West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 1
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 2
Resolved: The United States federal
government should adopt a carbon tax.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 3
Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a carbon tax. ............................................ 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
United States federal government ........................................................................................................... 7
Should ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Adopt......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Carbon tax ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Pro ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
Contention 1—Carbon tax lowers emissions .......................................................................................... 12
Contention 2—Carbon tax revenue helps the economy ........................................................................ 14
Rebuttal to Carbon tax hurts the economy ............................................................................................ 16
Rebuttal to Carbon tax is regressive .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon tax creates black markets ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon industries can’t adjust ............................................................................................. 18
Rebuttal to Europe’s carbon tax failed ................................................................................................... 19
Rebuttal to Carbon tax causes backlash/won’t pass ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon tax won’t affect emissions ...................................................................................... 20
Rebuttal to Carbon tax won’t raise much revenue ................................................................................. 21
Rebuttal to Market solutions fail/regulation key ................................................................................... 22
Con .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Contention 1—Carbon tax is bad for the environment .......................................................................... 24
Contention 2—Carbon tax is regressive ................................................................................................. 26
Contention 3—Carbon tax hurts the US economy ................................................................................. 27
Rebuttal to Carbon tax changes corporate behavior.............................................................................. 29
Rebuttal to Carbon tax is revenue neutral................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon tax shifts attitudes/price signal .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon tax makes the US a leader .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Rebuttal to Carbon tax reduces emissions ............................................................................................. 32
Rebuttal to Carbon tax pushes new technology ..................................................................................... 33
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 4
Introduction
The Pro side of this debate is defending the implantation of a broad value-added tax on the emission of
carbon. The purpose of the tax is to support environmental pursuits, particularly to counteract the
effects of global warming. The Pro should make clear that there is no reasonable expectation that any
US emissions reduction would be a panacea on its own. But there is good reason to believe adopting
reasonable free market policies will be popular, particularly among booming industrial economies that
will want to stay competitive on the international market. The costs of climate change and pollution are
difficult to calculate in economic terms but if the vast majority of climate scientists are to be believed,
carbon’s emission into the atmosphere is far costlier in economic and human terms than the hardships
born during a transition to renewable energy. While jobs will be lost in energy production industries,
they would undoubtedly be replaced by higher paying positions in new alternative energy plants. A
timely drop in oil prices has made the time ripe for tax that makes carbon’s monetary cost commiserate
with its real cost on future generations.
The Con shouldn’t have trouble finding drawbacks of a carbon tax. It will almost certainly affect the
poor, both domestically and abroad, and add costs across the board. Whether or not the Con decides to
contend that carbon is harmful (there is evidence that it benefits crop yield and other evidence that
suggest commercial emissions aren’t significantly linked with climate change), the main focus should be
on the ways the tax can backfire on a generally noble goal. The tax may incur “carbon leakage” which
refers to the offshoring of carbon intensive enterprises to other countries without such taxes, often with
less clean facilities that emit more carbon. The potential for a tax to offset alternative energy investment
should be a significant concern as the market would be uninterested in investing in new technologies if
short-term costs are higher. Carbon would specifically hit the blue-collar energy industry jobs that are
among the best paying for less-educated workers. Even though there may be some new green jobs,
assuming alternative energy magically becomes cost-effective, those jobs will be for engineers and
scientists, not former oil rig workers and coal miners. The significant impact on manufacturing, an
industry already on the decline but still constituting a huge portion of the American economy. Higher
costs will undoubtedly limit exports and would make foreign goods more price-effective, exacerbating
the trade deficit.
While there is reason to believe that a carbon tax would hit poor and working-class households and
blue-collar jobs more than anyone else, the costs will be offset by a substantial revenue stream from the
tax; evidence suggests this revenue could be significant and fix a lot of the exigent costs of a tax.
Investment and new green jobs would also offset some of this burden. The Con will likely bring up the
burden of taxes on the economy but the Pro can point to the need to tax problematic goods like
cigarettes and alcohol. Evidence from around the world in several localities in the US generally
demonstrate a reliable source of income that had a minimal economic impact but incurred significant
conservative backlash; this was true in the UK, Australia and California. However, other examples
Germany and Canada demonstrate positive possibilities when the conditions are right. The political
opposition will have an effect on the ultimate legislation but in reality, conservative lawmakers have
considerable reason to support a tax. While the coal lobby strongly presses against it, many oil
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 5
producers have supported the tax because of its minimal impact relative to coal. Many other powerful
business figures and even prominent conservatives support it. The tax seems to be a unique way
forward as the science of climate change is becoming more accepted across party lines.
The fact that a carbon tax would have the worst effects on consumers and the working class goes hand
in hand with the ability of the real offenders (energy-intensive industries and energy producers) to pass
on costs without incurring significant damage. If costs are easily passed on, corporate behavior has no
incentive to change, further delaying a shift to renewables. Likewise, consumers, workers and small
businesses will likely backlash against the environmental movement in other ways, increasing emissions
and preventing other changes. Ultimately, the US makes up only a tiny portion of global emissions and it
is unrealistic to believe developing countries with large impoverish populations that can hardly access
electricity as it is will uniformly adopt the tax simply because the US does. Electricity price problems in
China and India make a significant carbon tax very unlikely.
The primary argument that the Pro should defend in the final focus is that a carbon tax is a proven way
to lower harmful carbon emissions that will hasten the process of climate change. Severe consequences
associated with this should be the most powerful reason to support the tax and should be used as the
primary way of outweighing the Con’s position. However, the carbon tax has strong supporting features
like its significant revenue stream and its impact on our international leadership.
The Con should use their final focus to emphasize the external costs of a carbon tax, particularly it’s
regressive impact on consumers and the international market. It is also likely preferable to argue that
the tax would have a negative environmental impact by deterring renewable investments rather than
disputing the science of global warming. Regardless of the economic costs, if the tax fails to reduce
commissions, it can only hurt.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 6
Definitions
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 7
United States federal government
The executive, legislative and judicial branches
Oxford Dictionary. No Date. Federal Government. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/federal-government
(in the US) the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of
powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. This system provides a
series of checks and balances because each branch is able to limit the power of the others. The
executive branch consists of the President and Vice-President, based in the White House in Washington,
DC, and government departments and agencies.
A body with limited governing powers enumerated in the Constitution
US Legal Dictionary. No Date. United States Federal Government. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government
shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The
Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive,
comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes
a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three
branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government
to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved
to the States or to the people.
Individuals managing government at the national level
Business Dictionary. No Date. Federal Government. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Federal-Government.html
Body of individuals at the federal level that sets and administers public policy, exercises executive and
political power through customs, institutions, and laws within a country.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 8
Should
What is right, sensible, correct
MacMillan Dictionary. No Date. Should. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/should
1 used for talking about what is right, sensible, or correct a. used for saying or asking about the right or
sensible thing to do or the right way to behave b. used for saying what is correct, especially when the
situation is different from this 2 used when you have strong reasons for believing or expecting
something.
To express obligation
Merriam-Webster. No Date. Should. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/should
Past of shall 1 —used in auxiliary function to express condition <if he should leave his father, his father
would die — Genesis 44:22(Revised Standard Version)> 2 —used in auxiliary function to express
obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> <this is as it should
be — H. L. Savage> <you should brush your teeth after each meal> 3 —used in auxiliary function to
express futurity from a point of view in the past <realized that she should have to do most of her farm
work before sunrise — Ellen Glasgow> 4 —used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or
expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon> 5 —used in auxiliary function to express a
request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first
essential — L. D. Reddick>
To indicate duty or correctness
Oxford Dictionary. No Date. Should. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/should
1 Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions: 1.1
Indicating a desirable or expected state: 1.2 Used to give or ask advice or suggestions: 1.3 (I should)
Used to give advice:
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 9
Adopt
To take up in practice
Merriam-Webster. No Date. Adopt. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/adopt
Transitive verb 1: to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other
parents) as one's own child 2: to take up and practice or use <adopted a moderate tone> 3: to accept
formally and put into effect <adopt a constitutional amendment>.
To accept something as your own
Cambridge Dictionary. No Date. Adopt. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adopt
verb (START USING) B2 [T] to accept or start to use something new: I think it's time to adopt a different
strategy in my dealings with him. The new tax would force companies to adopt energy-saving measures.
He's adopted a remarkably light-hearted attitude towards the situation. adopt verb (CHOOSE) › [T] to
choose someone or something or take something as your own: Dr Kennedy has been adopted as the
party's candidate for South Cambridge. › [T] to start behaving in a particular way, especially by choice:
Roz has adopted one or two funny mannerisms since she's been away.
To assume an attitude or position
Oxford Dictionary. No Date. Adopt. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adopt
1.1 Take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action): this approach has been
adopted by many big banks 1.2Take on or assume (an attitude or position): he adopted a patronizing
tone adopt a slightly knees-bent position 1.3 (adopt someone as) Choose someone to receive special
recognition: at least 23 people adopted as “prisoners of conscience” remain in jail 1.4 Formally approve
or accept (a report or suggestion): the committee voted 5-1 to adopt the proposal.’
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 10
Carbon tax
A fee placed on carbon-producing practices meant to deter environmental harm
David Suzuki Foundation. 2014. What is a carbon tax or carbon fee? Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-solutions/carbon-tax-or-cap-andtrade/
A carbon tax is a fee placed on greenhouse gas pollution mainly from burning fossil fuels. This can be
done by placing a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of pollution such as industrial
processes. A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, our
communities and our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they cause. A shift by
households, businesses and industry to cleaner technologies increases the demand for energy-efficient
products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions. Under this system, the price to
pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are
encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy
sources such as solar and wind power.
A tax on the carbon emissions from burning of fossil fuels
Collins English Dictionary. 2012. Carbon Tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon-tax
Noun 1. a tax on the emissions caused by the burning of coal, gas, and oil, aimed at reducing the
production of greenhouse gases.
A tax on business operations that produce carbon
Investopedia. No Date. Carbon Dioxide Tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/carbon-dioxide-tax.asp?layout=orig
A tax on businesses and industries that produce carbon dioxide through their operations. A carbon
dioxide tax is designed to reduce the output of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, a colorless and
odorless incombustible gas, into the atmosphere. The tax is imposed with the goal of environmental
protection. The carbon tax policy taxes fossil fuel usage according to the amount of carbon emitted. It is
also referred to as a form of carbon pricing on greenhouse gas emissions where a fixed price is set by
the government for carbon emissions for certain sectors. The price is passed through from businesses to
consumers. By increasing the cost of greenhouse emissions, governments hope to curb consumption,
reduce the demand for fossil fuels and push more companies toward creating environmentally friendly
substitutes.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 11
Pro
The significance of climate change is undeniable – the effects are already being felt
with drought, hurricanes and other severe events on the rise. With the cost of human
life and the future of our economy are at stake, and with massive carbon emissions as
the scientifically proven source of the problem, it is the responsibility of every
government to make significant reductions in their national carbon output. The
carbon tax is an effective way of raising revenue and deterring emissions with proven
results in state and local government as well as abroad. Therefore, my partner and I
affirm the resolution: The United States federal government should adopt a carbon
tax.
A carbon tax is a fee placed on carbon-producing practices meant to deter
environmental harm
David Suzuki Foundation. 2014. What is a carbon tax or carbon fee? Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-solutions/carbon-tax-or-cap-andtrade/
A carbon tax is a fee placed on greenhouse gas pollution mainly from burning fossil fuels. This can be
done by placing a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of pollution such as industrial
processes. A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, our
communities and our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they cause. A shift by
households, businesses and industry to cleaner technologies increases the demand for energy-efficient
products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions. Under this system, the price to
pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are
encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy
sources such as solar and wind power.
Adopt is to assume an attitude or position
Oxford Dictionary. No Date. Adopt. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adopt
1.1 Take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action): this approach has been
adopted by many big banks 1.2Take on or assume (an attitude or position): he adopted a patronizing
tone adopt a slightly knees-bent position 1.3 (adopt someone as) Choose someone to receive special
recognition: at least 23 people adopted as “prisoners of conscience” remain in jail 1.4 Formally approve
or accept (a report or suggestion): the committee voted 5-1 to adopt the proposal.’
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 12
Contention 1—Carbon tax lowers emissions
Environmental and public health costs related to climate change are much greater
than the tax
Citizens’ Climate Lobby. 2015. The Economic Effect of a Carbon Tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/economic-effect-carbon-tax/
Let’s put these costs into perspective by contrasting them with what we stand to gain by addressing the
problem: In 2012, 11 climate-related disasters resulted in $110 billion worth of damages [5] (~$936 in
costs per household [6, 7]). Annually, there are $120 billion in health-related damages due to fossil fuel
burning [8] (costs of ~$1021 per household per year [6, 9]). As these costs represent only a piece of the
costs already causing a drag on the US economy that could be relieved by addressing our fossil fuel
addiction, it is clear that many studies that find a negative effect of a revenue-neutral carbon tax on the
economy would find quite the opposite if they accounted for these externalities. Note: Each of the
economic studies referenced in this laser talk [1-4] are also referenced in a CBO report [10] exploring
and summarizing the important considerations and findings for a carbon tax policy. That report
highlighted that a carbon tax without revenue return would cause a drag on the economy, that revenue
return could possibly increase GDP even without considering environmental, health, and other cobenefits, and that the calculations for estimating the environmental impact are imperfect, because of
the difficulty of estimating the most costly effects (catastrophes).
Other countries will adopt the tax to conform with US import markets
Mark Tercek. Writer at the Nature Conservatory. May 5, 2015 . The Conservative Case for a
Carbon Tax: Q&A with Jerry Taylor. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2015/05/05/the-conservative-case-for-a-carbon-tax-qa-with-jerrytaylor/
Tercek: Climate change is a global problem, and a U.S. carbon tax can’t solve everything. So how does a
carbon tax go global? How can we bring developing nations into a global carbon tax over time? Taylor: If
the United States were to unilaterally impose a carbon tax and apply that tax to the GhGs embedded in
imported goods as if they were produced domestically, a large part of global production would be
captured by carbon taxes collected by the U.S. Treasury. Foreign nations exporting goods to the U.S.
economy would thus have a choice: stand pat and let the U.S. capture carbon tax revenue from their
own domestic production, or impose equivalent taxes and send those same revenues to domestic
treasuries. The incentive to impose carbon taxes is clear. A global agreement to codify carbon taxation
would be easier to achieve under those circumstances and far less subject to scrums about appropriate
baseline emissions levels. All governments need revenue. Getting that revenue from GhG emissions is
no worse—and arguably better—than getting that revenue directly from wealth creation or labor. Were
the United States to lead on that front, it’s more likely that other governments would follow than would
be the case were the United States to continue on its current regulatory path.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 13
A carbon tax would reduce emissions
Donlad Marron, Eric Toder and Lydia Austin. Researchers at Tax Policy Center. June
2015. Taxing Carbon: What, why and how. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/2000274-taxing-carbon-what-why-and-how.pdf
Despite these modeling differences, there is broad consensus that a carbon tax would reduce emissions.
Several years ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reviewed carbon tax studies and concluded
that a $25 per ton of CO2-equivalent charge on greenhouse gas emissions from electricity,
manufacturing, and transportation, rising 2 percent faster than inflation, would cut covered emissions
by 10 percent in its first decade.21 Emissions reductions from a $25 tax, rising at 2 percent real, would
thus be somewhat larger than those from the Clean Power Plan, but they would be far short of
President Obama’s reduction target for 2025.22 Achieving the 2025 goal with a tax alone would require
a significantly higher-starting tax rate, faster escalation, or a combination of the two. Other researchers
have confirmed that a carbon tax that escalates over time can significantly reduce emissions. For
example, Jorgensen and colleagues (2015) estimate that an initial $20 carbon tax, growing at 5 percent
faster than inflation each year, would reduce emissions over 20 percent in its 15th year and over 30
percent in its 35th year.23
The risks associated with climate change are higher than the risk of economic damage
from a carbon tax
Columbia Business School. February 3, 2015. The High Cost of Climate Uncertainty. January 10,
2015. https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/ideas-at-work/publication/1718/the-high-cost-of-climateuncertainty
Using 140 years of stock and bond pricing data from the United States, Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner
sought to find a proxy for the average American’s tolerance for risk. Over the period, a diversified
portfolio of stocks would have earned its owner an average annual real return of 6.4 percent, while an
all-bond portfolio would have earned its owner an average annual real return of just 1.6 percent.
Despite the historic outperformance of stocks, few investors would hold an all-stock portfolio for a
simple reason: A historically higher average rate of return offers no guarantee of a better, or even a
positive return at any given point in time. Worse, the moments in which individuals are most likely to
need access to their investments—after being laid off during a recession, for example—are also the
moments in which their investments are likely to be least valuable. Given the uncertainty associated
with stocks, corporate and government bond purchases, with their guaranteed rates of return, act as a
type of insurance against a market crash. With bonds earning, in an average year, just a quarter of the
returns of stocks, Daniel and his team hit upon a rough measure of how much the average American has
been willing to pay to shelter themselves from the fluctuations of the market, and the potential upside
they demand to shoulder the risks associated with it.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 14
Contention 2—Carbon tax revenue helps the
economy
The cost of carbon production is already high—the tax just puts that into the retail
cost and directs the revenue to alleviate climate change in other ways
Charles Wheelan. Writer at US News and World Report. February 18, 2014 . The
Irrefutable Logic of a Carbon Tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/02/18/global-warming-and-why-acarbon-tax-is-a-no-brainer
And if we’re not sick with global warming? Then raising the cost of carbon emissions would still have
positive “side effects.” It would reduce conventional pollution, reduce traffic congestion, reduce our
dependence on energy from hostile parts of the world, promote renewable energy and promote cleaner
carbon-based fuels like natural gas over dirty ones like coal. Any kind of carbon tax would raise
government revenue that could substitute for revenue that we currently raise by taxing income, capital
and savings. If we tax carbon, people pollute less. If we tax income, people work less. There is not an
economist I’ve ever met who prefers the latter to the former. We ought to think about curtailing carbon
emissions as a form of insurance. Would any sensible financial analyst hesitate to spend 3 percent of his
portfolio to protect against a contingency that economists are warning could wipe away much of the
principal? Would any homeowner hesitate to spend 3 percent of the value of his or her home to protect
against a hurricane that most meteorologists say is bearing down dangerously on the property? Does
any sensible person ever wait until they are 100 percent sure that something really bad is going to
happen before taking any precaution against it?
Green jobs and investment will make up for economic costs
Rick McGahey. Writer at CNN. October 3, 2014. A carbon tax will create jobs for Americans.
Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/opinion/mcgahey-climate-change/
Business leaders and economists said in a report that new technologies can spur both economic growth
and better climate outcome. Finance experts at the International Monetary Fund -- hardly a bunch of
tree-huggers -- made a similar point. In their paper about carbon pricing, they concluded that higher
carbon prices can benefit individual countries even if others don't match them. And economist Robert
Pollin and his colleagues have shown that for every $1 million of investment in clean energy, the U.S.
can create 16.7 jobs compared with only 5.3 jobs from fossil fuel investments. Overall, green energy
investments combined with carbon taxes can create 2.7 million jobs in areas such as renewable energy,
construction, manufacturing, transportation, new technologies and services -- even taking into account
the transitional job loss from fossil fuel industries. We should pay attention to these ideas. American
energy policy is backwards. Federal and state governments give out over $20 billion in annual subsidies
for fossil fuel exploration and production, which benefit highly profitable companies such as Exxon
Mobil, Shell and BP. But if the U.S. implements even a modest federal carbon tax, we could generate
$170 billion by 2030 to create jobs and build bridges, roads and schools, reduce budget deficits, and cut
taxes to spur private investment.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 15
Low oil prices make the time right for carbon taxes—the costs won’t break anyone
Lawrence Summers. Former Secretary of the Treasury. January 4, 2015 . Oil’s swoon
creates the opening for a carbon tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/oils-swoon-creates-the-opening-for-a-carbontax/2015/01/04/3db11a3a-928a-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html
With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become
overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should
be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased
taxation would be desirable. The core of the case for taxation is the recognition that those who use
carbon-based fuels or products do not bear all the costs of their actions. Carbon emissions exacerbate
global climate change. In many cases, they contribute to local pollution problems that harm human
health. Getting fossil fuels out of the ground involves both accident risks and environmental challenges.
And even with the substantial recent increases in U.S. oil production, we remain a net importer. Any
increase in our consumption raises our dependence on Middle East producers. All of us, when we drive
our cars, heat our homes or use fossil fuels in more indirect ways, create these costs without paying for
them. It follows that we overuse these fuels. Advocating a carbon tax is not some kind of argument for
government planning; it is the logic of the market: That which is not paid for is overused. Even if the
government had no need or use for revenue, it could make the economy function better by levying
carbon taxes and rebating the money to taxpayers.
A carbon tax will help economic competitiveness
Henry Paulson. Former Secretary of the US Treasury. June 21, 2014. The Coming Climate
Crash. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-forclimate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=1
The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the
most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon
tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all
share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.
It's true that the United States can't solve this problem alone. But we're not going to be able to
persuade other big carbon polluters to take the urgent action that's needed if we're not doing
everything we can do to slow our carbon emissions and mitigate our risks. I was secretary of the
Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think it's fair to say that I know a little bit about risk,
assessing outcomes and problem-solving. Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008, it
is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face. We are
building up excesses (debt in 2008, greenhouse gas emissions that are trapping heat now). Our
government policies are flawed (incentivizing us to borrow too much to finance homes then, and
encouraging the overuse of carbon-based fuels now). Our experts (financial experts then, climate
scientists now) try to understand what they see and to model possible futures.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 16
Rebuttal to Carbon tax hurts the economy
The economic and human costs from climate change are beyond calculation
Ralph Nader. Political activist and Presidential candidate. January 4, 2013 . The best
solution for climate change is a carbon tax. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/04/the-best-solution-for-climate-change-is-a-carbon-tax/
Given the already lackluster recovery, the future economic devastation from global warming looms
many times larger than any “fiscal cliff.” A 2006 report from British economist Nicholas Stern estimated
that if global temperatures increase 2-3 degrees Celsius in the next 50 years we risk losing up to 20
percent of global GDP – a loss similar to that of the Great Depression. But global warming won’t just
affect our pocketbooks. According to a report from DARA, an international humanitarian organization, if
we do nothing, over 100 million lives will be lost by 2030 from our reliance on fossil fuels and the effects
of global warming, including hunger, the spread of disease, air pollution, and cancer. We are already
feeling the impacts of a warming planet. In 2011 the Mississippi River experienced yet another “500year flood.” Extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy, are becoming more common. This summer,
western states saw blistering wildfires consume over 9 million acres, about 3 million more than the
annual average over the last decade. Droughts ravaged our heartland’s crops. By the end of the
summer, nearly two-thirds of the contiguous U.S. was experiencing moderate to exceptional drought.
A carbon tax is a tiny cost with immense benefits—compare it to other budget items
Ralph Nader. Political activist and Presidential candidate. January 4, 2013 . The best
solution for climate change is a carbon tax. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/01/04/the-best-solution-for-climate-change-is-a-carbon-tax/
As one of the largest polluters in the world, the United States has a special responsibility to lead the way
in tackling global warming. We emit 18 percent of worldwide CO2 emissions with just 4.5 percent of the
world’s population. In 2010, the country was responsible for about 5.6 billion metric tons of CO2
emissions – more than the collective emissions of all the countries of Europe and, not counting China, as
much as the next five largest CO2 polluters combined. All of this doesn’t even include the additional 1.2
billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions that we spewed into the atmosphere from non-CO2
GHGs. According to the world authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
a carbon tax on GHGs of $50 per metric ton of CO2 equivalents would be a good first step. With annual
emissions of 6.8 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalents, the United States would collect $340 billion each
year. With revenue like that, a carbon tax could be used to help balance the budget. The policies
discussed in the fiscal cliff debate were comparatively instructive. For example, extending the Bush tax
cuts to all but the top 2 percent – as President Obama has suggested – would cost $171 billion each year
in lost revenue. Preventing cuts to nondefense spending would cost $55 billion. Continuing to pay
unemployment benefits would cost $26 billion. A carbon tax would pay for all of this and then some.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 17
REBUTTAL to tax hurts economy
Their criticism assumes it will function like other taxes—evidence shows a positive
economic impact
Cristina Maza. Writer at Christian Science Monitor. October 29, 2015 . Everyone’s favorite
climate change fix. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://energy.csmonitor.com/pricing
“[E]verything depends upon how it’s structured and where the money goes,” says Tyson Slocum,
director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit, consumer-advocacy group. “You have to
take into account where the revenue is being redirected.” Even in developing countries that face
difficult financial hurdles to increasing taxes, advocates say increased revenue from a carbon tax can be
used to alleviate other tax burdens. With some simple financial reshuffling, a carbon tax can be
completely revenue neutral and can even spur growth. Politics present another obstacle in the way of
implementing a successful carbon tax. Any policy with the word “tax” in it has a way of scaring off voters
and their elected representatives in government. Consider Australia. After years of contentious debate,
the Australian government, under Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, implemented a carbon tax in 2012.
Three years later, it was gone. Pro-business Prime Minister Tony Abbott helped push for the tax’s repeal
after being elected on a promise to “ax the tax.” All told, between 2007 and 2014, the national debate
around carbon taxing contributed to the political demise of three Australian Prime Ministers who
supported the tax. “The problem with the carbon tax has always been more political than economic,”
says William Cline, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “It’s fair to say
that the broad consensus on this is that a tax is the right way to go, but there is a resistance to any
notion of a tax.”
A carbon tax will not hit key growth industries
Kevin O’Marah. Writer at Forbes. December 3, 2015. Solving Climate Change: Carbon Tax +
Supply Chain + Dematerialization. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinomarah/2015/12/03/solving-climate-change-carbon-tax-supplychain-dematerialization/2/
Climate summits have a poor track record. The main problem is that economic growth and carbon
emissions have traditionally moved together. China’s crazy growth over the past two decades for
instance has brought horrible pollution and dramatically accelerated the crisis. Political voices on both
side of the issue invite disaster by presenting climate change as a choice between economic gains and
environmental sustainability. This badly misses the most important disruptive force of the 21st century,
which is digitization. Digitization does not only mean faster computers and communication. It also
means consumer products that don’t require shipping, packaging, or even manufacturing to earn money
for shareholders. This emerging content economy is all about intellectual property that consumers
value, but that manifest with little or no energy required. Market values of companies like Facebook,
Uber, and Disney have very little to do with burning hydrocarbons and a lot to do with developing and
delivering ideas. The moment of consumer value for these companies is virtually carbon-free with most
getting their money’s worth intangibly. In fact, intangible value (market capitalization minus assets)
which in 1975 comprised only 17% of the total value of the S&P 500 was worth 84% by 2015. Bob
Marley set the vision with this refrain from his 1976 song. It points to an idea that mankind can and
should come together as one.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 18
Rebuttal to Carbon industries can’t adjust
Local governments and other countries have already implemented and companies are
ready
Cristina Maza. Writer at Christian Science Monitor. October 29, 2015 . Everyone’s favorite
climate change fix. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://energy.csmonitor.com/pricing
On a sub-national level, cities and states in the US and abroad are implementing their own taxes and
trading systems to reduce emissions. The Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, finalized in August,
promotes cap-and-trade as one method states can use to meet new emissions-reductions targets. In the
private sector, major energy firms already factor in a theoretical carbon price in internal accounting.
Other companies – take Microsoft for example – voluntarily tax themselves for carbon use as a way to
lower their climate impact and improve internal efficiencies. “Many governments are already putting a
price on carbon as part of their climate protection strategies,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in
a statement this month as part of the Carbon Pricing Panel, a coalition of heads of State, city and state
leaders backing carbon pricing. “We should advance our effort along this path further so that we can
actually reach our goal of maintaining the two degree upper limit.” Currently, about 40 national and
over 20 sub-national jurisdictions have implemented or scheduled carbon-pricing systems, according to
a report by the World Bank and Ecofys, a renewable-energy consultancy. That represents nearly a
doubling of such systems since 2012. All together, global carbon taxes and trading systems are
estimated to value just under $50 billion, according to the World Bank and Ecofys.
Carbon-producing industries will adjust their prices accordingly
Kevin O’Marah. Writer at Forbes. December 3, 2015. Solving Climate Change: Carbon Tax +
Supply Chain + Dematerialization. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinomarah/2015/12/03/solving-climate-change-carbon-tax-supplychain-dematerialization/2/
I have argued before that a carbon tax, applied to manufacturing and distribution would work. This is
because supply chain practitioners, whose job it will be to track actual emissions that determine the tax
bill, excel at managing trade-offs in pursuit of a goal. They, more than scientists, politicians and even
other business executives live in a world where money and materials constantly bleed into each other
and success is defined in both financial and engineering terms. The climate crisis is exactly this type of
problem. The engineering reality of climate change is all about stopping the greenhouse effect which
means emitting less carbon and/or finding ways to remove it from the atmosphere. The first half of this
equation is in perfect alignment with every supply chain strategist’s natural hunger for efficiency. SCM
World research has shown that supply chain organizations are well aware of how to balance an energy
portfolio, reduce fuel use and eliminate material waste. The big ones, like Google, Unilever and BASF
could certainly layer in carbon optimization to their existing supply network modelling approaches.
Most are already fostering development of alternative power sources in anticipation of such disruptions
to energy markets. The second half of the equation is even more interesting. Reforestation,
geoengineering and technologies for atmospheric clean-up may sound far-fetched, but mission driven
research gave us the internet, nuclear power and plastics so why not expect similar business rewards
from the climate challenge?
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 19
Rebuttal to Europe’s carbon tax failed
Europe’s problems were due to timing—other carbon taxes have worked
Cristina Maza. Writer at Christian Science Monitor. October 29, 2015 . Everyone’s favorite
climate change fix. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://energy.csmonitor.com/pricing
In 2005, the European Union, the world’s third largest emitter, launched what remains the world’s
largest cap-and-trade scheme. Then, the global economy collapsed. Demand for polluting energy fell
and thus so too did prices for carbon credits. Prices hovered around $7 per metric ton in the EU’s
Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) at the time, whereas the International Energy Agency estimated they
would need to cost around $65 per ton to nudge utilities away from coal-fired plants. As a result,
companies had little incentive to cut down on emissions. By 2013 the system was facing a crisis. When
the EU attempted to reduce the number of permits by delaying the scheduled release of new ones, the
initiative failed in the European Parliament. Low carbon credit prices don’t necessarily mean the system
isn’t working, as environmental economist Robert Stavins and others have noted. Indeed, it may just be
evidence of unrelated factors like slow economic demand or other energy policies working in concert
with cap-and-trade to reduce emissions. The primary concern with the EU’s system was over its
inflexibility. When market conditions changed dramatically, efforts to adapt to new realities fell short or
failed completely. While the EU ETS has outgrown early growing pains, the EU still struggles to balance
the system.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 20
Rebuttal to Carbon tax won’t affect emissions
Skeptics of carbon tax emission reductions are ignoring science, just like climate
change deniers
Scot Lehigh. Writer at Boston Globe. November 5, 2015. Marco Rubio needs to check his
numbers on the carbon tax. Accessed January 10, 2015.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/05/marco-rubio-needs-check-his-numbers-carbontax/fphO1c6qBRIK6W2mKzZifJ/story.html
Assuming US adoption of a robust carbon tax led to commensurate carbon-reduction policies by other
countries that are large emitters, the combined action could cut the projected rise in sea level by almost
half by century’s end, he said. “It wouldn’t matter much up until mid-century, then it starts to matter a
great deal,” he noted. To assess the sea level effect, Oppenheimer compares the mid-range of the IPCC’s
business-as-usual and strong-action scenarios. By 2100, a significant carbon tax, with similar measures
from other emitters, could mean the difference between a sea-level rise of about 17 inches and one of
about 30 inches, he says. Given that more than 100 million people worldwide live within three feet of
sea level, that matters. (On a typical US East Coast beach, each one-foot rise swallows about 100 feet of
beach.) To be sure, having other countries adopt a carbon tax (or the emissions-reduction policy
equivalent) would require US leadership. But we’re already seeing some promising movement. Prodded
by the Obama administration, both China and India have now announced carbon-reduction targets.
Problems remain, of course. China is using much more coal than previously thought; India’s goals aren’t
considered strong enough. Still, both commitments are seen as setting the stage for progress at
December’s climate conference in Paris. It’s an important idea — far too important to be dismissed
cavalierly, as Rubio did. He’s either misinformed or, worse, trying to muddy the waters.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 21
Rebuttal to Carbon tax won’t raise much revenue
Revenue projections are conservative—falling costs of alternatives will change them
Donlad Marron, Eric Toder and Lydia Austin. Researchers at Tax Policy Center. June
2015. Taxing Carbon: What, why and how. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/2000274-taxing-carbon-what-why-and-how.pdf
A carbon tax would encourage producers to switch to cleaner energy sources and production methods
and encourage consumers to invest in efficiency improvements and cut back on carbon-intensive
purchases. Those responses would reduce US emissions of greenhouse gases. How much depends on
the size of the tax, the scope of emissions that it covers, and the responsiveness of producers and
consumers to a new price on carbon. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are now 40
percent higher than preindustrial levels, and they continue to rise. If all human emissions suddenly
stopped, global temperatures would still rise another 0.3 degrees Celsius over the next 20 years.19 But
worldwide emissions continue to grow, and, absent new policies, we appear on track for a temperature
increase of several degrees by the end of the century. The United States accounts for about one-seventh
of global emissions of greenhouse gases. US emissions have fallen in recent years, from 7.3 billion tons
in 2005 to 6.7 billion tons in 2012 (figure 1). That reduction reflects the aftermath of the Great
Recession, reduced production by coal-fired power plants (because of retirements, new mercury
standards, and a switch to natural gas), and improved efficiency in cars and trucks. In addition,
investment in wind and, in particular, solar power is rising as a result of falling costs and subsidies that
encourage adoption.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 22
Rebuttal to Market solutions fail/regulation key
Regulation fails—only price changes will affect the market’s behavior
Howard Gleckman. Writer at Forbes. September 1, 2015. Could A Carbon Tax Prevent The
Catastrophic Consequences Of Climate Change That Obama Fears? Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/09/01/could-a-carbon-tax-prevent-the-catastrophicconsequences-of-climate-change-that-obama-fears/
Reducing demand for carbon fuels by directly raising their price is simpler and far more efficient than
regulatory curbs. Some of the revenue generated by such a tax could be used to cushion the economic
blow suffered by low-income households as well as coal mining communities. Extra revenue could be
used to reduce individual or payroll tax rates, help finance corporate tax reform, or trim the budget
deficit. If you believe that man-made climate change is a figment of fevered left-wing imaginations,
there is no problem to fix. But if you are anyone else, you can look to technology and one of three policy
solutions to the problem: We can reduce emissions by taxing them directly, by taxing them indirectly
through regulation, or by some combination of both. Given the limitations and inefficiencies of a pure
regulatory approach, it is hard to imagine that a carbon tax or a related carbon trading model won’t play
some role in future climate change policy.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 23
Con
All evidence suggests that imposing a new tax will not help an economy; because of
the necessarily higher costs, production and demand will necessarily drop. Taxes are
as inevitable as death, but imposing a new tax that specifically targets the most
economically vulnerable households and industries should be avoided. Additionally,
the tax will create black markets, demand for substitutes and other distortions that
will either limit its effect or even harm the goals of promoting alternative energy and
reducing carbon emissions. Therefore, my partner and I negate the resolution: The
United States federal government should adopt a carbon tax.
A carbon tax is a fee placed on carbon-producing practices meant to deter
environmental harm
David Suzuki Foundation. 2014. What is a carbon tax or carbon fee? Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-solutions/carbon-tax-or-cap-andtrade/
A carbon tax is a fee placed on greenhouse gas pollution mainly from burning fossil fuels. This can be
done by placing a surcharge on carbon-based fuels and other sources of pollution such as industrial
processes. A carbon tax puts a monetary price on the real costs imposed on our economy, our
communities and our planet by greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they cause. A shift by
households, businesses and industry to cleaner technologies increases the demand for energy-efficient
products and helps spur innovation and investment in green solutions. Under this system, the price to
pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are
encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy
sources such as solar and wind power.
Adopt is to assume an attitude or position
Oxford Dictionary. No Date. Adopt. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adopt
1.1 Take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action): this approach has been
adopted by many big banks 1.2Take on or assume (an attitude or position): he adopted a patronizing
tone adopt a slightly knees-bent position 1.3 (adopt someone as) Choose someone to receive special
recognition: at least 23 people adopted as “prisoners of conscience” remain in jail 1.4 Formally approve
or accept (a report or suggestion): the committee voted 5-1 to adopt the proposal.’
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 24
Contention 1—Carbon tax is bad for the
environment
Negative incentives will fail politically and create backlash against a green transition
Steven Cohen. Writer at Huffington Post. September 29, 2014. It's Time to Abandon the
Delusion of a Carbon Tax. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stevencohen/its-time-to-abandon-the-d_b_5899448.html
While I consider global warming one of the great policy and management challenges of our time, I do
not take seriously this effort to reduce greenhouse gases by raising the price of fossil fuels. A generous
interpretation of the proposed carbon tax is that it is an act of political symbolism or perhaps
impassioned idealism. A less generous interpretation would label it cynical baloney. No political leader
responsible for ensuring the material well-being of his or her people in the modern global economy is
going to willingly raise the price of something so central to that economy as the price of energy. This is
especially true in the developing world. We will make the transition to a fossil fuel-free economy
because our survival depends on it, but we won't do it through a tax or treaty that prices energy at its
complete cost. I know some economists consider a carbon tax, or internalizing the price of externalities,
to be the magic bullet of environmental policy. They seem to have sold many climate scientists (and
possibly our Secretary of State) on its mathematical elegance, but any realistic analysis of political and
economic power and the force of self-interest make it clear that a global carbon tax will never happen.
The political leaders of the developing world need to ensure that they have the energy required to grow
their economies.
A carbon tax would cause carbon leakage—that offsets emissions reductions
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris. Research Fellows at Heritage Institute.
January 2013. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without
Helping the Environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-andlow-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment
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] 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]
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 25
Atmospheric carbon is good for plants—a tax would lower crop yields
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. Founder of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
Creation. October 7, 2015. A Carbon Tax Would Be Bad for the Poor, and Everyone Else. Accessed
January 10, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2015/10/07/a-carbontax-would-be-bad-for-the-poor-and-everyone-else
But carbon dioxide (CO2) is not carbon – and the difference is more than just a matter of knowing
enough chemistry to distinguish an element from a compound. It's a matter of distinguishing a black
solid that, in the form of fine soot particles, can cause respiratory diseases from an odorless, colorless
gas that is non-toxic at any concentration and non-dangerous at concentrations 20 times the current
400 parts per million (ppm) in our atmosphere. To call CO2 "carbon pollution" is not only bad chemistry
and toxicology but also bad biology. Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth. The higher its
concentration, the better plants grow. A study by researchers at the Technische Universität München
found forests around the world growing up to 70 percent faster today than 50 years ago because of
increased CO2. As thousands of empirical studies have found, on average, every doubling of CO2
concentration in the atmosphere causes about a 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. Plants
grow better in wetter and drier soils and in warmer and colder temperatures, widening their ranges and
increasing their adaptability to climate changes, reducing the risk of biodiversity loss. They make better
use of soil nutrients, resist diseases and pests better, and improve the ratio of fruit to fiber. The
consequence is more food for people and animals. Most important, it means more affordable food for
the poor. A review of refereed literature on the subject found the "monetary value of this benefit
amount[ed] to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961–2011. Projecting the monetary
value … forward … reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between
now and 2050." So any argument to reduce CO2 emissions must offset the fact that increasing CO2's
concentration in the atmosphere enhances food production.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 26
Contention 2—Carbon tax is regressive
Poor households will absorb the majority of the cost domestically
Derrick Morgan. Vice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and
Opportunity. August 2012. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income
Americans Without Helping the Environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-andlow-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment
Dampening the impact on poor families was deemed a politically necessary design element for cap-andtrade and would likely be required in any carbon tax. Looking at compliance costs for cap-and-trade
(with an allowance price around $20 per ton), the Congressional Budget Office found that the lowest
quintile lost more than three times as much income (measured as a percentage) as the top quintile (2.5
percent as opposed to 0.7 percent).[48] Because the poor spend a higher portion of their income on
energy and the higher energy prices are passed on to the consumer,[49] this result is not surprising. 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.
Developing countries will bear the majority of the costs in trade
Alex Trembath and Matthew Stepp. Writers at Energy Post. November 12, 2013 . Why a
carbon tax is a bad idea. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.energypost.eu/carbon-tax-bad-idea/
If greenhouse gases were a pollutant like sulphur dioxide that largely stays within national borders such
a policy might make sense. But they are not. It’s a global pollutant. That’s why we talk about addressing
global warming, not American warming. Mankiw’s preferred climate solution aims at getting U.S.
consumers to buy slightly more fuel efficient cars or turn off light bulbs more regularly because energy
prices are modestly higher. This will have little impact on global emissions because virtually all their
growth will be in rapidly growing developing nations like China and India. Moreover, greenhouse gases
are not like traditional pollutants in another sense: they are cumulative, essentially filling the
atmospheric “bath tub.” We therefore can’t afford to simply slow their growth; we need to dramatically
cut emissions. This gets to the second major problem with the carbon tax. The only way to get to
dramatic cuts in global emissions is by developing significantly cheaper and better clean energy
technologies. Current clean energy alternatives cost significantly more than conventional energy.
Expecting consumers and businesses, especially in poor developing nations, to pay a large price
premium for clean energy is wishful thinking.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 27
Contention 3—Carbon tax hurts the US economy
A tax will trade off with innovation—improved tech is the best way to reduce carbon
Alex Trembath and Matthew Stepp. Writers at Energy Post. November 12, 2013 . Why a
carbon tax is a bad idea. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.energypost.eu/carbon-tax-bad-idea/
Economists have built a cottage industry out of comparing carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and
conventional pollution regulations. But an innovation strategy to develop cheaper, better clean energy
technologies doesn’t make the cut. Frankly, this shouldn’t be a surprise as innovation is not part of
neoclassical economists’ lexicon. In Mankiw’s seminal textbook Principles of Economics, the word
“innovation” is barely mentioned in almost 900 pages of text. But breakthrough technologies like jet
aircraft, gas engines, computers and cell phones have never emerged because their competitors’ price
increased. Steve Jobs didn’t develop the PC because the price of a typewriter went up. We have to only
look to Europe for a natural experiment. Their gasoline prices are more than twice as high as in the
United States and serve as a de facto carbon tax. While Europeans buy smaller cars and take more mass
transit, they don’t buy more electric vehicles because they are expensive and provide limited range.
While a higher gas price can spur carmakers to make smaller, more fuel efficient internal combustion
engine cars, it has not and will not spur them to develop cheap batteries that let you drive 500 miles
without a charge.
A carbon tax would hurt US manufacturing which is key to the economy
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris. Research Fellows at Heritage Institute.
January 2013. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without
Helping the Environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-andlow-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment
While some may believe that the United States is a post-industrial power, it is still the world’s top
manufacturer[25] (although China is gaining), with manufacturing accounting for 12.2 percent of U.S.
GDP.[26] Proponents of cap-and-trade acknowledged that a price on GHG emissions would negatively
affect domestic manufacturing unless the cost was fully and permanently offset. Additionally, to offset
the impact on manufacturing fully and permanently would be to negate the desired environmental
impact of the policy (make it more expensive to emit GHGs and therefore reduce GHGs). To make up for
the impact on manufacturers, the Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade bill gave temporary free allowances
to manufacturers to ease the impact of the cap on emissions. Nearly all manufacturers use energy, and
for those that emit greenhouse gases in significant quantities, such as steelmakers, a tax on a major
input would be devastating. Moreover, a tax on carbon would also affect those who use carbonintensive fuels for feedstocks, as is the case in the chemical and fertilizer industry. The recent natural gas
boom is encouraging more investment in these industries,[27] but a carbon tax would make such
investments much less appealing.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 28
Carbon taxing manufacturing kills competitiveness and trade
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris. Research Fellows at Heritage Institute.
January 2013. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without
Helping the Environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-andlow-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment
During the cap-and-trade debate in 2009, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National
Black Chamber of Commerce commissioned studies looking at the effect of carbon caps on
manufacturing and found that hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs would be lost.[28] A
Heritage Foundation study reached the same conclusion.[29] A carbon tax would raise prices on energy
inputs for manufacturing and therefore destroy manufacturing jobs. 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. 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.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 29
Rebuttal to Carbon tax changes corporate behavior
A carbon tax won’t affect carbon-producing companies—they prefer a cost they can
easily pass on to consumers
City Journal. June 8, 2015. The Carbon Tax Charade. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.cityjournal.org/2015/eon0608oc.html
How do companies that produce fossil fuels benefit from a tax on fossil fuels? First, they don’t end up
paying it. Most economists expect nearly the entire cost increase to be passed directly on to consumers
through higher prices. Second, for many fossil-fuel producers, the tax will increase rather than decrease
their business. The largest energy companies are traditionally focused on oil and natural gas. Coal,
representing 30 percent of global energy supply and the largest primary fuel for generating electricity,
would be badly damaged by a tax. The biggest beneficiary of the damage would be natural gas, which
emits less carbon dioxide and would thus face a lower tax. If higher oil prices push consumers away from
gasoline and toward electric cars, the electricity for those cars can come from natural gas as well.
Passing costs on to others while maintaining—or even growing—sales will minimize any effects on the
industry. Much of the benefit to fossil-fuel producers from a carbon tax will come from a third factor: a
fine is a price. If a carbon tax is established at a price that economists and policymakers agree
compensates society for the potential dangers of climate change, then anyone who wants to pay the
price is implicitly welcome to emit the carbon dioxide. The result would presumably not be an increase
in emissions as it was with increased late pick-ups. But paying the tax buys legal, economic, and moral
permission for the very activity that the tax is designed to discourage. Energy producers get this benefit
without even bearing the burden of the tax.
Select industries and regions will be disproportionately affected
Clifton B Parker. Writer at Stanford News. February 28, 2014. Stanford research finds
carbon regulation burden heaviest on poor. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/kolstad-carbon-tax-022814.html
While the costs of greenhouse gas regulations are broadly spread over the entire economy, some
industries are hit harder, according to the study's hypothetical carbon tax. These would include electric
power, fertilizer, cement and coal-related industries like mining and transportation. Lime, a key
ingredient in the manufacture of cement, would see the highest cost increase at 15 percent. "The extent
to which these industries are ultimately disadvantaged depends on the extent to which they are able to
pass costs on to customers," the research noted. Still, these most highly affected industries contributed
only 1 percent to the total gross output of the U.S. economy in 2011, according to the study. This
suggests that the adverse incidence of such a tax can be ameliorated through highly targeted financial
assistance, without reducing the incentive benefits of a carbon tax," the paper stated. Another question
is which regions bear the most or least cost of carbon regulations. This is a bit more complicated to
examine, as the coal mining companies operating in Wyoming may have owners in San Francisco or New
York, Kolstad said. Research shows that while the total out-of-the-pocket carbon tax costs may be
similar across U.S. regions, the price of electricity may vary considerably. Thus, one could expect higher
electrical costs in coal-dependent states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 30
REBUT Helps economy---NO IT HURTS THE POOR…
A carbon mainly affect poor households that can’t adjust their consumption behaviors
Clifton B Parker. Writer at Stanford News. February 28, 2014. Stanford research finds
carbon regulation burden heaviest on poor. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/kolstad-carbon-tax-022814.html
Analyzing greenhouse cost burdens is important due to the urgency of coping with global warming,
which may lead to sea-level rise, local temperature and precipitation changes, and increased frequency
of extreme weather. Kolstad said, "One of the most significant problems associated with passing any
sort of legislation is perceived fairness. Although there are other issues, fairness in paying for the
legislation and fairness in the benefits that the legislation generates can be key to passage. This work
helps understand the extent to which paying for carbon legislation can be perceived as fair or unfair,
with obvious remedies for correcting any unfairness." The poorest households spend a higher
percentage of their income on fuels for heating and transportation, while higher income individuals
spend proportionately a greater amount on services, which usually have lower than average carbon
emissions per unit of output. "Emissions increase more slowly as income increases. Thus, one would
expect some regressivity in a carbon tax," the study stated. Kolstad expected the regressive nature of
carbon regulations to be even more dramatic. "I thought that a carbon regulation would be far more
regressive, falling on the shoulders of the poor more than it does," he said. This expectation, he said,
was based on the fact that lower income Americans often drive older, less fuel-efficient cars and
frequently commute long distances to work to access lower cost housing. "Although that mental model
may be correct, transportation fuel is only part of the picture," he said.
Market solutions fail—the companies will only change enough for PR purposes
Mitch Jones. Writer at Food and Water Watch. September 23, 2014 . Why a Carbon Tax
Won’t Save the Climate. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/whycarbon-tax-won%E2%80%99t-save-climate
Pricing relies on the idea that “market signals” are the best way to regulate pollution. Put a price on it,
and businesses and households will respond by polluting less. The goal has been to replace
environmental regulations with these price and market signals. We should be clear, polluting companies
want to have a set cost they can factor into their pricing of their products, that is, pass on to us, instead
of having to respond to regulation that will clean up their businesses and reduce their pollution. And
they want that cost to be unrealistically low. Yvo de Boer, the former chair of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) has proposed a carbon tax he thinks can work. That
carbon tax is set at €150 (or about $193) per tonne. For comparison, the current price for carbon in the
EU’s trading scheme is about €6.30. Proposals for a carbon tax in the U.S call for a tax in the $20 -$30
per tonne range. Even if we accepted the questionable economics of financializing carbon, and we don’t,
then these proposals are woefully inadequate when it comes to stopping climate change. But, it’s at a
level acceptable to some major corporations that want to be seen as “doing something” on climate
change.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 31
CT HURTS THE POOR—Companies don’t CHANGE
The poor and working classes will pay the tax
Derrick Morgan. Vice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and
Opportunity. August 2012. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income
Americans Without Helping the Environment. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-andlow-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment
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. While economists like to imagine that the carbon tax would be offset by
reductions in taxes on capital or some other particularly economically damaging tax, the fact is that,
politically, it is far more likely that funding from the carbon tax would be used to reduce the tax’s impact
on the poor. Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, rejected the idea of using new revenue from the carbon tax to reduce corporate taxes—a
favorite idea among some on the center-right—and said that any revenues should be used “to make
sure…the middle class gets the breaks in the interim while we move to clean energy.”[45] Nearly all of
the cap-and-trade proposals introduced during the 111th Congress included measures to blunt the
impact on less affluent families, but while such proposals would soften the blow for low-income
households, an energy tax would harm families again and again, both directly through energy prices and
indirectly through higher prices for goods and services.[46]
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 32
Rebuttal to Carbon tax reduces emissions
Carbon tax wouldn’t meet US emission reduction goals and fails to affect global
changes
Oren Cass. Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Summer 2015 . The Carbon-Tax Shell
Game. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-carbon-taxshell-game
With emissions still increasing rapidly in the developing world, developed nations are typically expected
to make substantially sharper cuts. According to the Obama White House, the U.S. government's official
goal for 2050 is an 80% emissions reduction. Annual U.S. emissions represent less than one-fifth of the
global total, however, and our share shrinks every year, so even a zeroing out of our emissions would
achieve little without dramatic changes in global behavior. The effectiveness of a carbon tax, as a matter
of environmental policy, would therefore depend not only on how it would directly alter the trajectory
of American emissions, but also on its ability to affect global emissions by driving globally applicable
technological innovation or by influencing the behavior of foreign governments. On each of these
dimensions, the carbon tax fails. It would not, at the levels contemplated, come close to achieving
America's own targeted reductions. On the global stage, it would not make an already-implausible
international agreement more likely, and, if anything, it would hinder those prospects. In the absence of
such an agreement, the only route to lower global emissions runs through technological innovation that
makes low-carbon fuels cheaper than conventional ones, but a carbon tax is poorly tailored to achieve
that objective as well.
A carbon tax will not have a significant effect on carbon emissions or climate change
David W. Kreutzer. Research Fellow at Center for Data Analysis. September 16, 2014 .
Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US economy. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbon-taxes-on-the-useconomy
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.
Even eliminating carbon dioxide emissions entirely and assuming the highest sensitivity of world
temperature to carbon dioxide levels (which happens to be the sensitivity that is furthest from that in
recent research) would project a temperature moderation of less than 0.2 degree centigrade.[6] Of
course, eliminating CO2 emissions entirely, if possible, would have much higher costs than even those of
the $25 carbon tax modeled by the EIA or the Boxer-Sanders tax modeled by Heritage.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 33
Rebuttal to Carbon tax pushes new ALTERNATE
ENERGY technology
A carbon tax will not spur new technology—empirically proven in Europe
Oren Cass. Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Summer 2015 . The Carbon-Tax Shell
Game. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-carbon-taxshell-game
But empirical evidence demonstrates that the price signal generated by the kinds of carbon taxes under
consideration will not lead to technological breakthroughs. That evidence comes from Europe, a
comparably sized market to ours, where taxes and related policies have already pushed energy costs far
above the levels that a carbon tax would take them in the United States. For instance, $1 of tax on a ton
of CO2 emissions adds approximately one cent to the cost of a gallon of gas. With gas prices typically at
least $4 higher than U.S. prices, Europe already has the equivalent of a carbon tax on the order of $400
per ton of CO2. Similarly, taxes and fees drive Europe's electricity costs up to more than double U.S.
rates, the equivalent of a carbon tax of more than $200 per ton. To the extent that large price signals
will produce innovation, the United States could presumably free-ride on the incentives offered and paid
for by the European market. But such innovation has not been forthcoming, and it is unclear why more
of the same signals in the American market would change the dynamic. Absolute value aside, a tax is
uniquely ill-suited to the task of spurring the desired innovation. If the goal is to develop products that
can compete head-to-head with fossil fuels, a well-designed program would support a nascent
technology as it pursued commercialization and scale but phase out as it matured, to ensure that
producers remained focused on a cheaper-than-carbon endgame. A carbon tax does exactly the
opposite: It provides no disproportionate support at the early stages where government intervention is
most justified, and it never phases out to apply full competitive pressure. To the contrary, most carbontax designs actually increase dramatically over time, guaranteeing innovators an ever-greater advantage
over the fossil fuels they are supposed to be driving out of the global market with competitive costs.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing
Carbon Tax PF file Feb 2016
Page 34
Rebut CARBONT pushes NEW ALT ENERGY TECH
A carbon tax hurt clean-coal tech and raised energy prices in the UK
Tony Lodge. Writer at the Telegraph UK. May 26, 2015. Carbon tax was misjudged and made
coal uneconomic. Accessed January 10, 2015.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11631729/Carbon-tax-was-misjudged-andmade-coal-uneconomic.html
The Carbon Price Floor is arguably one of the most hidden and unknown but ultimately damaging pieces
of modern industrial taxation. To use a shorter and more descriptive title, this carbon tax is slowly
forcing the premature closure of the backbone of our electricity generating base. It comes at a time
when electricity generating margins, according to National Grid, have never been tighter. In theory it is a
straightforward new tax, enabling the Treasury to raise billions – but the side-effects were clearly never
examined, understood or accepted. They are disastrous, as we are now seeing, by threatening future
supplies. If the tax is not urgently addressed, then the consequences are stark. Worryingly, there could
now be further early closures of coal plants across Britain in what could become a domino effect; last
year these elderly but reliable assets generated around 35pc of the electricity supply, which can rise to
40pc at times of higher winter demand. Another consequence could be the reduced likelihood of new
coal plants with carbon capture and storage, or "clean coal", because they will need the skills and
infrastructure transfer from old plants to new. It will mean the final collapse of the domestic coal
industry as its customer power stations refuse to forward-purchase coal due to uncertainty, thereby
inhibiting any proposed new mining investments. This would leave any future new clean coal plants
dependent on imported coal.
Renewable power won’t be cost-effective in the market
Oren Cass. Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. April 30, 2015 . Carbon Taxes In
Revenue Fantasyland. Accessed January 10, 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-taxes-inrevenue-fantasyland-1430436869
To create the backbone of a new energy system, we need large-scale renewable power, coupled with
dramatic increases in energy efficiency, demand management and storage. Solar and wind power work,
but they are not at the scale needed to replace enough fossil-fuel power plants to stop the ongoing rise
in atmospheric CO2 levels. After half a century of work, nuclear power remains costly and controversial.
And carbon capture and storage—which collects emissions and puts them underground—is not working.
A price on carbon will push demand in the right direction, but it needs to be reinforced by the pull of
public investment in innovation. The most likely way we will get the innovation we need, at the scale we
need, in the time frame we need, and at a retail price that people can afford, is if the public sector plays
a leading role. It is possible that the market will bring us a technological breakthrough on climate
change. But history suggests that this would be a long shot—even with a hefty price on carbon—
because not one of the major technological developments of the 20th century was produced by the
private sector working alone.
We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via
dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com