1970s regulatory state, was designed
to regulate--within circumscribed geographical areas--gases such as benzene or oxides of nitrogen that pose immediate
risks to human health in high concentrations.
Carbon dioxide emissions, by contrast, are global in nature. A ton of CO2 emitted in Peoria or Pyongyang has basically
the same impact on the environment and will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Carbon dioxide also happens to be
necessary for plant life and does not by itself pose immediate negative consequences for human health.
DESPITE ITS LEGALITY, USING THE EPA TO REGULATE CLIMATE CHANGE WILL HURT THE ECONOMY AND ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE-Moylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA found the agency has authority to
regulate greenhouse gases if they are found to endanger public health. In the aftermath of this ruling, the EPA issued an
"endangerment finding" that asserted the agency's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Although there are
good reasons to question the court's decision, it is now settled law. Subsequent efforts to reverse the finding through
litigation have failed, and a landmark U.S. Senate vote to strip the EPA's authority in 2010 attracted only 53 of the 60
needed votes.
In a speech at Georgetown University in June, President Obama outlined the EPA's complex and expensive scheme to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, a plan likely to cause serious disruption to electricity
generation and to the economy as a whole. Earlier executive action had already applied stricter standards for building
new electricity-generation facilities, making it effectively impossible to build coal-fired power plants. But applying the
heavy hand of the EPA to existing facilities is poised to be the game changer.
USING REGULATION TO BATTLE CLIMATE CHANGE WILL PUSH THE ECONOMY DOWN BY A FACTOR OF BILLIONSMoylan '13
[Andrew; Senior Fellow and Outreach Director at the R Street Institute; How to tax carbon: conservatives can fight
climate change without growing government; The American Conservative; September-October 2013; page 16]
The best estimates about what such a regulatory scheme will cost are staggering. A study from the National Association
of Manufacturers estimated that six greenhouse gas regulations alone will weigh the economy down by a minimum of
$142 billion per year and potentially, when other costs are included, as much as $630 billion per year--nearly 4 percent
of U.S. GDP in 2012. That's roughly equivalent to half of all corporate income-tax revenues, imposed in a highly uneven
and opaque manner. Even worse, costly carbon regulation will be layered on top of all the other burdens borne by
businesses and individuals with no offsets whatsoever.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 34
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN SUBSIDIES
SUBSIDIES ARE A POOR ALTERNATIVE TO A CARBON TAX AS WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Examples of subsidies would include tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient automobiles, 26 U.S.C. § 30 (2007), or for
installing home renewable energy systems, 26 U.S.C. § 25C (2007). A major problem with subsidies is that we may not be
able to afford them in light of the very large federal deficits and national debt.
Subsidies may effectively encourage the development of new technologies or bring to the citizen the benefit of positive
externalities, but they also may go awry. For example, the subsidies for solar collectors in the Carter Administration
often produced equipment with high prices and low quality. n71
TAXING BAD IS SUPERIOR TO SUBSIDIZING GOOD-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
It has been seemingly presumed, as evidenced by the provisions of the tax code, that "physical capital in the form of
[*288] buildings, facilities, and structures is an unambiguous good." n114 Favorable tax treatment given through the
Internal Revenue Code is a form of a subsidy. Perhaps the recent climate change debate has caused at least some people
to question the logic of encouraging economic growth in this manner. According to the Stern Review, "climate change is
the greatest market failure the world has ever seen." n115
Carbon taxation provides an answer to the market failure problem. Taxing the "bads" is superior to subsidizing goods
because the "bads" or causes of the climate change problem are easier to identify than the proper solutions. n116 Also,
what we think today might be the correct solution might change at some point in the future when better solutions are
found. n117 Finally, "carbon tax is capital neutral: it does not encourage the formation of expensive physical capital that
would inhibit future changes in production." n118
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 35
CARBON TAX GOOD: BETTER THAN CAP AND TRADE
CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES MUST BE ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF MORE DRAMATIC ACTION LIKE CARBON TAXES-McKie
'10
[Robin; Science Editor of the Observer; The World Must Curtail Greenhouse Emissions Even Faster than Previously
Thought; Conserving the Environment; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
After eight years of opposing moves to combat climate change, thanks to the policies of President George [W.] Bush, the
US has given itself no time for manoeuvre, he said. Only drastic, immediate change can save the day and those changes
proposed by Hansen—who appeared in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and is a winner of the World Wildlife Fund's top
conservation award—are certainly far-reaching. In particular, the idea of continuing with "cap-and-trade" schemes,
which allow countries to trade allowances and permits for emitting carbon dioxide, must now be scrapped, he insisted.
Such schemes, encouraged by the Kyoto climate treaty, were simply "weak tea" and did not work. "The United States
did not sign Kyoto, yet its emissions are not that different from the countries that did sign it."
Thus plans to include carbon trading schemes in talks about future climate agreements were a desperate error, he said.
"It's just greenwash. I would rather the forthcoming Copenhagen climate talks fail than we agree to a bad deal," Hansen
said.
CARBON TAXES SPUR MORE INNOVATION THAT CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
Another reason that carbon taxation is superior in spurring innovation over a cap-and-trade program is because
innovation will actually reduce the value of the allowances held under a cap-and-trade program. n128 This is so because
if polluters can produce [*290] goods more efficiently, i.e. with less pollution, then those polluters will need fewer
allowances to produce the goods driving the price of the allowance down. n129 Thus, under a cap-and-trade system it is
possible for innovation to actually be discouraged. n130
CARBON TAX PROPOSALS ARE LIKELY MORE SIMPLE THAN CAP AND TRADE-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
The leading cap and trade proposal pending in Congress is the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008. n130 It is
an exceedingly long and complicated bill of over three hundred pages. Other cap and trade proposals have similar
lengthy and complex provisions over hundreds of pages. There are far fewer carbon tax proposals, but the leading one,
sponsored by United States Representative John B. Larson, is seventeen pages long. n131
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 36
A CARBON TAX PROVIDES TAX CERTAINTY, MAKING IT A SUPERIOR CHOICE OVER CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES-AviYonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
Both a carbon tax and cap and trade are market-based mechanisms for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore
have [*36] advantages over traditional regulatory controls, for the reasons explained above. n125 However, a carbon
tax and cap and trade also differ in one important theoretical dimension, as well as in many important practical ones.
Cap and trade, because it imposes an overall cap on the level of emissions permitted in the economy, provides certainty
as to the environmental benefit that results from its implementation (Benefit Certainty). However, precisely because it
imposes a fixed cap without regard to the cost to the economy at large or to individual polluters of attaining that cap,
cap and trade suffers from lack of certainty in regard to the cost it imposes (Cost Certainty). A carbon tax, on the other
hand, provides Cost Certainty because the precise amount of the tax is set in advance. However, because the effect of
imposing a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions is not knowable in advance, the carbon tax does not offer Benefit
Certainty.
CAP-AND-TRADE IS FOUNDED ON BAD ASSUMPTIONS-Nader and Heaps '10
[Ralph, Consumer Advocate and Toby, Coordinator of Option 13; A Carbon Tax Will Help Curb Global Warming; Global
Warming; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
Cap-and-traders assume, without much justification, that one country can put a price on carbon emissions while another
doesn't without affecting trade or investment decisions. This is a bad assumption, given false comfort by the Montreal
Protocol treaty, which took this approach to successfully rein in ozone-depleting gases. Chlorofluorocarbons are not
pervasive like greenhouse gases (GHGs); nor was the economy of 1987 hyperglobalized like ours today.
Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It
can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions
with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 37
CARBON TAXES ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES THAN CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
A cap-and-trade program creates allowances to pollute. Those allowances might be awarded to those already in the
industry based on their current pollution levels, or they might be owned by the public and auctioned off to industry.
Those most easily able to reduce their pollution might buy the pollution rights of an old polluting facility to allow the
opening of several cleaner facilities. Compared to regulation, cap-and-trade provides incentives for even the cleaner
facilities to improve, while not shuttering the dirty facilities until some new facility is ready to replace the dirty facility's
output. The cap can be set to decrease over time, perhaps five percent annually, to incentivize further cleaning up the
environment.
Cap-and-trade programs can be successful, but the U.N. program on carbon cap-and-trade has drawn criticism. n73
[*34] It is not clear how cap-and-trade will operate in regard to international trade between nations that subscribe to
cap-and-trade and nations that do not or that have significantly differing systems of cap-and-trade. n74
In a cap-and-trade system, someone must decide how to allocate carbon emission allowances. The allowances might be
awarded based on existing emissions, but that system would favor those who now have high emissions because they
have not acted to reduce their emissions and penalize those who have been working hard to lower emissions. Awarding
emissions rights based on evaluation of particular industries and practice is likely to be highly politicized. To have the
public own the right to emit, and then to sell this right to industry, may be desirable, but to do so may be withdrawing
capital from the industries most needing to invest capital in emissions reduction. "The truth, perhaps inevitably, is that
as carbon-cap laws become closer to reality, almost no one is happy. Coal-burning energy firms fear they'll be destroyed.
Environmentalists worry that the energy lobby will gut the bills." n75
A carbon tax would avoid many of these issues.
CARBON TAXES ARE EASIER TO ADMINISTER THAN CAP AND TRADE-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
A carbon tax would also be much easier to administer than some of the other climate change policies that many leaders,
including President Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, have backed. One of those policies is cap-and-trade, an
approach that limits overall emissions and allows businesses to buy and sell permits that entitle them to emit carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The United States used cap-and-trade successfully in the 1990s to reduce the
pollution that causes acid rain. But a European Union trading system for greenhouse gas emissions has not been as
effective.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 38
CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES ARE INHERENTLY COMPLICATED-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
Cap and trade, on the other hand, is inherently more complicated. While the cap can also be imposed "upstream," it has
several features that require complexity. n134 First, baselines need to be set for purposes of establishing the emissions
cap. Second, the proposal needs to determine how allowances will be created and distributed, either for free or by
auction. Free distribution requires deciding which industries receive allowances, while an auction requires a complex
monitoring system to prevent cheating. Third, the trading in allowances needs to be set up and monitored: a system
needs to be devised to prevent the same allowance from being used twice, and penalties need to be established for
polluters who exceed their allowances. Fourth, if allowances are to be traded with other countries, the international
trading of allowances would need to be monitored as well. Fifth, to prevent Cost Uncertainty, [*39] cap and trade
proposals typically have complex provisions for banking and borrowing allowances, and some of them provide for safety
valves. Sixth, offsets are needed for carbon sequestration and similar projects, and those are more complicated than
credits against a carbon tax liability. Finally, most cap and trade proposals involve provisions for coordinating with the
cap and trade policies of other countries, and for punishing countries that do not have a greenhouse gas emissions
control policy. n135
It is important to note that this difference in complexity is inherent in the two policies as initially proposed, before any
legislative amendments and before any implementation and enforcement issues. A pure cap and trade system is
inevitably more complex than any carbon tax.
CAP AND TRADE IS RELATIVELY UNTRIED, WHERE WE HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH EXCISE TAXES LIKE THE
CARBON TAX-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
Cap and trade is also relatively untried: we have never had an economy-wide cap and trade system, while we have
extensive experience with economy-wide excise taxes on a wide variety of products, including gasoline. This is why
Congressman Larson's carbon tax bill can simply envisage adding three new relatively short sections to the existing
excise tax part of the Internal Revenue Code. n136 Cap and trade, on the other hand, is a major new and separate piece
of legislation. A new administration determined to implement cap and trade would probably have to take at least two
years to get the program passed in Congress and set up for implementation, even with swift Congressional action,
because of the inherent delays in the rulemaking process. A carbon tax can be enacted and enforced practically
tomorrow. Given that we have already delayed action for decades, and that every year that passes makes the climate
change problem more difficult to solve, a carbon tax may be preferable to cap and trade - as well as traditional
regulatory approaches - based on timing concerns alone.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 39
CAP AND TRADE IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
In addition to its inherent complexity, cap and trade also is more difficult to enforce. Under cap and trade, an elaborate
mechanism would need to be set up to distribute and collect allowances and to ensure that allowances are real (a
difficult task, [*40] especially if allowances from non-United States programs are permitted) and that polluters are
penalized if they emit greenhouses gases without an allowance. A new administrative body would need to be set up for
this purpose, or at least a new office within EPA, and new employees with the relevant expertise would need to be
hired. A carbon tax, on the other hand, could be enforced by the IRS with its existing staff, which has the relevant
expertise in enforcing other excise taxes.
CAP AND TRADE SCHEMES HAVE TAX POLICY ISSUES WHICH MAKE IT MORE COMPLEX TO IMPLEMENT-Avi-Yonah and
Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
Cap and trade also raises collateral issues that are not present in a carbon tax, such as the need for the Securities and
Exchange Commission to enforce rules regarding futures trading in allowances. A good example is the tax implications of
both policies. A carbon tax, as a federal tax, has no tax implications: it is simply collected and is not deductible.
Allowances under cap and trade, on the other hand, raise a multitude of tax issues: What are the tax implications of
distributing allowances for free? What are the tax implications of trading in allowances? Should allowance exchanges be
permitted to avoid the tax on selling allowances? What amount of the purchase price of a business should be allocated
to its allowances? If borrowing and banking occur, what are the tax consequences? Can allowances be amortized? None
of these issues arise under a carbon tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 40
CARBON TAX GOOD: BC MODEL SHOWS EFFECTIVENESS
BRITISH COLUMBIA SHOWS THAT A CARBON TAX CAN WORK-Harvey '15
[Chelsea; These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon - and give their residents a nice paycheck; The Washington
Post; 10 November 2015; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/these-couldbe-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/; retrieved 5 January 2016]
Many are inspired by British Columbia's carbon tax, which was introduced in 2008 and is widely considered by
economists a prime example of a successful carbon pricing scheme. Currently the only carbon tax in North America, the
tax -- which is revenue neutral, meaning funds are returned to the public rather than kept as revenue by the state (in
this case, in the form of other tax breaks) -- charges $30 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and has so far
reduced fuel consumption by more than 16 percent without harming the Canadian province's economy.
"I think the experience from BC shows that a climate policy like this, a smart well-designed policy, can work," Bauman
said.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 41
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE
PROCEEDS FROM ENERGY TAXES COULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THOSE MOST IMPACTED BY THE CARBON TAXES LIKE
POOR CONSUMERS-The New York Times '15
[Editorial Board; Editorial: The Case for a Carbon Tax; The New York Times, 7 June 2015; page 10L]
Revenue generated by carbon taxes could be used for a variety of purposes. A lot of the money should surely be given to
households, especially the poorest, through tax credits or direct payments to offset the higher prices they would have to
pay for gasoline, electricity and other goods and services because of the tax. Some of the money could be used to invest
in renewable energy and public transportation, or to lower other taxes.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 42
A/T: ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE AGAINST CARBON TAXES
ENVIRONMENTALIST OBJECTION TO CARBON TAXES IS MOSTLY AIMED AT WHAT THE MONEY RAISED WILL BE SPENT
ON-Mankiw '15
[Gregory; Shifting the Tax Burden to Cut Carbon; the New York Times; 6 September 2015; page 6]
Most of the revenue from the measure would be used to reduce the state sales tax by one percentage point. A smaller
amount would be used to reduce taxes on manufacturing companies and to fund a tax rebate of up to $1,500 for lowincome working families. The overall plan is progressive and revenue-neutral. If passed, the initiative would yield a tax
shift, not a tax increase.
That is why some environmentalists are opposed. Rather than rebating the money the carbon tax would raise, they want
to spend it on environmental and other government programs.
To be sure, a person can favor both a more environmentally friendly tax policy and greater government spending. But
there is no good reason to marry these policies. If the goal is to build a political consensus to tackle climate change,
there is good reason not to.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 43
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE TOO BIG OF A POLICY CHANGE
SLOWLY IMPLEMENTING THE CARBON TAX WOULD MAKE ITS POTENTIALLY JARRING IMPACT LESS SIGNIFICANTWaggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
The carbon tax should be phased in over several years, with low initial rates that slowly but substantially increase, to
allow both consumers and producers to adjust gradually to the new system. Old energy-intensive personal and business
investments will lose their value under a system of carbon reduction. However, allowing time for the change will permit
the value of the old investments to be recovered through depreciation because they will be used for a period not much
shorter than their normal useful life. That useful life, it may be noted, will already be shortened by the increasing prices
of energy, which will in many cases make old investments economically impractical well before their physical useful lives
are exhausted. As a matter of both politics and equity, it would be unwise to impose windfall losses unnecessarily. The
mirror image of phasing out the old is developing and implementing the new. It will take time to develop and create the
ability to mass produce new energy-efficient products and processes, and one would not want unnecessarily large and
sudden windfall gains to those who own such assets. A carbon tax enacted with low initial rates, but with steady and
eventually substantial rate increases, would allow a smooth and fair transition from our current system to one much less
carbon-intensive. n27
Even after an initial phase-in, carbon tax rates should continue to rise to promote further reductions in carbon
emissions. Ultimately, these rates may be expected to become high enough to virtually eliminate net carbon emissions,
so that the current high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can begin to return to normal. Thus, ideally the
carbon tax yield eventually will decline, even though the rates will have become quite high, because net carbon
emissions will have been reduced significantly. n28
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 44
A/T: CONSUMERS WILL PAY OUTRAGEOUS PRICES FOR ENERGY AND GOODS
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF PRICE SHIFTING WITH A CARBON TAX-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Second, it is not clear that the price of consumed carbon will rise by the amount of the carbon tax. Some of the tax may
be absorbed by the producers of carbon. The degree of price-shifting depends on the relative elasticities of supply n5
and demand, n6 but it is unlikely that the tax will be borne entirely by consumers. One would expect sales of carbonbased products to fall because of the price increase created by the carbon tax. To mitigate that drop in sales, the
producer of those carbon-based products might slightly reduce the price to avoid an overly steep drop in sales, thus
absorbing part of the tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 45
A/T: ALL TAXES ARE BAD!!
REJECTING A CARBON TAX ON FACE AS A TAX DOESN'T ANALYZE THE TRUE NATURE OF THE POLICY OPTION-Hirsch '15
[Todd; Chief Economist, ATB Financial; Our new carbon direction is just, and just in time; Globe & Mail; 29 November
2015; page B7]
But one word jumped off the pages of Premier Rachel Notley's speaking notes that confirmed what some Albertans
suspected from the New Democrats the whole time: tax. A $20-a-tonne carbon tax (or fee, as I prefer to use) comes into
effect in 2017, increasing to $30 a tonne in 2018.
Predictably, the anti-tax lobby groups and opposition parties lost their minds.
But the problem with their endless rant is that it goes like this: Be it resolved that all tax is bad. And therefore, a tax on
carbon is bad, too. Be it also resolved that all taxes should be referred to as a "tax grab on hard-working families." And
because a tax on carbon is a tax, it too is a "tax grab on hard-working families." And that's very bad.
This is as sophisticated as their debate on carbon taxes ever gets. That's unfortunate, because there could be reasonable
alternatives to a straight carbon tax. But it's unintelligently called a tax grab and no other solutions to reduce carbon are
ever offered.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 46
A/T: MARKET IS ALREADY TAKING CARE OF CARBON!
VOLUNTEER SYSTEMS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE ANY LASTING IMPACT-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
But the notion that voluntary measures, even with government support, can produce the necessary reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions is beyond wishful thinking. Indeed, during the eight years of the Bush Administration, carbon
dioxide emissions in the United States continued to grow. n82 As noted above, the United States remains a leading
source of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is unlikely that the developed world will agree to mandatory reductions in
2012, if the United States has not taken steps to reduce its emissions before then. The new President and Congress in
2009 face the imperative of adopting measures to control greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and thereby
establishing American credibility for the international negotiations on the next climate change treaty.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 47
A/T: CARBON TAX MAY NOT HELP GREENHOUSE GASSES
SHOULDN'T REJECT THE CARBON TAX DUE TO BENEFIT UNCERTAINTY-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
However, there are several reasons not to reject the carbon tax because of Benefit Uncertainty. First, as pointed out
above, cap and trade may in fact be subject to similar Benefit Uncertainty, because if costs rise too high one can expect
pressure to adjust the cap, even if there is no built-in safety valve.
Second, the tax rate can in fact be adjusted. General experience with other taxes has shown that once a tax is in place, it
is usually not as hard to raise its rate despite political opposition to [*47] tax hikes; this is why people say that "an old
tax is a good tax." The United States income tax began in 1913 with a rate of one percent, and has been raised (and
lowered) many times since then (although Americans have become increasingly unwilling to accept tax increases). The
Value Added Tax (VAT), which is now the most important tax in the world, was typically introduced in over 100 countries
at a much lower rate than the current one. n155 If it becomes clear that the carbon tax rate needs to be raised to
achieve the necessary reduction in emissions, and if voters remain convinced of the need to reduce emissions, historical
experience suggests that the rate could be raised, notwithstanding the political challenges.
Finally, neither cap and trade (without a safety valve) nor a carbon tax can truly achieve Benefit Certainty, because the
desired level of emissions (450 ppm) is based on worldwide emissions, not United States emissions. We can have the
strictest cap and trade regime and suffer the full cost, but if China and India do nothing, we will not have Benefit
Certainty.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 48
A/T: EXEMPTIONS WILL KILL SOLVENCY
CARBON TAXES ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE WEAKENED BY EXEMPTIONS-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
However, it is not clear that a carbon tax would necessarily be weakened by any exemptions. This Article supports a
proposal that would apply the tax upstream to only three industries: coal, oil, and natural gas producers and importers.
None of these three industries is in a particularly good position to argue for exemptions vis-a-vis the other two, and the
ultimate incidence of the tax is too unclear for other industries to effectively argue for exemptions.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 49
CON
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO CERTAIN IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GASSES
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN HUMAN-CREATING WARMING OR NOT, CARBON TAXES WILL NO DEAL WITH CLIMATE
CHANGE-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Even if one concludes that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are leading to increased temperatures—and
there is robust debate and far from a public consensus on the magnitude of man-made warming, particularly among
conservatives—a carbon tax would be counterproductive because it would do next to nothing to lower global
temperature, while it would harm American manufacturing competitiveness, create a new revenue stream based on
behavior modification, and harm low-income Americans.
CARBON TAXES WILL MEET NONE OF THEIR STATED GOALS-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Enacting a carbon tax is an unwise policy and against conservative principles because, among other reasons, a carbon
tax would:
Do next to nothing for GHG emissions and the environment,
Harm American manufacturing competitiveness,
Create a new revenue stream based on behavior modification, and
Hit low-income Americans especially hard.[15]
THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO BENEFIT TO GREENHOUSE GASSES WITH A CARBON TAX-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
The main substantive disadvantage of a carbon tax compared to cap and trade is Benefit Uncertainty. There can be no
assurance that any given tax level will result in the desired reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. If the desired benefit
is not achieved, the tax may have to be raised, resulting in renewed political opposition, which could defeat the tax
increase and thereby limit the environmental benefits of the tax.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 50
CARBON TAXES BRING UNCLEAR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Cap-and-trade and a carbon tax are two ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If planners knew the market’s behavior
perfectly, then a cap-and-trade system and carbon tax could put the same price on emissions, achieving exactly the
same effect—reduced emissions and higher prices for fossil fuel–powered energy and products. Planners cannot know
such information, so the proposals look to achieve different goals: A cap-and-trade system includes a strict limit on the
amount of GHGs emitted but unclear costs, while a carbon tax imposes higher known costs but unclear emissions
reductions.
THE SMALL IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NOT WORTH THE ECONOMIC LOSS WITH CARBON TAXES-Kreutzer
'14
[David W.; Senior Research Fellow @ the Heritage Foundation; Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy; Testimony
before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; 16 September 2014;
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-us-economy; retrieved 3
January 2016]
Estimates of a carbon tax’s impact on world temperature do not lend much support for a carbon tax. Climatologists Pat
Michaels and Chip Knappenberger provides an online calculator to estimate the impact of various cuts in CO2
emissions.[5] The calculations are based on the MAGICC model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research.
The AEO2014 side case for the $25 per ton carbon tax would cut energy-related CO2 emissions by about 50 percent by
2050 (overall emissions would probably drop by a slightly smaller percentage). These cuts translate to a temperature
moderation of about 0.05 degrees centigrade (about 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of this century. Few would
argue that this virtually unmeasurable impact is worth the million lost jobs and trillions of dollars of lost income.
CARBON TAXES WILL HAVE RELATIVELY SMALL IMPACT ON THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE-Bailey '13
[Ronald, Science Coorespondent; Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?; Reason; 16 January 2013;
https://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/should-the-us-adopt-a-carbon-tax-to-cont; retrieved 3 January 2016]
It is likely that such a high tax would result in significant carbon dioxide emissions reductions. But what might a U.S.
carbon tax by itself achieve with regard to altering the course of future man-made climate change? Not all that much,
argues Chip Knappenberger, the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian think tank, the
Cato Institute. Knappenberger points out that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects an
increase in global average temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Assuming the projected
trajectory of overall global emissions by all countries, if the U.S. were somehow to completely eliminate all of its
greenhouse gas emissions now that would reduce future warming by only 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100. In other words,
the globe would warm by 2.8 degrees Celsius instead of by 3.0 degrees Celsius.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 51
CARBON TAXES BAD: SUCK MONEY OF THE ECONOMY
CARBON TAXES MEAN 1,000,000 JOBS LOST AND A TRILLION OF INCOME LOSS BY 2030-Kreutzer '14
[David W.; Senior Research Fellow @ the Heritage Foundation; Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy; Testimony
before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; 16 September 2014;
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-us-economy; retrieved 3
January 2016]
Hydrocarbon fuels provide 85 percent of energy in the U.S. So, a tax on carbon-dioxide will drive up energy costs. These
higher energy costs work their way through the economy raising costs of production, reducing income and reducing
employment. Analyses by both The Heritage Foundation and the Energy Information Administration project impacts of
carbon taxes that show employment losses exceeding 1,000,000 jobs and income losses (GDP) exceeding a trillion
dollars by 2030.
CARBON TAXES, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, SUCK MONEY OUT OF THE ECONOMY-Parkinson '15
[David; Alberta has options to cushion its carbon tax; Globe and Mail; 25 November 2015; page B2]
The commitment to inject the funds back into the economy on new investments - rather than, say, simply using it to
reduce the province's budget deficit (forecast at nearly $5-billion in the first year of the carbon tax) - at least addresses
part of the economic risk of imposing the new tax; namely, that it would suck $3-billion out of an economy that for the
next several years can ill afford it.
ANALYSIS AFTER ANALYSIS PROVES THAT CARBON TAXES WILL MEAN JOB LOSSES IN THE UNITED STATES-Kreutzer '14
[David W.; Senior Research Fellow @ the Heritage Foundation; Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy; Testimony
before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; 16 September 2014;
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-us-economy; retrieved 3
January 2016]
Again, it should be noted that the NEMS and the HEM both include the changes in behavior and investment in energysaving technology that firms and households will undertake to adjust to higher prices. So, the projected income and job
losses are over and above any offsetting gains found in industries and services that provide low-carbon and no-carbon
alternatives.
The Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (the most current edition) also has a $25 per ton carbon-tax side case.[4] Again the
GDP losses are significant, exceeding $150 billion for many years, and the jobs losses are severe, with employment in
some years falling below the no-carbon-tax reference case by more than one million jobs.
So, carbon taxes will drive up energy costs, reduce employment, and cut income.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 52
"CHANGED BEHAVIOR" WILL COME ON THE BACKS OF THE WEALTHY-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
In fact, increasing consumer costs is a primary reason for pricing carbon, according to many of its proponents. As
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has explained, it is necessary for the price of energy to increase if “you’re going to
change how people use energy.”[50] And who will change their behavior? It is far more likely that the poor and middle
class—those who have to live from paycheck to paycheck and spend a bigger portion of their earnings on energy—will
be forced to alter their lifestyles much more (drive less, heat and cool the home less, buy fewer goods and services) than
the wealthy.
CARBON TAXES WOULD HAVE DRAMATIC AND NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE AMERICAN ECONOMY-Kreutzer and Loris
'13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
In 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) made a comparison analysis for a carbon tax that starts at $25
and rises by 5 percent per year (after adjusting for inflation).[1] Compared to the baseline case, without the carbon tax,
this would[2]:
Cut the income of a family of four by $1,900 per year in 2016 and lead to average losses of $1,400 per year through
2035;
Raise the family-of-four energy bill by more than $500 per year (not counting the cost of gasoline);
Cause gasoline prices to increase by up to $0.50 gallon, or by 10 percent on an average gallon price; and
Lead to an aggregate loss of more than 1 million jobs by 2016 alone.
THE BOXER SANDERS CARBON TAX WOULD HAVE HAD A MASSIVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY-Kreutzer '14
[David W.; Senior Research Fellow @ the Heritage Foundation; Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy; Testimony
before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; 16 September 2014;
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-us-economy; retrieved 3
January 2016]
In 2013 Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a carbon tax in their Climate Security Act of
2013.[1] The tax started at $20 per metric ton and would rise by 5.6 percent per year, reaching $50 per metric ton by
2030 (the endpoint for the Heritage analysis).
Using the Heritage Energy Model (HEM), a derivative of the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS), Heritage projected what the economic impacts would have been had the bill become law.[2]
The impacts would have included (dollar values are adjusted for inflation):
GDP loss of $146 billion in 2030
A family of four losing more than $1,000 of income per year,
Over 400,000 lost jobs by 2016,
Coal production dropping by 60 percent and coal employment dropping by more than 40 percent by 2030,
Gasoline prices rising $0.20 by 2016 and $0.30 before 2030, and
Electricity prices rising 20 percent by 2017 and more than 30 percent by 2030.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 53
EVEN PROMISES OF MORE EMPLOYMENT IN THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SECTOR WILL NOT MAKE UP FOR JOB LOSSESKreutzer '14
[David W.; Senior Research Fellow @ the Heritage Foundation; Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy; Testimony
before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate; 16 September 2014;
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-us-economy; retrieved 3
January 2016]
Though renewable energy grew compared to baseline levels, it wasn’t enough to make up for the lost hydrocarbon
energy. In addition it is certain that businesses and households economized on energy use both by doing without and by
employing more energy efficient technologies. These responses would stimulate employment in certain sectors, but the
net effect is an overall loss in employment. The projected employment loss for 2016 was 400,000 jobs. Of course the
energy-dependent sectors would suffer relatively larger job losses. Chart 1 from the Heritage analysis shows job losses
as a percent of baseline employment.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 54
CARBON TAXES BAD: HURTS MANUFACTURING
CARBON TAXES WOULD HURT MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
A carbon tax would especially hurt states with higher concentrations of manufacturing and that use coal for electricity
generation. The Heritage Foundation developed the Manufacturing Vulnerability Index, a list of states with their
combined manufacturing prevalence and coal electricity generation, highly concentrated in the Midwest.[30] These
states have substantial infrastructure for manufacturing and coal-powered electricity generation that would be hit
especially hard. A transition to other power-generation sources and economic activities would be very costly to these
already hurting states.
MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A CARBON TAX, JUST WHEN JOBS ARE
RETURNING BACK TO THE UNITED STATES-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
In particular, energy-intensive industries and manufacturing would feel the adverse effects of a carbon tax, which comes
at a time when many companies, lured by the prospect of abundant and cheap natural gas, are moving to the United
States. A recent KPMG analysis of the U.S. chemical industry emphasizes, "With a new and abundant source of low-cost
feedstock, the US market has transformed to become one of the most advantageous markets for chemical production in
the world."[3] A carbon tax would unnecessarily reverse this resurgence.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 55
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEIR NATURE MAKES THEM EASY TO INCREASE WITHOUT POLITICAL
BACKLASH
BECAUSE IT WILL BE HIDDEN, A CARBON TAX WOULD BE EASY TO INCREASE WITHOUT POLITICAL BACKLASH-Morgan
'12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Another problem with a carbon tax is that it very well could be hidden. When he was an academic, Gilbert Metcalf, an
economist who has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy in the Office of International
Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Treasury,[41] co-authored a blueprint for taxing GHG emissions that was published
in the Harvard Environmental Law Review. The paper states that:
With respect to the tax base, we show that collecting the tax upstream would make it possible to accurately and cheaply
cover 80% of U.S. emissions by collecting the tax at fewer than 3000 points, and that it would be possible to cover close
to 90% of U.S. emissions at a modest additional cost.[42]
Clearly, such a tax is not meant to be collected at gas pumps or from utility customers, which would dramatically
increase administrative costs. While a carbon tax could be more or less apparent to American citizens, depending on its
design, the advocates of such a tax have no incentive to keep the tax small. In the words of Professor Thomas Sowell, “In
general, the less visible a tax is, the more revenue can be collected without resistance or electoral retribution by the
voters.”[43] Accordingly, a major concern would be the visibility of such a tax.
A new carbon tax would simply give Washington another tool with which to stealthily raise revenues and manipulate
American families’ behavior, and any such tax should be rejected.
THE POLITICAL REALITIES OF THE US WOULD LEAD TO A CARBON TAX THAT IS TOO HIGH TO INCENTIVIZE DECREASING
EMISSIONS-Zycher '14
[Benjamin; Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and
Broadly Wrong; The American; 31 January 2014; https://www.aei.org/publication/the-efficiency-of-a-carbon-taxbroadly-accepted-and-broadly-wrong/; retrieved 3 January 2016]
The shorter political time horizon (the next election) is likely to yield too little attention to the adverse long-run effects
of policy choices — in this context, a carbon tax that is too high. The gerrymandering process (“wasting” the votes of the
political opposition) is likely to result in less two-party competition in districts than otherwise would be the case, and
thus a reduction in political accountability (although the effect in a House of Representatives or a Congress acting
collectively is less clear). Both of those conditions are likely to yield a carbon tax higher than that “set to reflect the
spillover costs of carbon emissions,” and the same is true for interest-group competition for the revenues.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 56
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEY REALLY ARE AWFUL, BUT LESS AWFUL THAN OTHER PROPOSALS
CARBON TAXES ARE NOT GOOD POLICY, THEY ARE JUST THE LEAST AWFUL OF THE SUGGESTIONS PEOPLE HAVE FOR
DEALING WITH CARBON EMISSIONS-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Each of these mechanisms is effectively a tax, or fee, on emitting GHGs. To create momentum for its passage,
proponents of cap-and-trade argued to conservatives that it would do less damage to the economy than EPA regulation
would. Now others are saying that a carbon tax could be better still. But as one scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute put it, “Carbon taxes might be ‘better’ than cap-and-trade or regulations, but then, in a train-wreck, losing a
hand is better than losing a forearm, which is better than losing an entire arm. Most would rather skip the wreck.”[13]
Congress seems closer to stopping EPA regulation[14] than it does to adopting a carbon tax, especially considering that
conservatives successfully attacked cap-and-trade by calling it an energy tax.
CARBON TAXES ARE BAD POLICY-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
The economic, environmental, and political realities surrounding a carbon tax are clear indications that this is bad policy.
Recently, two bipartisan resolutions publicly denounced the possibility of a carbon tax, highlighting the crushing
economic and minimal environmental effects of the tax. One resolution, sponsored concurrently by Senator David Vitter
(R-LA) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and a second by Representative David McKinley (R-WV) and cosponsored by five other Republicans and three Democrats expressed their disapproval of the idea.[8]
Whether the American economy is booming or heading off a fiscal cliff, the right time for a carbon tax is never.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 57
CARBON TAXES BAD: HURT THE ENERGY SECTOR
A CARBON TAX WOULD BE A HIT ON THE ENERGY SECTOR-Parkinson '15
[David; Alberta has options to cushion its carbon tax; Globe and Mail; 25 November 2015; page B2]
Still, the tax puts a new cost on the already hard-hit energy sector that Alberta depends on for its economic well-being.
It amounts to an additional disincentive to invest for an industry that has already become acutely spending-averse since
oil prices slumped and, by all forecasts, will have recovered only modestly by the time the carbon tax arrives at the start
of 2017.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 58
CARBON TAXES BAD: NOT REVENUE NEUTRAL
A CARBON TAX MAY BE GOOD POLICY BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT REVENUE NEUTRAL-Parkinson '15
[David; Alberta has options to cushion its carbon tax; Globe and Mail; 25 November 2015; page B2]
"The government of Alberta is going to stop being the problem, and is going to be part of the solution," she said in
announcing the plan.
Fair enough. But if Ms. Notley really believes, as she said in her announcement, that the new carbon tax is revenue
neutral, then she has an unusual understanding of the term.
The proceeds of a truly revenue-neutral tax are offset by equal-sized reductions in taxes collected elsewhere, so that no
additional revenue goes to the government coffers. British Columbia's $30-a-tonne carbon tax is required by law to be
offset by equivalent cuts in corporate and personal taxes. That is revenue neutral.
Alberta's plan is to collect about $3-billion a year in carbontax revenue, which Ms. Notley has vowed "will be recycled
back into the economy immediately" for green technologies and infrastructure, and compensation for people and small
businesses most hurt by the carbon-reduction plans. While that may be sound policy, collecting more revenue and then
spending it is decidedly not revenue neutral. It is a tax increase.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT A REVENUE NEUTRAL CARBON TAX WILL MAKE IF THROUGH CONGRESS WITHOUT SPECIAL
INTERESTS TAKING THEIR CUT-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Two suggestions to garner more bipartisan support for a carbon tax have been to ensure that the tax is revenue neutral
by reducing other taxes or to replace the EPA's regulations of greenhouse gas emissions with the CO2 tax. Both
proposals are political impossibilities.
Just the sniff of a new revenue stream to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually has the special interests in
Washington running to Congress for more handouts. Before carbon tax legislation has even been introduced, ideas on
how to use the revenue already include income transfers, paying for defense spending cuts, reducing the deficit,
transferring money to developing countries to adapt to climate change and the list goes on. History shows that any time
more money comes into the coffers of the federal government, there is a political interest to spend it one way or
another.[6]
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 59
CARBON TAXES BAD: THEY DEMONIZE YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING!
CARBON TAXES ARE NOT AGNOSTIC, THEY PUT YOUR LIFE ACTIVITIES IN THE SAME CATEGORY IS SMOKING
CIGARETTES-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
While some have asserted that they can be “agnostic” about whether human activity is contributing significantly to
global warming and still want to tax carbon, choosing to place a tax on carbon is an endorsement of the theory that
man-made emissions of GHGs have a significantly harmful effect on the environment. In effect, such backers of the
carbon tax would treat using fossil fuel resources to heat or cool your home, turn on your lights, drive your car, and
charge your cellular phone the same as they would treat using disfavored goods such as alcohol and cigarettes.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 60
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL BE POLITICALLY FORCED TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS, HURTING
IMPACT
CARBON TAXES ARE SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PRESSURES WHICH MEANS EXEMPTIONS-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
Proponents of cap and trade argue that it is better than a carbon tax because the political bargain over which industries
will get relief from its cost has to be reached up front as part of the decision of how to allocate allowances. They also
argue that a carbon [*48] tax will be subject to pressure to enact permanent exemptions for affected industries, which
will permanently weaken its effect and exacerbate its Benefit Uncertainty.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 61
CARBON TAXES BAD: US ACTION ALONE WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM
UNILATERAL ACTION IN THE FORM OF CARBON TAXES WILL DO NOTHING TO HELP THE EMISSIONS ISSUES-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
China’s role in emitting GHGs can hardly be overstated. From 2000–2008, its emissions doubled from 3.4 gross tons (Gt)
to 7 Gt of CO2. By contrast U.S. CO2 emissions remained about 5.7 Gt in 2000 and 2008.[20] China overwhelmingly relies
on coal for electricity generation—accounting for about half of the world’s annual coal consumption.[21]
For those who lament an increase in global GHG emissions, China’s carbon-footprint increase in the past few decades
has been a disaster, but the Chinese people have seen a nearly sixfold increase in per capita gross domestic product
(GDP) from 1990 to 2011.[22] Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted from poverty thanks to agricultural and
free-market reforms that have led to economic development.[23]
It is important to remember that environmental policy must ultimately be good for people, any country’s most
important resource. Moreover, economic growth also creates the wealth necessary for countries to make real
environmental improvements in the long run.[24]
Unilateral action by the United States to tax carbon emissions is unwise because it would not achieve its stated
environmental goal: material reduction of global GHG emissions.
CARBON TAX WOULD DO LITTLE UNLESS WE COULD SOMEHOW FORCE THE WORLD TO DO THE SAME-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Even if one assumes that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to higher global temperatures, a carbon
tax in the United States that reduces emissions domestically would have zero direct effect on foreign emissions if we
acted alone. In fact, unilateral action by the U.S. would have very little effect on total global emissions.
CLIMATE ACTION ALONE DOES NOTHING, MUST INVOLVED CHINA IN THE DISCUSSION-Nader and Heaps '10
[Ralph, Consumer Advocate and Toby, Coordinator of Option 13; A Carbon Tax Will Help Curb Global Warming; Global
Warming; 2010; Gale Group Databases]
China emphatically opposes a hard emissions cap on its economy. Yet China must be part of any climate deal or within
25 years, notes Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, its emissions of CO2 could amount to
twice the combined emissions of the world's richest nations, including the United States, Japan and members of the
European Union.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 62
US EMISSIONS CUTS WILL DO LITTLE BECAUSE THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IS THE DEVELOPING WORLD-Kreutzer and Loris
'13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Unilaterally reducing greenhouse gases would not make a dent on global emissions and, consequently, would do next to
nothing to reduce global temperatures. Even if the U.S. were to curb carbon emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by
2050 (what cap-and-trade bills required), it would reduce global temperatures by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius
by the close of the century.[4]
This is because future carbon emissions will come overwhelmingly from the developing world (China and India, for
example), which shows little appetite for squeezing economic growth for the sake of the environment.
A CARBON TAX ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES OR EVEN IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD WOULD HAVE VIRTUALLY NO
IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURES-Zycher '14
[Benjamin; Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and
Broadly Wrong; The American; 31 January 2014; https://www.aei.org/publication/the-efficiency-of-a-carbon-taxbroadly-accepted-and-broadly-wrong/; retrieved 3 January 2016]
In short: A carbon tax (or, for that matter, any other climate policy), whether imposed by the United States unilaterally
or by the industrialized world, would have virtually no effect on temperatures over the course of this century. (For a
discussion of the actual political/wealth redistribution impetus underlying “carbon” policies, see this.) Note that the
standard deviation of the annual global average surface temperature (once the trend is removed) is about a tenth of a
degree; accordingly, in most cases the reduction in temperatures would be difficult to measure. It simply cannot be the
case that a policy — whether a tax or an alternative command-and-control approach — rationalized on the basis of a
purported adverse environmental effect (“externality”) but engendering no practical effect on that externality can be
“efficient.” A carbon tax or other such intervention — regardless of one’s view of the underlying climatology — would be
all cost and effectively no benefit, although the wealth redistribution effects can be significant, as just noted.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 63
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO INTERNATIONAL MODELING BASED ON US ACTION
US CUTS IN CARBON EMISSIONS WILL NOT CAUSE INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT TO DO THE SAME-Kreutzer and Loris
'13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
A common argument is that if the U.S. leads in reducing emissions, the rest of the world would follow suit. But this is
clearly not the case. Despite actions taken by the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, the developing world has massive
expansions planned to increase coal consumption. According to a recent report from the World Resources Institute,
there are plans to build nearly 1,200 coal-fired power plants in 59 different countries totaling over 1.4 million
megawatts. China and India alone account for 76 percent of the proposals.[5]
ARGUMENTS THAT THE WORLD WILL FOLLOW THE US ON CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS IS WISHFUL THINKINGKreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Developing countries want access to cheap, reliable electricity (especially since many areas do not even have access to
electricity) and have more pressing environmental needs. It is simply wishful thinking to assume that these countries
would follow America's lead and curb economic growth to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 64
CARBON TAXES BAD: US CARBON TAX WOULD JUST SHIFT CARBON AND MANUFACTURING
OVERSEAS
CARBON TAXES WOULD DO LITTLE IN THE US ALONE BECAUSE POLLUTERS WOULD MOVE OVERSEAS-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
The EPA analyzed a cap-and-trade proposal and projected global CO2 concentrations in a baseline and under legislation,
demonstrating the effects graphically.[16] (See Chart 1.) The Administrator of the EPA testified on July 7, 2009: “I believe
the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels….”[17] The analysis
showed that even if the U.S. adopted stringent carbon caps under that legislation[18] and the international community
did not, global CO2 concentrations would decrease 25 parts per million (with concentrations equaling 694 ppm in 2095).
International action, by contrast, would decrease concentrations by 202 ppm.
Just as in a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade system, a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would likely further increase foreign
emissions because of a phenomenon called “carbon leakage.” As energy-intensive industry relocates from the United
States to other nations such as Mexico, Vietnam, or China (already the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases),
GHG emissions and toxic pollutants could increase more than they would if those industries remained in the United
States.[19]
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 65
CARBON TAXES BAD: DO NOT CREATE CLEAR INCENTIVES AS PRO WOULD CLAIM
CARBON TAXES MAY NOT WORK FACT ENOUGH AND HAVE QUESTIONABLE INCENTIVE ROUTES-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
The point of the carbon tax must always be to reduce carbon emissions in such a significant manner so as to actually
slow the climate change process and avert the negative effects of climate change. If the carbon tax instrument does not
achieve or even move toward this goal, then the carbon tax should not be implemented. There are people who oppose a
carbon tax simply because they fear it will not work effectively or quickly enough. n166
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 66
CARBON TAXES BAD: REGRESSIVE AND HURT THE POOR
THE MEANS OF ADDRESSING THE REGRESSIVE NATURE OF CARBON TAXES TAKES AWAY THE ADVANTAGES OF THE
CARBON TAX-Bailey '13
[Ronald, Science Coorespondent; Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?; Reason; 16 January 2013;
https://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/should-the-us-adopt-a-carbon-tax-to-cont; retrieved 3 January 2016]
One big distributional concern, however, is that a carbon tax falls more heavily on the poor since they spend a higher
proportion of their incomes on energy-intensive goods and services than do the better off. One way to address the
regressive distributional consequences is a tax-and-dividend proposal in which every American receives an equal share
of the carbon taxes collected that is deposited each month in their bank accounts. While this idea addresses the concern
about the regressive nature of carbon taxes, it lessens the incentives that offset taxes would provide for increased work
and investment.
CARBON TAXES DISPROPORTIONATELY THE BUDGETS OF WORKING FAMILIES-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Since an overwhelming majority of America's energy needs are met by carbon-emitting fossil fuels, regulations of these
fuels directly raise the cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil. Since low-income families spend a
larger proportion of their income on energy, a tax that increases energy prices would disproportionately affect the
budgets of the poorest American families.
CARBON TAXES ARE REGRESSIVE-Freeman '15
[Jeremy; EFFICACY OF CARBON TAXES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS; Houston Business
& Tax Law Journal; 2015; 15 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 268]
One objection to imposing a carbon taxation system is that "[a] carbon tax is considered a form of consumption tax, and
without some adjustments or exemptions, consumption taxes tend to disproportionately hurt poorer individuals and
households." n151 A carbon tax will affect the price of many goods and services because it affects transportation; those
goods and services, if basic goods, could disproportionately hurt the poor. n152 The regressiveness of the carbon tax
seems to apply regardless of whether the carbon tax is imposed on individuals (downstream) or at the point of
extraction (upstream) and on big businesses. n153 Corporations will likely pass along the carbon tax onto consumers.
n154
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 67
A CARBON TAX WILL HURT THE POOR THE MOST-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
The poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their earnings on energy, particularly utilities and transportation.
Moreover, some Americans use more fossil-fuel energy than others because of driving distances (rural families drive
more—27,700 miles per household vs. 17,600 miles for urban households[44]); geography (less temperate weather
means more heating and cooling costs); and already constructed energy infrastructure (coal plants are prevalent in the
Midwest near mining operations). A carbon tax would disproportionately hit these families, whose behavior is difficult to
change in the short run.
A CARBON TAX IS REGRESSIVE DUE TO THE EXPENSIVE NATURE OF CARBON-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy; Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
In many ways, a carbon tax will resemble a tax on consumption, and thus it will be regressive. Carbon is included in the
creation, manufacture, distribution, or use of virtually all products. Clothing is often made from synthetics, which are
often made from petroleum. The same is true for the plastics used in everything from cars to kitchen utensils and from
aircraft components to surgical instruments. Other products containing little carbon may nonetheless require a
significant amount of carbon in their creation. Steel, for example, is basically iron with small amounts of alloying metals
and carbon, but its production typically requires large amounts of carbon to remove the oxygen from the iron oxide ores
in which iron is normally found. Carbon-based fuels are used to transport many products vast distances along the chain
from extraction to end-use consumption. In addition, the operation of many products - such as cars, furnaces, air
conditioners, and stoves - requires energy normally derived from carbon. Of course, some individual lifestyles are more
carbon-intensive than are others, but individuals generally use many products and services that employ carbon, so the
carbon tax will resemble a tax on consumption generally.
A consumption tax is usually regressive; that is, it takes a higher percentage of low incomes than of high incomes, for the
following reasons. Persons of low income tend to do little saving and spend nearly all of their incomes on consumption
because they have few extra resources to buy anything beyond food, clothing, shelter, health care, and other
necessities. Persons of low income may even consume more than their incomes, as they spend all their past savings and
borrow against future income from sources such as credit cards, payday lenders, and loan sharks. Thus, persons of low
income may pay a consumption tax on amounts approaching or even exceeding their incomes. Persons of increasingly
high incomes, in contrast, may be able to invest or save increasing portions of their incomes, thus leaving decreasing
portions of their incomes to be consumed and thus subject to the consumption tax. n29
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 68
CARBON TAXES BAD: ARE JUST TAXES ON BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS!
CARBON TAXES EITHER DIRECTLY IMPACT CONSUMERS OR IT CREATES BURDENS ON BUSINESS THAT PREVENT
INVESTMENT AND EXPANSION-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Businesses, faced with higher energy costs, would likely pass those costs on to consumers. However, if a company had to
absorb the costs, high energy costs would squeeze profit margins and prevent businesses from investing and expanding.
Investors might even move their funds away from energy companies and toward less regulated business enterprises,
thus depriving fossil-fuel-based companies much-needed cash for more efficient power generation. The result is higher
energy costs, lower income, and fewer jobs.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 69
CARBON TAXES BAD: NO POLITICAL SUPPORT
THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO CARBON TAX IS PASSING IT IN CONGRESS-Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann '09
[Reuven, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School; David, Director fo the Environmental Law and Policy
Program at the University of Michigan Law School; Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better
Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade; Stanford Environmental Law Journal; February 2009; 28 Stan. Envtl.
L.J. 3]
A carbon tax carries its own practical limitations, perhaps the most significant of which is the challenge of enacting tax
legislation in the United States. Those political considerations may be compounded by instability in energy prices (which
peaked at over $ 140 per barrel during the summer of 2008, only to fall below $ 50 per barrel by November 2008) and
economic concerns created by the global credit crisis during the fall of 2008. A cap and trade system may be more viable
politically, because it is not labeled a tax nor is it as transparent about its effect on energy prices. The political
advantages of cap and trade may be more illusory than real, however, since opponents of climate change legislation will
argue that either approach would increase energy costs and further damage an already weakened economy. n5
Moreover, while climate [*8] change legislation will be difficult to enact during a possible recession, the climate change
crisis will worsen and become more costly to address if Congress fails to enact limits on greenhouse gas emissions early
in the Obama Administration. n6
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 70
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL HURT WORLD FORESTS
CARBON TAXES WOULD INCREASE PRESSURE ON OUR WORLD'S FORESTS, WHICH WILL BE USED FOR QUICK, CHEAP
FUEL-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
[*12] Unfortunately, the carbon tax will increase the already great pressure on the world's forests. As the fossil sources
of fuel - coal, petroleum, and natural gas - are subject to the carbon tax, the temptation and pressure to cut wood for
fuel will increase. This pressure will further increase because building materials will be subject to the carbon tax based
on their content - if made of plastic or other carbon-based materials - or on the carbon released in their production - if
made of steel or concrete - making wood structures comparatively more attractive. Extra emphasis will be required on
the carrots and sticks that help to preserve the world's forests.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 71
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FORCE SHIFTING TO NUCLEAR POWER
CARBON TAXES ENCOURAGE THE USE OF NUCLEAR POWER, WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANT SAFETY RISKS-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
While trying to solve the carbon problem, we must be careful not to create other problems. Alternative sources of
energy may affect the environment in unforeseen ways, such as endangering animal habitats, and the risks must be
weighed with the possible benefits. Thus, the carbon tax may need to be accompanied by other energy taxes or
regulation.
Nuclear fission produces energy without releasing carbon, but it may present other risks. It is not clear that we have
solved the problem of long-term storage of the highly radioactive and long-lived products of nuclear reactors. n55
Furthermore, it is not clear that the risk of terrorists using nuclear reactors - whether by stealing enriched uranium or
plutonium for a fission bomb, stealing radioactive by-products for a dirty bomb, or crashing a truck or airplane into a
reactor - has been resolved. n56
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 72
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO BIOFUELS
CARBON TAXES ENCOURAGE THE USE OF BIOFUELS, WHICH COMPETES WITH OUR FOOD SUPPLY-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
The push for biofuels competes with people's need for food, either because the biofuel is made from food stocks, or
because the biofuel requires land, water, and labor that would otherwise produce food.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 73
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO HYDROELECTRIC POWER
CARBON TAXES ENCOURAGE THE USE OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER, WHICH RISKS HABITATS-Waggoner '08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Hydroelectric power normally requires damming rivers. Those dams and reservoirs may endanger wildlife that otherwise
would inhabit, reproduce in, or migrate via the rivers, streams, and wetlands changed by the dams. n58 The dams may
be vulnerable to catastrophic failure, [*28] unleashing devastating floods on those downstream; this risk might be
increased by terrorists.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 74
CARBON TAXES BAD: WILL FOCUS SHIFT TO WIND POWER
CARBON TAXES ENCOURAGE THE USE OF WIND POWER, WHICH BRINGS ITS OWN ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS-Waggoner
'08
[Michael; Associate Professor at University of Colorado School of Law; Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy;
Fall, 2008; 20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1]
Using the wind to generate electricity appears benign, but large wind turbines may disrupt the migration of birds, bats,
or insects, and present a risk of harm to the ecological system. n59 On the other hand, although we have no studies to
back up this surmise, wind turbines may have beneficial impacts. Turbines slow and perhaps cool the wind as they
extract energy from it. If the wind is slower and potentially cooler, it will probably drop more snow in the winter, as
occurs at the snow fences common in the U.S. Mountain West. n60 A slower and cooler wind will probably also reduce
evaporation. The sum of these two effects could be more soil moisture, although it is unclear whether the impact would
significantly improve crops or range land. These possible benefits must be balanced against risks of harm.
Using tides and currents in the oceans to generate electricity appears similarly benign, but here too there may be risks to
birds, fish, insects, and other sea creatures. n61 On the other hand, slowing the tide and current may reduce beach
erosion and even offer some protection against storm surges or tsunamis. These possible benefits must also be balanced
against risks of harm.
[*29] Using the sun to generate electricity or to heat water or living space appears benign, but one should be alert to
possible ill effects, both in current planning and as the use of solar energy expands.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 75
CARBON TAXES BAD: REVENUES ARE USED TO GROW BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
BRITISH COLUMBIA CARBON TAX NOW BEING DEBATED FOR INCREASES TO FUND BIG GOVERNMENT PROJECTS-Lewis
'13
[Marlo, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Taxing carbon isn't conservative; The American Conservative; NovemberDecember 2013; page 4]
The BC carbon tax actually provides a cautionary tale, as only five years after enactment there have been calls to hike
the tax to fund progressive projects. It was a factor in the BC premier elections this year, and the winner, Christy Clark,
campaigned on freezing the tax.
Enactment of any carbon tax, however small, affirms the warming movement's alarm narrative, but no carbon tax,
however large, ever will be enough to satisfy the movement's demands.
Conservatives cannot advocate a carbon tax without giving credibility to those who scare the public to justify
government control of energy markets.
CARBON TAXES WOULD BE A REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND ULTIMATELY GROW GOVERNMENT-Zycher '14
[Benjamin; Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and
Broadly Wrong; The American; 31 January 2014; https://www.aei.org/publication/the-efficiency-of-a-carbon-taxbroadly-accepted-and-broadly-wrong/; retrieved 3 January 2016]
Instead, substitution of one tax for another is a classic redistribution process, one that is likely to require an expansion of
government so as to compensate the losers, even if only partially. Accordingly, even in Slavov’s conceptual framework,
not all of the revenue would be used to “lower other taxes.” Instead, net government revenues — or, more broadly,
government allocation of resources — would have to increase, and unless one believes that government resource use is
more productive than that of the private sector, “efficiency” writ large is not prominent among the likely outcomes.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 76
CARBON TAX UNNECESSARY: BUSINESS ALREADY RESPONDING TO STATUS QUO INCENTIVES
TO WORK TOWARDS CARBON REDUCTION
LOW CARBON SOLUTIONS ARE BECOMING THE CHOICE TO MAKE FOR BUSINESS REASONS, WITHOUT A CARBON TAX
SCHEME-Begley '10
[Sharon; Beyond a Carbon Tax; Newsweek; 25 October 2010; page 64]
When president obama announced plans this month to install solar panels on the White House, it was to set an
example, not because any law required it. The U.S. military began using solar panels in Afghanistan because it costs $400
to $500 a barrel to transport diesel to bases there and because hundreds of soldiers have died guarding supply lines, not
because of a carbon tax. And when DuPont cut its energy use to 19 percent below what it was in 1990 by turning waste
into fuel, making burners more efficient, and taking other steps, it wasn't to stay on the right side of a cap-and-trade
law. "We've saved $3 billion to $4 billion since 2000, so this is real money," says Linda Fisher, the company's chief
sustainability officer.
A year ago, CEOs, greens, and policy wonks were all insisting that to make any progress on greenhouse emissions, the
world needed to "put a price on carbon." De-jargoned, that means requiring manufacturers, utilities, oil refiners, and
others who emit carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels to buy permits to do so or pay a tax on their emissions. Without
such a "price on carbon," went the argument, renewables like wind and solar would never be economically competitive,
and only do-gooders and showoffs would adopt them. So after the Copenhagen climate talks imploded last year, and,
more recently, the U.S. Senate failed to pass a climate bill, progress should have come to a screeching halt.
It didn't. For a long list of reasons, ranging from saving money to saving soldiers' lives, business and government are
cracking down on carbon. "It's become obvious that [adopting low-carbon energy] is a business decision," says Peter
Boyd of the Carbon War Room, a "think tank/do tank" that works with industries to reduce their carbon footprint. "You
don't need politicians for this."
CORPORATE AMERICA IS ITSELF PUTTING ITSELF IN CHARGE OF "TAXING" ITS CARBON EMISSIONS WITHOUT
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE-Gelles '15
[David; A Carbon Tax Imposed by the Head Office; the New York Times; 27 September 2015; page 3L]
When Microsoft business unit managers calculate their profits or losses each quarter, they consider more than just sales
and expenses. They also factor in the price of carbon.
Even more radically, the business units are charged an internal tax by Microsoft based on their energy usage. The money
goes into a common fund that invests in environmental sustainability projects.
The company's program is at the forefront of a fast-growing effort called carbon pricing. This year, 437 companies are
calculating an internal price on carbon, up sharply from 150 last year, according to a new report by CDP, a nonprofit
group that monitors carbon disclosures for companies.
Motivated by a mixture of moral conviction, hard-nosed economic forecasting and expectation of tougher regulations
down the road, companies are scrambling to understand just how much energy they use. Like Microsoft, some, including
Disney and Shell, are voluntarily charging themselves, and using that money to build solar panels and wind farms.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
BUSINESSES ARE DOING WHAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS AND DEALING WITH CARBON-Gelles '15
[David; A Carbon Tax Imposed by the Head Office; the New York Times; 27 September 2015; page 3L]
Page 77
''Businesses do what's in the interest of business,'' said Paula DiPerna, a special adviser to CDP who worked on the
report. ''If this many companies are pricing carbon internally, they know that climate change is a business risk.''
Microsoft has gone further than most. In just three years, the company has reduced its emissions by the equivalent of
7.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and saved more than $10 million through reduced energy consumption. This
year, Microsoft expects to charge its business units about $20 million for their emissions.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 78
A/T: BRITISH COLUMBIA MODEL PROVES EFFECTIVENESS
BRITISH COLUMBIA IS NO MODEL FOR UNITED STATES TAX POLICY DUE TO ITS ENERGY BREAKDOWNS-Lewis '13
[Marlo, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Taxing carbon isn't conservative; The American Conservative; NovemberDecember 2013; page 4]
Yes, British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which so far has done no noticeable economic harm. But the BC
carbon tax is not a model for the U.S. Hydropower provides 90 percent of BC's electric generation but only 7 percent in
the United States. Small service-oriented businesses are the backbone of the BC economy, whereas energy-intensive
manufacturing and energy production are major U.S. industries.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 79
A/T: CARBON TAXES ARE WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN!!
CARBON TAXES ARE NOT LIKELY TO MEET THEIR LOFTY GOALS OF MEETING ALL NEEDS-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Although cap-and-trade was rejected by the Senate and the American people as a new energy tax, some have
championed the idea of a new carbon tax, with arguments aimed at conservatives (it can be revenue neutral) and
liberals (it can help the environment) alike.[11] A new federal carbon tax would likely fail to achieve either goal while
further slowing America’s recovery.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 80
A/T: US COULD MITIGATE BUSINESS IMPACT OF A CARBON TAX
US ACTIONS TO MITIGATE THE HARM OF A CARBON TAX WOULD CAUSE A TRADE WAR-Morgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
While proponents of a carbon tax explain that they could impose an adjustment tax on goods from countries without a
carbon tax to help level the playing field, such an action could precipitate a trade war. Moreover, it would place U.S.
manufacturers that export from the United States to other markets at a disadvantage when compared to manufacturers
that produce in nations without GHG controls.
A new carbon tax should not be imposed because it would harm U.S. manufacturing, destroying the livelihood of too
many Americans who want to go to work producing products for the world.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 81
A/T: CARBON TAX = ECONOMIC GROWTH
CARBON TAXES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE USED TO INCREASE ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH ECONOMIC STIMULATIONMorgan '12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
Some economists eager to reduce taxes and encourage economic growth have thought that revenue from a new carbon
tax could be used to reduce other harmful taxes on capital and investment. But because the carbon tax hits the poor
disproportionally, it is likely that revenue from the tax will be used to alleviate its impact on the poor or for some other
purpose rather than to cut other taxes in an economically simulative way.
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 82
A/T: CARBON TAXES = GREEN ENERGY INNOVATION
CARBON TAXES WOULD BE USE TO FUND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT USE UNPROVEN "GREEN" TECHNOLOGY-Morgan
'12
[Derrick; Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation; A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S.
Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment; Backgrounder; 21 August 2012;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-incomeamericans-without-helping-the-environment; retrieved 8 January 2016]
In addition to a clamor that carbon tax revenue be used to counteract the tax’s regressive nature, environmental groups
and the alternative energy lobby will likely advocate that the revenue be spent to promote new, unproven “green”
technology. So-called green energy companies that have started in response to a massive government infusion of capital
into such enterprises ($44.3 billion in 2009 alone)[51] are failing, and some are calling for an increase in funding, which
has been reduced to “only” $16.1 billion in 2012.[52] The carbon tax presents a tempting revenue stream for those
companies and groups:
A small portion of the funds might be directed to providing transition relief for displaced workers (such as miners),
supporting basic energy research and development, solving vexing issues associated with bringing CCS to scale,
constructing any necessary transmission lines, and perhaps encouraging conservation activities that market
imperfections might otherwise block.[53]
February 2016 NSDA Public Forum: Carbon Tax
Page 83
A/T: CARBON TAXES DECREASE REGULATION
US NOT LIKELY TO DECREASE REGULATION UNDER A CARBON TAX SCHEME AND MIGHT ACTUALLY INCREASE
REGULATION-Kreutzer and Loris '13
[David W., PhD, and Nicolas, both Research Fellows @ the Heritage Foundation; Carbon Tax Would Raise
Unemployment, Not Swap Revenue; Issue Brief; 8 January 2013;
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raise-unemployment-not-revenue; retrieved 6
January 2016]
Some proponents of a carbon tax believe that the tax properly prices the externalities that vex opponents of fossil fuels
and, therefore, eliminates the need for regulation of carbon dioxide. By this logic, cap and trade would also have
eliminated the need for carbon regulation. However, instead of reducing regulations, the cap-and-trade bills would have
added to them. For instance, the Waxman-Markey bill went on for nearly 700 pages before it even began the cap-andtrade section.