Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
2
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
3
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
4
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Recent comprehensive models confirm the scientific consensus that global warming
is human-caused.
ProfAnthony J. McMichael, Ph.D, Rosalie E. Woodruff Ph.D, and Simon Hales Ph.D, The Lancet,
"Climate change and human health: present and future risks" March 2006 lexis
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases due to human actions will cause warming (and other climatic changes) at Earth's surface. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), drawing on the published results of leading modelling groups
around the world, forecasts an increase in world average temperature by 2100 within the range 1.4-5.8C.1
The increase will be greater at higher latitudes and over land. Global average annual rainfall will increase, although
many mid latitude and lower latitude land regions will become drier, whereas elsewhere precipitation events (and
flooding) could become more severe. Climate variability is expected to increase in a warmer world.
Climatological research over the past two decades makes clear that Earth's climate will change in
response to atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation. The unusually rapid temperature rise (05C) since
the mid-1970s is substantially attributable to this anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases.1,2 Various
effects of this recent warming on non-human systems are apparent.3?9 In view of greenhouse gas longevity and the climate system's
inertia, climate change would continue for at least several decades even if radical international pre-emptive action were taken very
soon.1,10 In the 1990s, climate change science relied on climate-system models with good atmospheric dynamics but simple
representations of the ocean, land surface, sea ice, and sulphate aerosols, at coarse spatial resolution. Meanwhile, much has been
learnt about how Earth's climate system responds to changes in natural and human generated effects: solar activity, volcanic
eruptions, aerosols, ozone depletion, and greenhouse gas concentration. Today's global climate models are more
comprehensive: they include more detailed representations of the ocean, land-surface, sea-ice, sulphate
and non-sulphate aerosols, the carbon cycle, vegetation dynamics, and atmospheric chemistry, and at finer
spatial resolution.10 Recent understanding of how sea surface temperature affects the characteristics of tropical storms and
cyclones, and how ocean subsurface temperatures, thermocline depths and thicknesses affect activity of the El Nio Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, tropical cyclone intensification, and landfall prediction will further enrich modelling capacity. Today's
models have been well validated against the recorded data from past decades. Climate model projections,
driven by anticipated future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, indicate that Earth will continue to
warm, with associated increases in sea level and extreme weather events. Modelling cannot be an exact science.
There is debate about humankind's future trajectories for greenhouse gas emission. There are residual uncertainties about the
sensitivity of the climate system to future atmospheric changes. The range in the forecast increase in world average temperature
(14?58C) by 2100 indicates both uncertainty about future greenhouse gas emissions and marginal differences in design of the
several leading global climate models (UK, Germany, USA, etc). The spatial pattern of projected temperature and particularly
rainfall changes also differ between models. Hence, estimates of climate changes over coming decades are indicative rather than
predictive.1 Note also that the uncertainty is symmetrical: underestimation of future climate change is as likely as overestimation.
Longer term, the probability of exceeding critical thresholds-causing step-changes in climate, environment
and related effects-will increase.1,10
5
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
6
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
7
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
8
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
9
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
With the end of oil looming – global economic depression and war are inevitable.
Paul Roberts (energy expert and writer for Harpers) 2004, The End of Oil, pg.12-13
Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as at Ghawar, the amount of oil that oil
companies and oil states can pull out of the ground plateaus or even begins to decline — a not altogether inconceivable scenario. Oil
is finite, and although vast oceans of it remain underground, waiting to be pumped out and refined into gasoline for your
Winnebago, this is old oil, in fields that have been known about for years or even decades. By contrast, the amount of new oil that is
being discovered each year is declining; the peak year was 1960, and it has been downhill ever since. Given that oil cannot be
produced without first being discovered, it is inevitable that, at some point, worldwide oil production must peak
and begin declining as well — less than ideal circumstances for a global economy that depends on cheap oil
for about 40 percent of its energy needs (not to mention 90 percent of its transportation fuel) and is nowhere even
close to having alternative energy sources. The last three times oil production dropped off a cliff — the Arab oil embargo
of 1974, the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War — the resulting price spikes pushed the world into
recession. And these disruptions were temporary. Presumably, the effects of a long-term permanent disruption
would be far more gruesome. As prices rose, consumers would quickly shift to other fuels, such as natural gas or coal, but
soon enough, those supplies would also tighten and their prices would rise. An inflationary ripple effect would set in. As
energy became more expensive, so would such energy-dependent activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial
activity would slow, and segments of the global economy especially dependent on rapid growth — which is to say,
pretty much everything these days — would tip into recession. The cost of goods and services would rise, ultimately
depressing economic demand and throwing the entire economy into an enduring depression that would make
1929 look like a dress rehearsal and could touch off a desperate and probably violent contest for whatever
oil supplies remained.
10
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
11
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
12
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Carbon taxes will successfully mitigate global warming – a starter tax of $37 per ton
of carbon is key.
Lorna Salzman, "The Politics of Calming the Climate Crisis" September 15, 2005
http://www.lornasalzman.com/collectedwritings/PoliticalClimateChange.html
Why carbon taxes are equitable. With taxes on fossil fuels, those who consume the most would pay the most. Those who consume
the least would pay the least. Thus, those people owning large houses or SUVs or power boats or several cars would bear, finally,
their fair share of the burden and pay more into the carbon tax fund. Those with compact cars or who use bicycles or public
transportation would pay less. Carbon taxes are thus equitable and progressive, unlike sales taxes, which are regressive and penalize
the poor more than the wealthy. Since oil and gas will never again be cheap, consumers need to decide whether to pay more for oil
and allow oil companies to reap higher and higher profits, or pay more to create a carbon tax fund to compensate consumers in other
ways for higher prices. Some prefer to call this "tax shifting”: taxing fossil fuels more while reducing or eliminating taxes
elsewhere. Why carbon taxes are the most practical way to spur reduction in energy use. Attempts to regulate energy
efficiency and reduce consumption are only randomly effective and cannot contribute to the urgent need
to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the next two decades, the period in which such consumption must be
curbed and reversed if we are to mitigate the most serious impacts of global warming. Besides rationing,
carbon taxes are the easiest and clearest way to reduce fossil fuel use and they also conform to the "free market" philosophy of
minimal government interference and regulation. They also conform to the principle that The Polluter Pays. In this case, the largest
energy consumers are the largest polluters and thus pay the most. Potential tax and public benefits of carbon taxes. Even with an
initially modest carbon tax of $37 per ton of carbon (equal to about 10 cents per gallon of gasoline), US
CO2 emissions could be reduced by 5% over time, and could raise an estimated $60 billion revenue,
equaling the 2004 budget deficits of all fifty states. Over time this tax would be gradually increased, thus bringing
in more revenue while allowing the development and application of renewable energy technologies. Carbon
taxes could be used in various ways: either returned as tax rebates or credits, or placed in a dedicated fund for things like education,
energy efficiency, public transportation, health, etc. Thus, continual funds would be made available for the programs and services
most used by the less affluent. They could also substitute for regressive taxes like the sales or property tax, and would, if used to
spur renewable energy, create new jobs. With carbon tax revenues dedicated to public interest uses, the poor would be compensated
many times over for higher energy costs.
13
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
14
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
15
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
16
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
17
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Inherency
Inherency card.
Joshua P. Fershee, Visiting Assistant Professor, Penn State Dickinson School of Law. J.D., Tulane Law
School, Wyoming Law Review, 2007 lexis
A carbon tax would place an excise tax on fossil fuel sales, i.e., sales of coal, petroleum products, and natural gas, based on the
fuel's carbon content. n124 A federal carbon tax has been promoted by several, and diverse, sources. Duke Energy, one of the largest
energy companies in the United States, is an ardent supporter of a carbon tax, arguing that it "is an effective fiscal policy option that
would simultaneously support federal tax reform initiatives, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and promote sound energy policies."
n125 On the other end of the spectrum, [*290] former Vice President Al Gore is also a strong proponent of carbon taxes n126 and
has even suggested using a carbon tax in place of some payroll taxes. n127 Despite growing appeal at both the federal and global
level, n128 increased carbon taxes have, to date, proven politically untenable in the United States. As noted
above, the Bush Administration n129 and many members of Congress adamantly oppose carbon taxes, n130 arguing that such a tax
would improperly impose economic harm. n131 Although there are some indications that politicians from both
sides of the aisle are more open to (at least some) carbon taxes than ever before, n132 no serious proposals are
on the horizon. n133
18
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
19
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
20
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
21
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
22
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
23
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Generic solvency
Carbon Tax is better than other alternative– getting it started is the key.
Komanoff 9/26/2007 “Dingell Opens the Door … with a Hybrid Carbon Tax”
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/ Date
Accessed:6/23/2008
With a mighty creak of long-rusted hinges, a door is finally opening in Washington. The present Congress will apparently be asked
to consider a carbon tax. The measure — actually, a hybrid carbon and petroleum tax — will be introduced by the powerful
chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan).Today Dingell posted on his
Web site a summary of the bill, which he began drafting in June. The current version would phase in,
each year for five years, a charge of $10 per ton of carbon content of coal, oil and natural gas; plus an
additional 10 cents/gallon for gasoline and jet fuel (kerosene). By the end of the five-year period the
charges would reach $50/ton of carbon plus 50 cents/gallon of gasoline and jet fuel. These equate to 63
cents a gallon of gas and 90 cents for one hundred kilowatt-hours assuming the nationwide average fuel
mix.Dingell is asking the public for comments. Here's ours: we think the bill is terrific. In line with what
we said when we founded the Carbon Tax Center, and as Dingell himself wrote last month in the
Washington Post, "[S]ome form of carbon emissions fee or tax … would be the most effective way to
curb carbon emissions and make alternatives economically viable." Moreover, as we elaborate below, his
supplemental tax on gasoline and jet fuel has the look of genius.How much carbon and petroleum would
Dingell's hybrid carbon tax eliminate? A lot, if you change one key parameter; instead of halting the tax
after year 5, continue ramping it up. If the tax works and the impacts on families and businesses can be
offset through tax-shifting and rebates, why stop?We examined a 20-year ramp-up — starting Dingell's "10/10" tax in
2008 and continuing through 2027 to a level of $200 per ton of carbon plus $2/gallon on gasoline and jet fuel. Here's where the U.S.
would be in the representative year 2025: Carbon dioxide emissions would be down by 1.55 billion metric tons from projected
levels, a 20% drop — a decrease equivalent to current emissions from England, France and Italy combined. Petroleum
consumption would be 4.5 million barrels a day less than otherwise, an 18% decrease from projected
usage, and more than 10% greater than Iran's current production. Moreover, these reductions could be
supplemented by savings from other targeted policies and programs to reduce use of petroleum, natural
gas and coal-fired electricity. (Indeed, a companion section of Dingell's bill will call for phasing out the
federal tax deduction on mortgage interest on very large homes, thus ending a subsidy through which
middle and working class families subsidize gargantuan sprawl homes for the wealthy.) No other single
policy measure — not broader CAFÉ standards, not a national Renewable Energy Standard, not a
massive biofuels push, and certainly not a new generation of subsidized nuclear power plants — can
produce nearly the carbon and petroleum savings promised by the Dingell hybrid carbon tax, provided it
extends beyond the initial five-year period.The brilliant touch in the Dingell bill is the supplemental tax
on gasoline and aviation fuel. Dingell obviously grasps that a carbon tax alone can't end America's
dangerous oil dependence. A straight carbon tax falls most heavily on coal, both because coal's carbon
content is so high and because electricity, the form in which coal's energy is delivered, is more price-
elastic than gasoline.Using CTC's four-sector spreadsheet model, which looks individually at electricity (40% pf U.S. CO2 emissions), gasoline (21%), jet fuel
(4%) and "other" (35%), we estimate that without the annual 10¢/gallon levy on gasoline and jet fuel, the oil savings in 2025 would be nearly 40% smaller — 2.8 million barrels
The hybrid tax thus saves 60% more petroleum, and 20% more CO2, than a straight $10/ton-
a day vs. 4.5 mbd.
a-year carbon tax.Is the Dingell tax set at the best level? We would like to see it higher — considerably
higher. The U.S. economy and America's millions of vulnerable households could almost certainly handle
a steeper ramp-up, provided the tax was made revenue-neutral. The climate crisis demands more than just
the provisional $10 rate; CTC has been urging a $37/ton-a-year tax. But getting started at all is a
tremendous step, and Dingell's clear-sightedness and courage, in a Congress little characterized by either,
deserve our admiration. What should be done with the revenue from the hybrid carbon tax? Needless to
say, the quantities are enormous — $180 billion annually after Dingell's initial five years, and much more
if the ramp-up is extended. While CTC strongly favors the revenue-neutral route, Rep. Dingell has his
own ideas for using the revenues — as will just about everyone else.For now, we urge you to read
Dingell's Web statement and post a comment on his site and at other sites that cover climate, energy, oil,
national security, and politics. Having a legislator of Dingell's stature even float a carbon-tax trial balloon
is a very important and positive development — possibly a breakthrough. There's a lot riding on it. Be
heard.
24
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Generic solvency
Carbon taxes would provide incentives for efficiency, conservation, and renewables.
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A. Hassett,
senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, American Enterprise Institute, "Climate
Change: Caps vs. Taxes" June 2007
Incentive Creation. Putting a price on the carbon emissions attendant on fuel use would create numerous
incentives to reduce the use of carbon-intensive energy. The increased costs of energy would flow
through the economy, ultimately giving consumers incentives to reduce their use of electricity,
transportation fuels, home heating oil, and so forth. Consumers, motivated by the tax, would have
incentives to buy more efficient appliances, to buy and drive more efficient cars, and to better insulate
their homes or construct them with more attention to energy conservation. A carbon tax would also create
incentives for consumers to demand lower-carbon power sources from their local utilities. A carbon tax,
as its cost flowed down the chains of production into consumer products, would lead manufacturers to
become more efficient and consumers to economize in consumption. At all levels in the economy, a
carbon tax would create a profit niche for environmental entrepreneurs to find ways to deliver lower-
carbon energy at competitive prices. Finally, a carbon tax would also serve to level (somewhat) the
playing field among solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and carbon-based fuels by internalizing the
cost of carbon emission into the price of the various forms of energy.
Carbon taxes would transperntly, quickly, and effectively influence industry and
indivual behavior away from CO2 consumption.
Michael J. Zimmer, attorney at Thompson Hine LLP in the energy practice and also serves this academic
year with the Ohio University Consortium of Energy, Economics and the Environment, Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, Winter 2008 lexis
The international debate over reducing worldwide carbon emissions increasingly focuses on effectively reducing carbon emissions
by formulating novel policy tools after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. One recommendation posits that if a tax is
levied on carbon emissions it would promote environmentally-minded business decisions, encourage
incremental investment in new clean technology, attract the necessary level of capital formation in
impacted sectors, and achieve national and global environmental goals. Yet, to effectively reduce carbon
emissions, businesses and individuals will have to adopt significant lifestyle and behavioral changes and
endorse choices with dramatic economic consequences. Rather than dwelling on the immediate impacts
on business and household budgets, all users of energy must eventually confront and assume
responsibility for reducing the economic and environmental consequences of carbon emissions. Once
governed under the law of "commons," carbon will now become governed by the laws of science,
physics, and economics in global markets. To this end, the most effective plan will ensure that all sources
of carbon are meaningfully addressed. If economic markets were forced to integrate the cost of
environmental externalities caused by carbon emissions into the costs of doing business, the ensuing price
signals and economic incentives would force a dramatic shift toward developing cleaner energy sources
and more sustainable energy habits. Economic consequences will likely be imposed on the industries that
created carbon emissions if there is any hope of effectively reversing the legacy of environmental
damage. This Article argues that implementing a tax on carbon dioxide ("CO[2]") imposes economic
accountability and would impact the use of precious resources in a more direct, transparent, and
sustainable manner than any proposed cap-and-trade program. The critical issue is managing the
perceived political consequences of exercising such policy choices. A carbon tax would directly influence
both industry and individual behavior with transparency, fairness, speed, and balance. Industry would
have an economic incentive to reduce their carbon emissions to avoid the tax, which would likely be a
cost passed on to consumers, and thus, the price signals created would modify consumer behavior.
Accurate price signals for carbon (with diminished volatility) will also direct the marketplace so that
clean renewable sources of power, energy efficiency, demand-side management, and combined heat and
power technologies enjoy a level playing field with the CO[2]-producing conventional fossil fuel
generation resources. A cap-and-trade system will reward traders, commodities merchants, and financial
institutions. An astute use of the federal tax system can build companies, development of equipment and
technology, and ensure that physical investments are made in sustainable business models.
25
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Generic solvency
A carbon tax would be the appropriate incentive to modify behavior away from
traditional energy toward alternate energy.
Michael J. Zimmer, attorney at Thompson Hine LLP in the energy practice and also serves this academic
year with the Ohio University Consortium of Energy, Economics and the Environment, Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, Winter 2008 lexis
A "carbon tax" is a tax on the carbon content of fuels; effectively, it is a tax on the CO[2] emissions
produced from burning fossil fuels. n1 The current prices of gasoline, electricity, oil, coal, and other fuels
do not include the full economic costs of the health, resource, and environmental externalities associated
with the broad usage of these energy sources in the United States and around the world. The failure to
force industry and consumers to shoulder these externalities suppresses the economic incentive to develop
and implement carbon-reducing measures like energy efficiency, renewable energy, advanced metering,
storage, additional transmission, or clean technology. On the other hand, taxing fuels based on their
carbon content infuses these incentives at every point in the chain of production and consumption, from
an individual's choice of the type and usage of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to business choices of
product design, capital investment, facilities location, and government's choices when setting regulatory
policy direction. n2
Carbon taxes would be more balanced producing net games five times higher.
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A.
Hassett, senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, American Enterprise Institute,
"Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes" June 2007
* Effectiveness and Efficiency. A revenue-neutral carbon tax shift is almost certain to reduce GHG emissions
efficiently. As economist William Pizer observes, "Specifically, a carbon tax equal to the damage per ton of CO2 will lead to
exactly the right balance between the cost of reducing emissions and the resulting benefits of less global warming."[10] Despite the
popular assumption that a cap-and-trade regime is more certain because it is a quantity control rather than a price control, such
a scheme only works in very limited circumstances that do not apply to GHG control. The great potential
for fraud attendant on such a system creates significant doubt about its effectiveness, as experience has shown
in both theory and practice in the gyrations of the European ETS. The likelihood of effectiveness also cannot be said
for regulations such as increased vehicle fuel economy standards. In fact, such regulations can have perverse effects
that actually lead to increased emissions. By making vehicles more efficient, one reduces the cost of a unit of fuel,
which would actually stimulate more driving, and, combined with increasing traffic congestion, could lead to an
increase in GHG emissions rather than a decrease. As Harvard researchers Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell point out,
"The traditional view of economists has been that corrective taxes are superior to direct regulation of
harmful externalities when the state's information about control costs is incomplete," which, in the case of
carbon emissions reductions, it most definitely is.[11] And when it comes to quantity controls (as a cap-and-trade system would
impose), Pizer found that My own analysis of the two approaches [carbon taxes vs. emission trading] indicates that price-based
greenhouse gas (GHG) controls are much more desirable than quantity targets, taking into account both the
potential long-term damages of climate change, and the costs of GHG control. This can be argued on the
basis of both theory and numerical simulations. Pizer found, in fact, that a carbon-pricing mechanism
would produce expected net gains five times higher than even the best-designed quantity control (i.e.,
cap-and-trade) regime.[12]
26
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Generic solvency
Taxes encourage alt energy – it is the maximum incentive
Schlesinger (William, writer for Duke University Office of News and Communications, 5/16/05,
“Carbon Tax Provides Fairest Incentive For Curbing Global Warming”, online:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/05/carbontax.html, acc: 6/23/08)
A carbon tax would be paid whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere by
burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay it based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to
consumers in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up with gasoline, based on
the content of fossil carbon in the fuel. A carbon tax would provide the maximum incentive for bright
engineers to improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use in all sectors of society. It also would maximize the
potential for important "cross-sector" transfers of efficiency. For instance, if engineers find efficient ways
to reduce CO2 emissions from the power plants that provide our electricity, the utilities’ carbon tax
savings could be passed along to consumers. The same principle might make it cheaper to operate an
electric car than a gas-powered one. More of us would be motivated to buy electric cars, especially given
the price of gasoline these days. A carbon tax does not necessarily mean a net increase in our cost of
living. Carbon tax revenues could be directed to general government expenditures, so that income tax
rates could be reduced for all Americans -- or perhaps those at the lower income levels. Importantly, our
current income tax structure provides no personal choice to reduce our tax; indeed, the more we earn, the
more we pay on April 15. A tax on carbon, which would show up in higher costs for electricity or
gasoline, would provide an incentive for each of us to use energy more efficiently if we wanted to pay
lower taxes. Still want an SUV? Buy it, but each year you’ll pay more for gasoline than your neighbor
who has a Toyota Prius. Want to live in the country? Fine, but remember it will cost you to drive the extra
miles to work each day. Want to save some money at home and send less to the taxman? Put on a warm
sweater and lower your thermostat. Conservation and efficiency must both play a role in our attempt to
reduce dependence on dwindling production of foreign oil. A carbon tax provides an equal incentive for
both pathways to be part of the solution.
27
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Generic solvency
Taxes promote energy efficiency
Carbon Tax Center (an organization supporting an American carbon tax, 2/26/08, “Carbon Tax
Center- Introduction”, online: http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#why, acc: 6/23/08)
The rationale for a carbon tax is simple: the levels of CO2 already in the Earth’s atmosphere and being
added daily are destabilizing established climate patterns and threatening the ecosystems on which we
and other living beings depend. Very large and rapid reductions in the United States’ and other nations’
carbon emissions are essential to reverse runaway climate change and avert resulting severe weather
events, inundation of coastal areas, spread of diseases, failure of agriculture and water supply,
infrastructure destruction, forced migrations, political upheavals and international conflict. A carbon tax
must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Currently, the prices of gasoline,
electricity and fuels in general include none of the costs associated with devastating climate change. This
omission suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy
efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy
(e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and
conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy
consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at
every chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and
housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and
governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation.
Revenue neutral carbon taxes with 5-year adjustments protects business and
ensures completion of reduction goals.
Michael J. Zimmer, attorney at Thompson Hine LLP in the energy practice and also serves this academic
year with the Ohio University Consortium of Energy, Economics and the Environment, Sustainable
Development Law & Policy, Winter 2008 lexis
Setting a clearing price for carbon that can be periodically evaluated for its effectiveness in achieving
public policy and market performance objectives is a simpler and more economically efficient approach
than a cap-and-trade program. The cost of carbon can be set through a tax mechanism, and its progress in
reducing energy intensity can be evaluated every five years. This built-in evaluation process permits
adjustments to be made, which will ensure achievement of emission reduction goals. Technical inputs can
be provided by DOE, EPA, NOAA, and the National Academy of Science each cycle for review with
final economic evaluations of the tax conducted by Treasury and the Federal Reserve. In the United
States, potential economic harm could be diminished by offsetting the revenue resulting from a new
carbon tax upon its enactment, with mirroring reductions in the payroll tax, the corporate tax rate, and the
alternative minimum tax. Additional revenue can be reserved in trust for government funding of clean
energy technology and advanced energy R&D. Economic feedback would be provided with balance to
benefit the corporate, small business, and individual tax payers to reduce the economic burden of the new
carbon tax scheme by starting with a tax that is "revenue neutral." The key effectiveness of a carbon tax
program that is currently being overlooked is that such a tax may become revenue neutral. Revenue
neutrality shifts the economic burden to industries requiring behavioral and competitive modification
consistent with global policy shifts while preserving efficiency, energy intensity, and benefits of stability
in the U.S. economy. No cap-and-trade proposal offers similar revenue neutrality and the specter of
economic stability. Rather, cap-and-trade arguably creates some market winners, many market or industry
sector losers, opportunities for gaming, and makes U.S. consumers the biggest losers of all.
28
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon taxes can prevent ecocide, but the window is only 1-2 years
U.S. scientist urges carbon tax to help climate by Donna Smith, scientist for Reuters, 06/23/08,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/, 06/23/08
The U.S. scientist who 20 years ago first told Congress that the Earth's climate was warming said on
Monday that urgent action is needed to cut greenhouse gases and a tax proposal on carbon emissions.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said at a congressional
briefing that a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to cut global warming emissions and encourage
non-fossil energy sources."We have to level with the public that there has to be a price on carbon
emissions," Hansen said. "That this is the only way we are going to begin to move toward a carbon free
economy."Hansen said urgent action is needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the
globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt. He said world leaders had only one or two years to act
before the Earth reaches a "tipping point" with major consequences to the global climate and species
survival."We have reached an emergency situation," Hansen said. He said the government should not
keep the proceeds from any carbon tax, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel
efficient technology. President George W. Bush has opposed any broad program to curb carbon emissions
saying it would hurt the economy and has consistently resisted any tax increases. But global warming is
an issue in this year's presidential campaign and is expected to be a major topic of discussion at next
month's meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations in Japan. Twenty years ago today,
Hansen testified before a Senate committee and told lawmakers that "the greenhouse effect has been
detected, and it is changing our climate now."Hansen's testimony helped spur the first congressional
efforts to curb greenhouse gases. The most recent effort, legislation that would have created a cap-and-
trade system for carbon emissions died in the Senate earlier this month in face of a veto threat from the
White House.
29
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon Tax best way to help decrease global warming
Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson(Washington Post staff writers) 4/1/2007 “Tax on Carbon
Emissions Gains Support” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101040.html Date Accessed: 6/23/2008
As lawmakers on Ca/pitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely
alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax. Most legislators view
advocating any tax increase as tantamount to political suicide. But a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple
tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon
dioxide buildup, which scientists have linked to climate change. "We want to do the least damage to the growth of GDP," said
Michael Canes, a private consultant and former chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, who led a Capitol
Hill briefing on the subject in late February sponsored by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Between a cap system
and a carbon tax, "a carbon tax will be the much more cost-effective way to go," he said, though he added that
there are other ways to reduce emissions. Robert J. Shapiro, a private consultant who was a Commerce Department official in the
Clinton administration, agrees. A cap-and-trade system -- involving plant-by plant-measurements -- would be difficult to
administer, he said, and would provide "incentives for cheating and evasion." And the revenue from a carbon
tax could be used to reduce the deficit or finance offsetting cuts in payroll taxes or the alternative minimum
tax. A carbon tax offers certainty about the price of polluting, which appeals to many economists and businesses. William A. Pizer,
a senior fellow at the centrist think tank Resources for the Future and a former senior economist for President Bush's Council of
Economic Advisers, estimates that the benefit-to-cost ratio of a tax-based system would be five times that of a
cap-and-trade system. "You're going to pay one way or another, whether it's a tax or a permit program," Pizer said, adding that
while a cap would provide more certainty on how much emissions would be cut, "the consequences of being uncertain about
emissions over any short period of time just aren't that serious." Under a cap-and-trade system, the government would set an overall
limit on emissions and allocate permits to emitters. If one plant reduces its emissions more quickly than another, it can sell its
credits to the other emitter. A carbon tax would simply increase the cost of emitting each ton of carbon, which could then be passed
on to consumers. While Democrats have vowed to push through some sort of carbon dioxide control in this Congress, Bush has
consistently opposed mandatory limits, so it remains unclear whether the United States will adopt any system before the next
election. Moreover, the fact that many economists back the tax approach is no guarantee that it will prevail over the five cap-and-
trade plans already proposed in the Senate. The complexity of the cap-and-trade system is part of its virtue for some politicians,
since it may mask the system's impact on prices. Such a system also appeals to conservative lawmakers who like the idea of letting
the market determine the price of carbon, while keeping revenue out of the hands of government. Some economists say it would
channel capital to the most economically worthwhile projects first. Environmentalists are split on a carbon tax. Fred Krupp,
president of Environmental Defense, which is handing out baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan "Just Cap It" on Capitol Hill,
called such a tax "an interesting distraction." "It doesn't give us the guarantee the emissions will go down," he said. But Carl Pope,
executive director of the Sierra Club, said: "It will be more effective if people know that in year 'X' they will pay this much.
Companies are highly motivated by costs." Moreover, he worries that rationing carbon allowances based on historical emissions
would reward companies that spew out the most greenhouse gases now and did the least to limit them in the past. Dan Becker,
director of the Sierra Club's program on global warming, said the nation may need to adopt a carbon tax in several years but "we're
not there yet.” Some industries that have historically opposed carbon limits embrace the idea of a tax because their sectors would
not be singled out for regulation. "A poorly constructed cap-and-trade system can be as punitive as a regressive
tax," said Scott Segal, an electric utilities lobbyist. Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told a National
Press Club audience in February that his industry prefers that lawmakers explore a range of policy options before imposing a cap.
"A cap-and-trade system isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all," he said. "A carbon tax, everything, should be on the table from the
beginning."
30
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
A carbon tax would decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere-
This solves for global warming
GREGORY MANKIW, September 16, 2007.( Harvard professor of economics, former governor of
Massachusetts, adviser to President Bush, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax (6/23/08)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T40202
34282&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4020234285&cisb=22_
T4020234284&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=17
In the debate over global climate change, there is a yawning gap that needs to be bridged. The gap is not
between environmentalists and industrialists, or between Democrats and Republicans. It is between
policy wonks and political consultants. Among policy wonks like me, there is a broad consensus. The
scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the
atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we
want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D. The idea of using taxes to
fix problems, rather than merely raise government revenue, has a long history. The British economist
Arthur Pigou advocated such corrective taxes to deal with pollution in the early 20th century. In his
honor, economics textbooks now call them ''Pigovian taxes.'' Using a Pigovian tax to address global
warming is also an old idea. It was proposed as far back as 1992 by Martin S. Feldstein on the editorial
page of The Wall Street Journal. Once chief economist to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Feldstein has devoted
much of his career to studying how high tax rates distort incentives and impede economic growth. But
like most other policy wonks, he appreciates that some taxes align private incentives with social costs and
move us toward better outcomes. Those vying for elected office, however, are reluctant to sign on to this
agenda. Their political consultants are no fans of taxes, Pigovian or otherwise. Republican consultants
advise using the word ''tax'' only if followed immediately by the word ''cut.'' Democratic consultants
recommend the word ''tax'' be followed by ''on the rich.'' Yet this natural aversion to carbon taxes can be
overcome if the revenue from the tax is used to reduce other taxes. By itself, a carbon tax would raise the
tax burden on anyone who drives a car or uses electricity produced with fossil fuels, which means just
about everybody. Some might fear this would be particularly hard on the poor and middle class. But
Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts, has shown how revenue from a carbon tax could be
used to reduce payroll taxes in a way that would leave the distribution of total tax burden approximately
unchanged. He proposes a tax of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, together with a rebate of the
federal payroll tax on the first $3,660 of earnings for each worker. The case for a carbon tax looks even
stronger after an examination of the other options on the table. Lawmakers in both political parties want
to require carmakers to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars they sell. Passing the buck to auto
companies has a lot of popular appeal. Increased fuel efficiency, however, is not free. Like a tax, the cost
of complying with more stringent regulation will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher car
prices. But the government will not raise any revenue that it can use to cut other taxes to compensate for
these higher prices. (And don't expect savings on gas to compensate consumers in a meaningful way: Any
truly cost-effective increase in fuel efficiency would already have been made.) More important,
enhancing fuel efficiency by itself is not the best way to reduce energy consumption. Fuel use depends
not only on the efficiency of the car fleet but also on the daily decisions that people make -- how far from
work they choose to live and how often they carpool or use public transportation. A carbon tax would
provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more
efficient cars encourages more driving. Increased driving not only produces more carbon, but also
exacerbates other problems, like accidents and road congestion.
31
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and to fight
global warming - A carbon tax would decrease the amount of co2 in the atmosphere
better than a cap and trade program
Todd Woody, journalist, Report: Carbon Tax a Better Way to Fight Global Warming 02/14/07,
(http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/02/report_carbon_t.html, date acc: 06/23/08
A former Clinton administration commerce department official today released a report arguing that a
global tax on companies' greenhouse house gas emissions is a more efficient way to combat global
warming than the carbon trading markets endorsed by a host of government officials and corporations
like Alcoa (AA), BP, (BP), DuPont (DD), Duke Energy (DUK) and General Electric (GE). "A carbon tax
would both directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide powerful incentives for technological
progress," wrote Robert J. Shapiro, a Washington D.C. consultant, veteran think tanker and former under
secretary of commerce for economic affairs. "Carbon taxes also should provide greater incentives for
companies to develop new, environmentally-friendly, technologies or abatement strategies than a cap-
and-trade program." Shapiro's study was released by the American Consumer Institute, a free-market
oriented Washington group. Corporations currently are not charged for the economic and environmental
impacts of their greenhouse gas emissions, though those "externalities" affect everyone. Under a carbon
tax, those consequences would be calculated and a tax imposed accordingly. "Since every government
needs revenues, the challenge is to design taxes so they distort those relative prices as little as possible.
One possibility is to make the base of the tax as broad as possible, so its rate can be low and most people
and activities are affected equally," Shapiro wrote. "Carbon taxes generally meet this criterion, although
not as well as broad income or consumption taxes. However, their economic drawback of raising the price
of carbon-intensive products and operations, relative to those which are not carbon-intensive, is also their
environmental purpose." Companies that do not emit greenhouse gases - such as solar and wind producers
- or sell greener goods and services - would benefit. The government could use carbon tax revenue to
support renewable energy technologies, cut corporate taxes or increase health spending, according to
Shapiro. In contrast, cap-and-trade programs impose a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions and then
allow companies that lower their emissions to sell carbon allowances to those that do not. Europe created
a carbon trading market to implement the Kyoto Accord and legislation before the U.S. Congress calls for
a similar market in the U.S. Shapiro contends that global carbon trading is too complex and susceptible to
market manipulation by shady companies and corrupt governments. While Shapiro says a carbon tax
would be cheaper and easier to implement, he acknowledged the challenges in getting governments and
corporations to agree on what specifically will be taxed and the tax rate.
32
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon taxes key to checking warming.
Reuters, "U.S. scientist urges carbon tax to help climate" June 23, 2008
The U.S. scientist who 20 years ago first told Congress that the Earth's climate was warming said on
Monday that urgent action was needed to cut greenhouse gases and proposed a tax on carbon emissions.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said at a congressional
briefing that a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to cut global warming emissions and encourage
non-fossil energy sources. "We have to level with the public that there has to be a price on carbon
emissions," Hansen said. "That is the only way we are going to begin to move toward a carbon free
economy." Hansen said urgent action was needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the
globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt. He said world leaders had only one or two years to act
before the Earth reaches a "tipping point" with major consequences to the global climate and species
survival. "We have reached an emergency situation," Hansen said. He said the government should not
keep the proceeds from any carbon tax, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel
efficient technology. President George W. Bush has opposed any broad program to curb carbon emissions
saying it would hurt the economy and has consistently resisted any tax increases. But global warming is
an issue in this year's presidential campaign and is expected to be a major topic of discussion at next
month's meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations in Japan. Twenty years ago today,
Hansen testified before a Senate committee and told lawmakers that "the greenhouse effect has been
detected, and it is changing our climate now."
33
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon taxes solve warming - they spur innovation and alternative energy.
Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, “The Case for a Global Carbon Tax” April 16, 2007 lexis
There's an obvious problem with this model--where will the money for subsidies come from?--but there's another glitch as well. The
technology for clean coal doesn't really exist yet in a form that can be widely used. There are various pilot projects and experiments
but nothing that is, as yet, economically viable. Both problems can be solved by the same simple idea--a tax on spewing carbon into
the atmosphere. Once you tax carbon, you make it cheaper to produce clean energy. If burning coal and
petrol in current ways becomes more expensive because of the damage they do to the environment,
people will find ways to get energy out of alternative fuels or methods. Along the way, industrial societies will
earn tax revenues that they can use, in part, to subsidize clean energy for the developing world. It is the only way to solve the
problem at a global level, which is the only level at which the solution is meaningful. Congress is currently considering a variety of
proposals that address this issue. Most are a smorgasbord of caps, credits and regulations. Instead of imposing a simple carbon tax
that would send a clear signal to the markets, Congress wants to create a set of hidden taxes through a "cap and trade" system. The
Europeans have adopted a similar system, which is unwieldy and prone to gaming and cheating. (It is also unsustainable if Brazil,
China and India don't come onboard soon.) A carbon tax would also send the market a clear and powerful signal to
develop alternative energies. Daniel Esty, a Yale environmental expert whose new book, "Green to Gold," is a blueprint for
new thinking about the environment, argues that the only way forward is a "transformational approach that creates
incentives for innovation and alternative energy. The way we think about these issues is old-fashioned. We're still trying
to limit, regulate, control and inspect. We need to become much more market-friendly. Put in place a few simple
rules, and let the market come up with hundreds of solutions. We're not even 10 percent of the way down such a
path." In the end, everyone realizes that innovation is the only real solution to the global-warming problem. And
that's where Cheney is right. Conservation and energy efficiency are smart policies, but not enough. In America
over the last three decades, almost all machines and appliances we use to power our lives have become significantly more efficient
(with the exception of cars). And yet we consume three times as much energy as we did 30 years ago. Why? Because rising living
standards mean rising energy use. We can slow down the growth, but some increase is inevitable. We have more efficient air
conditioners. But now we air-condition our whole houses. Our bed lamps conserve power. But we also plug in two phones, a
BlackBerry and three iPods.
Carbon Tax solves quickly enough – trying to further accelerate would hurt the
transition
Carl S. Milsted January 9, 2008 the future of the carbon tax holistic politics
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/Future.php date accessed June 23, 2008
At the beginning of this chapter I said that the U.S. needs to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 75% just
to keep world emissions constant—if we allow the rest of the world to catch up. Yet in my carbon tax
calculations I assumed that the reduction in carbon burning would be less. We have a contradiction. This
is intentional. I don't want to immediately cut carbon burning by 75%. It would be a huge burden on the
economy and likely unnecessary. The world hasn't caught up yet, so we have time. And the world can
likely withstand a few years of carbon dioxide emission growth as long as it is followed up by shrinkage.
Actually, a near-immediate 25% reduction in carbon burning would be considered ambitious by many
environmentalists. It is more than the Kyoto Treaty calls for. The bigger environmental benefit of a
carbon tax is not the immediate conservation, but the market created for real long term solutions. At a
doubling of retail energy costs, many existing alternative energy technologies become economically
viable: passive solar, flat plate collectors, hybrid cars, and maybe even more exotic technologies such as
photovoltaics, electric cars and Stirling engine hot water heaters. But such technologies will take time to
deploy. In fact, it may be better not to deploy such technologies too fast, as better solutions are still in the
laboratories. For example, light emitting diode technology is catching up with fluorescent light
technology, and LEDs don't contain mercury. Photovoltaics are also improving rapidly . Rushing can be
wasteful. But in a decade or two we will see carbon emissions down by 50% or more if we replace either
the income tax or FICA with a carbon tax. And when this happens we may not be able to raise sufficient
funds via a carbon tax no matter what the tax rate. At that time another tax will be needed to supplement a
carbon tax. For Social Security, a national sales tax would make sense. A sales tax has the same
regressivity as FICA, but unlike FICA a sales tax encourages the working class to save. For the income
tax, the problem is more challenging. You can find many ideas to help answer this challenge in other
chapters on this site. And even should they prove insufficient, and the income tax must be reinstated, the
effort would still be worthwhile. The economy could use a vacation.
34
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon Tax would decrease emissions by 80% and help advert future changes in
climate
Darren Samuelsohn, E&ENews PM senior reporter 5/16/2007 Rep. Stark tosses carbon tax proposal
into warming debate carbon tax center http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/04/26/rep-stark-
introduces-carbon-tax-bill/ date accessed June 23, 2008
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today that aims to curb global warming by taxing the
carbon content of fossil fuels. Stark acknowledged in an interview he faces a tough slog, but he insisted it
should be seen as an alternative to the more widely discussed cap-and-trade approach to reducing
greenhouse gases. "Its viability depends on industry's concern that cap-and-trade becomes a bureaucratic
gaming nightmare," Stark said. "We've had some indication from people who are concerned that the cap-
and-trade is just too complex and subject to some kind of politically staffed bureaucracy getting involved
in it." Instead of cap-and-trade, Stark said an energy tax would be easier for government to administer and
consumers to understand. It also would not set competition among different sectors of the U.S. economy
that is expected if lawmakers move toward a cap-and-trade bill. "It might very well become the lesser of
some evils," Stark said. Stark's bill would tax coal, petroleum and natural gas at $10 per ton of carbon
content when the fuel is either extracted or imported. The tax would increase $10 every year until the
Energy Department and Internal Revenue Service determine U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have dropped
80 percent from 1990 levels -- a threshold many scientists say could help to avert catastrophic changes to
the Earth's climate. Endorsements for a carbon tax come from many notables in the energy policy debate,
including former Vice President Al Gore, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). To industry groups and several leading energy
companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., a carbon tax also belongs in the debate over solutions to global
warming. "If your goal is to put a price on carbon for the goal of changing behavior, it's a lot more
transparent," said Lou Hayden, a senior policy analyst at the American Petroleum Institute. In written
comments to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, API said taxes should be considered along
with voluntary efforts and cap-and-trade.
35
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
used to reduce payroll taxes in a way that would leave the distribution of total tax burden approximately
unchanged. He proposes a tax of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, together with a rebate of the
federal payroll tax on the first $3,660 of earnings for each worker.
36
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and to fight
global warming - a carbon tax is the most efficient way to curb the amount of co2,
fossil fuels, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
Donna Smith, scientist for Reuters, U.S. scientist urges carbon tax to help climate 06/23/08,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/, date accessed 06/23/08
The U.S. scientist who 20 years ago first told Congress that the Earth's climate was warming said on
Monday that urgent action is needed to cut greenhouse gases and a tax proposal on carbon emissions.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said at a congressional
briefing that a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to cut global warming emissions and encourage
non-fossil energy sources."We have to level with the public that there has to be a price on carbon
emissions," Hansen said. "That this is the only way we are going to begin to move toward a carbon free
economy."Hansen said urgent action is needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the
globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt. He said world leaders had only one or two years to act
before the Earth reaches a "tipping point" with major consequences to the global climate and species
survival."We have reached an emergency situation," Hansen said. He said the government should not
keep the proceeds from any carbon tax, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel
efficient technology. President George W. Bush has opposed any broad program to curb carbon emissions
saying it would hurt the economy and has consistently resisted any tax increases. But global warming is
an issue in this year's presidential campaign and is expected to be a major topic of discussion at next
month's meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight industrial nations in Japan. Twenty years ago today,
Hansen testified before a Senate committee and told lawmakers that "the greenhouse effect has been
detected, and it is changing our climate now."Hansen's testimony helped spur the first congressional
efforts to curb greenhouse gases. The most recent effort, legislation that would have created a cap-and-
trade system for carbon emissions died in the Senate earlier this month in face of a veto threat from the
White House.
Carbon Tax would decrease emissions by 80% and help advert future changes in
climate Darren samuelsohn, E&ENews PM senior reporter 5/16/2007 Rep. Stark tosses carbon tax
proposal into warming debate carbon tax center http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/04/26/rep-
stark-introduces-carbon-tax-bill/ date accessed June 23, 2008
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today that aims to curb global warming by taxing the
carbon content of fossil fuels. Stark acknowledged in an interview he faces a tough slog, but he insisted it
should be seen as an alternative to the more widely discussed cap-and-trade approach to reducing
greenhouse gases. "Its viability depends on industry's concern that cap-and-trade becomes a bureaucratic
gaming nightmare," Stark said. "We've had some indication from people who are concerned that the cap-
and-trade is just too complex and subject to some kind of politically staffed bureaucracy getting involved
in it." Instead of cap-and-trade, Stark said an energy tax would be easier for government to administer and
consumers to understand. It also would not set competition among different sectors of the U.S. economy
that is expected if lawmakers move toward a cap-and-trade bill. "It might very well become the lesser of
some evils," Stark said. Stark's bill would tax coal, petroleum and natural gas at $10 per ton of carbon
content when the fuel is either extracted or imported. The tax would increase $10 every year until the
Energy Department and Internal Revenue Service determine U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have dropped
80 percent from 1990 levels -- a threshold many scientists say could help to avert catastrophic changes to
the Earth's climate. Endorsements for a carbon tax come from many notables in the energy policy debate,
including former Vice President Al Gore, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd (Conn.). To industry groups and several leading energy
companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., a carbon tax also belongs in the debate over solutions to global
warming. "If your goal is to put a price on carbon for the goal of changing behavior, it's a lot more
transparent," said Lou Hayden, a senior policy analyst at the American Petroleum Institute. In written
comments to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, API said taxes should be considered along
with voluntary efforts and cap-and-trade.
37
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and to fight
global warming - A Carbon Tax would greatly reduce the amount of carbon
emissions within a decade
Carl S. Milsted January 9, 2008 the future of the carbon tax holistic politics
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/Future.php date accessed June 23, 2008
At the beginning of this chapter I said that the U.S. needs to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 75% just
to keep world emissions constant—if we allow the rest of the world to catch up. Yet in my carbon tax
calculations I assumed that the reduction in carbon burning would be less. We have a contradiction. This
is intentional. I don't want to immediately cut carbon burning by 75%. It would be a huge burden on the
economy and likely unnecessary. The world hasn't caught up yet, so we have time. And the world can
likely withstand a few years of carbon dioxide emission growth as long as it is followed up by shrinkage.
Actually, a near-immediate 25% reduction in carbon burning would be considered ambitious by many
environmentalists. It is more than the Kyoto Treaty calls for. The bigger environmental benefit of a
carbon tax is not the immediate conservation, but the market created for real long term solutions. At a
doubling of retail energy costs, many existing alternative energy technologies become economically
viable: passive solar, flat plate collectors, hybrid cars, and maybe even more exotic technologies such as
photovoltaics, electric cars and Stirling engine hot water heaters. But such technologies will take time to
deploy. In fact, it may be better not to deploy such technologies too fast, as better solutions are still in the
laboratories. For example, light emitting diode technology is catching up with fluorescent light
technology, and LEDs don't contain mercury. Photovoltaics are also improving rapidly . Rushing can be
wasteful. But in a decade or two we will see carbon emissions down by 50% or more if we replace either
the income tax or FICA with a carbon tax. And when this happens we may not be able to raise sufficient
funds via a carbon tax no matter what the tax rate. At that time another tax will be needed to supplement a
carbon tax. For Social Security, a national sales tax would make sense. A sales tax has the same
regressivity as FICA, but unlike FICA a sales tax encourages the working class to save. For the income
tax, the problem is more challenging. You can find many ideas to help answer this challenge in other
chapters on this site. And even should they prove insufficient, and the income tax must be reinstated, the
effort would still be worthwhile. The economy could use a vacation.
38
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
comparable system in place. The effect of such displacement would globally result in an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions rather than a decrease. Fortunately, promising ideas are already circulating that
would help make the transition to a less carbon-intensive economy compatible with maintaining and
creating high-quality jobs.
39
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and to fight
global warming - A carbon tax is the only way for the U.S. to regulate carbon levels.
Phil Davies, December 2007, Putting a Price on carbon,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=18&hid=109&sid=afdb72b8-f9d0-4677-954c-
80d55eecb69b%40sessionmgr102 ; 6/23/08
Maybe—just maybe—politicians are starting to listen to economists. If greenhouse emissions need to be
decreased to address global warming (a scientific debate), economic theory suggests that prices rather
than quantities are the policy tool of choice. And the most direct way for policymakers to affect price is to
impose a tax. "The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting
carbon into the atmosphere," writes N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University professor and former
adviser to Bush, in a September article in the New York Times. "Basic economics tells us that when you
tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a
global carbon tax."
Carbon tax would reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and to fight
global warming A carbon tax is the only option for fighting the cost of carbon
emissions in the environment
Daniel Rosenblum, Carbon Tax, not “Peak Oil,” Can Save Climate, 03/5/2007
(http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/03/05/carbon-tax-not-peak-oil-can-save-climate-2/ date acc.
6/24/08)
The Times article closes by quoting a Chevron engineer: "… peak oil is a moving target [and the supply
of] oil is always a function of price and technology." True enough. Our task is to make the use of oil, coal
and gas a function of a climate-aware price and technology. At present, the fuel prices that determine the
demand side of the equation include nothing for the climate damage resulting from burning those fuels,
resulting in vast overuse. Moreover, those feedback mechanisms I mentioned in my 2005 talk invariably
overshoot the mark, resulting in the kind of wild price swings that Yergin described. These fluctuations
drown out underlying movements toward higher prices, frustrating investment in low-carbon alternatives
on both the demand and supply sides. What to do? A tax on carbon fuels will internalize the costs of
carbon damage and make manifest today the long-term trajectory of rising carbon-fuel prices. No other
policy option — not cap-and-trade, not fuel efficiency standards, not subsidies for renewables — can do
that.
40
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Taxes can eliminate coal
Walsh (Bryan, distinguished writer and columnist for Time magazine, 1/04/08, “Plan B — How to Stop
Global Warming”, online: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700189,00.html, acc: 6/23/08)
The key to Brown's Plan B is winding down our dependence on coal — the carbon-heavy fuel that the
people over at the environmental website Grist like to refer to as "the enemy of the human race." Right
now the world is on pace to build hundreds of new coal power plants over the coming decades, adding
vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if that happens the fight against global warming
is as good as lost. Brown argues that rapid action to improve energy efficiency, develop renewable
sources of power and expand the Earth's forest cover could reduce carbon emissions enough to allow us
to phase out coal power and meet that 80% target. The numbers are simple. It's easy to ridicule the
"switch a light bulb, save the planet" school of environmental planning, but Brown points out that by
making the most of efficiency improvements in lighting and appliances, we could reduce power demand
sufficiently to obviate the need for 1,410 coal plants. That's more than the 1,382 coal plants the
International Energy Agency predicts will be built by 2020. If we start pumping out new wind turbines
with the same industrial urgency the U.S. produced tanks and bombers in World War II, Brown writes, we
could generate 3 million megawatts of wind power by 2020, enough to meet 40% of the world's energy
needs. Solar thermal, plug-in hybrid and geothermal technology are all part of Plan B. (Did you know that
the geothermal energy contained in the upper six miles of the Earth's crust is 50,000 times more powerful
than all of our oil and natural gas? Brown does.) To push the transition to a cleaner, more efficient
economy — the Plan B economy — Brown argues for a worldwide carbon tax to be phased in at $20 per
ton each year between 2008 and 2020, topping out at $240 per ton. That might seem excessive, but
Brown points out that even a carbon tax higher than $240 per ton wouldn't cover all the environmental
and health costs of burning fossil fuels, from climate change to air pollution–related illnesses. And while
it's difficult to imagine any politician standing up for such a tax, he reminds us that we already have a
precedent for a heavy tax that takes into account negative externalities and attempts to discourage
consumption: cigarette taxes. Altogether Brown calculates that his Plan B would cost the world an
additional $190 billion a year. That might seem high, until he compares the price tag to the global military
budget, which stands at more than $1.2 trillion. All we have to do is find the political and popular will to
implement the plan. But that's the problem. Brown's proposals are solid, but the real battle over climate
change is now political, not technological, and it's one that too many environmentalists tend to discount.
If you've drunk the green Kool-Aid, it can seem frustratingly obvious why we need a $240 carbon tax, or
why the climate change challenge is on par with World War II, and thus demands Rosie the Riveter redux.
But the true, painstaking challenge of the next few years will be building a broad political coalition that
will support that level of commitment. Brown's Plan B is a great blueprint for combating climate change,
but we might need a Plan C to put it into action.
41
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming solvency
Tax on carbon reduces emissions-
William C. Brainard and George L. Perry (editors for Brooking’s Paper on Economic Activity)
2005, 2, p. ix- Article- Editor’s Summary
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/brookings_papers_on_economic_activity/v2005/2005.2brainard.pdf acc:
06-23-08
The authors emphasize that growth in the developing world will be the main driver in carbon buildup. In
their base case, the developing countries account for almost 60 percent of emissions in 2025 and 70
percent in 2050.China and India are the countries where the greatest increase in energy consumption will
take place and therefore where most new power generating facilities will be built. And it is much less
expensive to reduce emissions by building new facilities with the new technology than by retrofitting old
ones. Thus any successful program to reduce carbon emissions will have to center on these and other
countries in the developing world. The authors note that either a uniform tax on carbon emissions in all
regions or a system of global tradable permits—both of which have been proposed—could, in principle,
provide the needed incentives to restrain emissions. However, they recognize that negotiations to do
either may be difficult, and they believe that the only practical way to reduce emissions may be to secure
the cooperation of the limited number of decision makers who license new power plants and set new
efficiency standards. Whatever route is taken to achieve global cooperation, since most of the carbon
reduction will have to be done in regions that can least afford the added cost, the author’s stress that part
of the incremental cost of CCS in China, India, and other developing nations should be borne by the high-
income countries.
42
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Regulations solvency
Carbon tax would get rid of state regulations like tradable permits and fuel
efficiency standards. There would be no need for them.
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A.
Hassett, senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, American Enterprise Institute,
"Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes" June 2007
Elimination of Superfluous Regulations. Because a carbon tax would cause carbon emissions to be
reduced efficiently across the entire market, other measures that are less efficient--and sometimes even
perverse in their impacts--could be eliminated. With the proper federal carbon tax in place, there would
be no need for corporate average fuel economy standards, for example. California's emissions-trading
scheme, likewise, would be superfluous, and its retention only harmful to the Golden State. As
regulations impose significant costs and distort markets, the potential to displace a fairly broad swath of
environmental regulations with a carbon tax offers benefits beyond GHG reductions.
43
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Carbon tax puts burden on oil industry rather than auto industries
Carl Pope (Huffington Post) Sept.29, 2007 “Mister Dingell's Carbon Tax Gambit”
http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16308 acc: 6-23-08
Washington, DC -- It certainly looks like it. The settlement of the short-lived strike by the United Auto
Workers is seen as having resolved the threat that retiree health care costs posted to General Motors'
competitiveness, and the company's stock price soared on the news. Meanwhile, Congressman John
Dingell, whose wife Debbie is a GM lobbyist, has embraced GM's long-standing policy preference in
dealing with global warming and America's oil dependence; that is, to tax fuel. Dingell has embraced --
officially, at least -- the idea of a $50 per ton tax on carbon, roughly $15 per ton of carbon dioxide, phased
in over five years, and pegged thereafter at the rate of inflation. GM prefers a carbon tax, which puts the
burden of emissions cuts on the oil industry (and GM's customers), over tougher federal fuel economy
standards for cars, trucks and SUVs. Recently, the company also embraced a cap-and-trade system that
would also price carbon, thereby joining USCAP, an alliance of environmental and business groups
working for such legislation. In announcing his proposal Dingell said, "We need to act in order to prevent
a serious problem. The world's best scientists agree we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80
percent by 2050 in order to limit the effects of global warming and this legislation will put us on track to
do just that. This is a massive undertaking, and it will not be easy to achieve, but we simply must
accomplish this goal; our future and our children's futures depend on it."
44
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Economy solvency
Carbon tax would provide more flexibility, reducing costs.
Congressional Budget Office, A CBO Study, "Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions"
February 2008 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf
Incentive-based approaches can reduce emissions at a lower cost than more restrictive command-and-
control approaches because they provide more flexibility about where and how emission reductions are achieved.
Under a tax, policymakers would levy a fee for each ton of CO2 emitted or for each ton of carbon contained in fossil fuels. The
tax would motivate entities to cut back on their emissions if the cost of doing so was less than the cost of
paying the tax. As a result, the tax would place an upper limit on the cost of reducing emissions, but the total amount of CO2 that
would be emitted in any given year would be uncertain. In contrast, under a cap-and-trade program, policymakers would
set a limit on total emissions during some period and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the
emissions permitted under that cap. (Each allowance would entitle companies to emit one ton of CO2 or to have one ton of carbon
in the fuel that they sold.) After the allowances for a given period were distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell the
allowances among themselves. Unlike a tax, a cap-and-trade program would place an upper limit on the amount of emissions, but
the cost of reducing emissions would vary on the basis of fluctuations in energy markets, the weather (for
example, an exceptionally cold winter would increase the demand for energy and make meeting a cap more expensive), and the
technologies available for reducing emissions. Given the gradual nature of climate change, the
uncertainty that exists about the cost of reducing emissions, and the potential variability of the cost of meeting a
particular cap on emissions at different points in time, a tax could offer significant advantages. If policymakers
chose to specify a long-term target for cutting emissions, a tax could be set at a rate that could meet that
target at a lower cost than a comparable cap. In addition, if policymakers set the tax rate at a level that reflected the
expected benefits of reducing a ton of emissions (which would rise over time), a tax would keep the costs of emission
reductions in balance with the anticipated benefits, whereas a cap would not.
45
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Economy solvency
Carbon tax avoids inevitable economic collapse from other alternatives – namely,
cap-and-trade.
The Economist, “Doffing the cap; Economics focus” June 16, 2007 lexis
Tradable emissions permits are a popular, but inferior, way to tackle global warming The pressure for
political action on climate change has never looked stronger. Even George Bush has now joined the
leaders of other rich countries in their quest to negotiate a successor regime to the Kyoto protocol, the
treaty on curbing greenhouse gases that expires in 2012. Too bad, then, that politicians seem set on a second-best
route to a greener world. That is the path of cap-and-trade, where the quantity of emissions is limited (the cap) and the right to emit
is distributed through a system of tradable permits. The original Kyoto treaty set up such a mechanism and its signatories are keen to
expand it. The main market-based alternative—a carbon tax—has virtually no political support. A pity,
because most economists agree that carbon taxes are a better way to reduce greenhouse gases than cap-
and-trade schemes. That is because taxes deal more efficiently than do permits with the uncertainty
surrounding carbon control. In the neat world of economic theory, carbon reduction makes sense until the marginal cost of cutting carbon emissions is equal to
the marginal benefit of cutting carbon emissions. If policymakers knew the exact shape of these cost and benefit curves, it would matter little whether they reached this optimal
But in the real world, politicians are fumbling in
level by targeting the quantity of emissions (through a cap) or setting the price (through a tax).
the dark. And that fumbling favours a tax. If policymakers set a carbon tax too low, too much carbon will
be emitted. But since the environmental effect of greenhouse gases builds up over time, a temporary
excess will make little difference to the overall path of global warming. Before much damage is done to
the environment, the carbon tax can be raised. Misjudging the number of permits, in contrast, could send
permit prices either skywards or through the floor, with immediate, and costly, economic consequences.
Worse, a fixed allotment of permits makes no adjustment for the business cycle (firms produce and
pollute less during a recession). Cap-and-trade schemes cause unnecessary economic damage because the
price of permits can be volatile. Both big cap-and-trade schemes in existence today—Europe's Emissions-
Trading Scheme for carbon and America's market for trading sulphur-dioxide permits (to reduce acid
rain)— suggest this volatility can be acute. America has had tradable permits for SO{-2} since the mid-
1990s. Their price has varied, on average, by more than 40% a year. Given carbon's importance in the
economy, similar fluctuations could significantly affect everything from inflation to consumer spending.
Extreme price volatility might also deter people from investing in green technology. Even without the
volatility, some economists reckon that a cap-and-trade system produces fewer incentives than a carbon
tax for climate-friendly innovation. A tax provides a clear price floor for carbon and hence a minimum
return for any innovation. Under a cap-and-trade system, in contrast, an invention that reduced the cost of
cutting carbon emissions could itself push down the price of permits, reducing investors' returns. To avoid
these pitfalls, some cap-and-trade advocates want to set price floors and ceilings within carbon-trading systems. One of the most
prominent bills in America's Congress, for instance, includes a "safety valve". If the price of carbon rises beyond a threshold, the
government will allocate an unlimited supply of permits at that price. Such reforms, in effect, make a cap-and-trade system work
more like a carbon tax. A third advantage of carbon taxes is that they raise revenue. Governments can use this cash to reduce
other inefficient taxes, thereby cutting the economic costs of carbon abatement. Or they can use the money to compensate those, such as the poor, who are hit disproportionately
hard by higher fuel costs. Cap-and-trade schemes, in contrast, have traditionally given away permits, which leaves no room to reduce the economic costs of climate control by
cutting taxes elsewhere. But here, too, change may be afoot. To mimic the advantage of a carbon tax, many cap-and-trade fans now want governments to auction at least a share
of the permits. All of which raises an important question. If cap-and-trade schemes are to be reformed so that they look more like carbon taxes, why are politicians so reluctant
One reason is that their environmental benefits are harder to explain. It is
to impose carbon taxes in the first place?
intuitively easier to grasp how a carbon cap will slow global warming. Taxes are also more prone to
ideological caricature, particularly in America, where many conservatives argue instinctively that all taxes
are bad. Too many politicians pretend that carbon taxes will hurt consumers more than a cap-and-trade
scheme, even though the cost of carbon permits will be passed on to consumers just as quickly as a tax.
But the biggest problem, at least politically, is that carbon taxes are transparent and simple, whereas cap-
and-trade systems are complicated and conveniently opaque. Under a cap-and-trade scheme, governments
can pay off politically powerful polluters (such as the coal industry) by giving them permits. Even more
important, rich countries can pay poorer ones to cut their emissions without any cash changing hands
between governments. Under a carbon tax such transfers must go through the government's budget. And
that can be politically tricky. However sensible it sounds to an economist, American voters may be loth to see their tax dollars funding fat cheques for China.
Add in these political arguments and the choice between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade becomes less obvious. Politicians are heading down the second-best path to combat
climate change, but it may be the only one that leads anywhere.
46
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil solvency
Implementing carbon tax will decrease oil dependence
climateandenergy.org, 2007 “Dangers of oil dependence”
http://www.climateandenergy.org/Explore/DangersOfOilDependence/Index.htm Date Accessed: 6/23/08
Moving away from fossil fuels can lower greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen our economy, and ease
international tensions. Unhealthy relationships. The dangerous dynamic of oil dependency creates a foreign policy problem for
the globe, not just the U.S. All too often, foreign policy finds itself filtered through the lens of oil. Oil-producing nations (such as
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria) have the oil-consuming U.S. and European Union at a significant disadvantage.
Western countries are forced to compete for resources with Japan, India, and China, and experience pressure to compromise on
important policy measures. In the U.S., hunger for fossil fuels also requires high defense budgets (that
contribute to increased deficit spending), and draws attention away from the domestic agenda. Use and
abuse. Global oil consumption is growing, especially in developing nations, and related human rights abuses are increasing as well.
Chaos. Oil revenues can wreak havoc on developing economies where democracy is fragile and/or authoritarian, corrupt regimes
pose significant threats. Those who control the oil reap the profits while the rest of the population struggles
with poverty, human rights abuses, civil unrest, radicalism, and terrorism. Cycles and Complications. During the
last century, this destructive cycle became apparent in the oil-rich Middle East. Today it is occurring in Africa, as that continent too
becomes a growing source of oil exports. With extreme weather like droughts and flooding, plus increased famine and disease,
climate change is likely to complicate and intensify these problems. More than Oil. Problems of oil dependence are not just about
transportation. Fossil fuels and their by-products are the basis for a disproportionate amount of our economy. The manufacture of
many other valuable products – plastics, fertilizers, medical technologies, etc. – also depends on petrochemicals. Our economy is far
too dependent on a fossil fuel model in general - burning fossil fuels of any kind produces some amount of greenhouse gas
emissions, which in turn contributes to climate change. This is always risky. Solutions. We can begin the transition toward a new
energy economy not dependent on fossil fuels. Plan Ahead. Increased incentives are needed to encourage more
research, development, and demonstration projects – such as for biorefineries, technologies for carbon sequestration
and compressed air storage, batteries for hybrids and electric vehicles, etc. One way to finance these incentives is to
implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The proceeds can be split between research and development of renewables, and
tax credits (or dividends) that mitigate the carbon tax’s impact on lower-income people. Consume wisely. Reducing
consumption of all fossil fuels helps to lower greenhouse gas emissions and avert radical climate change.
Switching to alternative fuels and technologies like plug-in hybrids will help decrease oil and gas dependence. Increasing CAFE
standards, offering tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicle purchases, and supporting public transportation helps as well. Energy prices
should accurately reflect the true costs of energy security, environmental impacts like climate change, and the need to preserve fossil
fuels – which are non-renewable resources - for future generations.
47
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil solvency
Carbon tax spurs innovation and solves dependence.
Daniel Rosenblum, carbontax.org, "A Carbon Tax When Oil Approaches $100/Barrel?" November 9,
2007 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/11/09/a-carbon-tax-when-oil-approaches-100barrel/
Rising Global Demand for Oil Provoking New Energy Crisis according to today’s New York Times. Yesterday’s front page of the
Wall Street Journal headlined As Energy Prices Soar, U.S. Industries Collide. Why not just rely upon high gasoline prices to bring
down demand instead of “adding insult to injury” with a carbon tax? One reason is that high gasoline prices alone are not
enough to reduce consumption of gasoline and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions. Consumers,
whether businesses or households, need a clear price signal that future prices are going to remain high
before they are motivated to make the investment decisions necessary to reduce consumption. The
volatile gas prices of the last few years just don’t provide that kind of signal. The rising global demand for oil
headlined in the Times story is faster in developing countries, but as the Times correctly noted, “Americans’ appetite for big cars
and large houses has pushed up oil demand steadily in this country, too.” The problem is that while it may be a rational economic
decision to invest in a more efficient car, house, truck or airplane if gas prices are expected to remain at or above current levels, the
economic decision-making is very different if consumers believe prices may plummet in two months. Europe has had considerably
higher gasoline prices for many years and, not coincidentally, Europeans generally drive much smaller and more efficient vehicles.
While volatile prices do not encourage investment in efficiency, a clear and certain trajectory of increasing carbon taxes would do
so. The revenue-neutral carbon tax proposed by the Carbon Tax Center provides that clear price signal. And, the
gradual trajectory of increased prices that we propose gives consumers time to adjust to the higher prices
by both investing in efficiency and making behavioral changes that will further reduce energy use. For more
on how consumer demand for gasoline responds to price, see our issue paper by clicking here. Another important reason why a
carbon tax continues to be essential even with high oil prices is that the goal of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, not just to reduce consumption of gasoline. Generation of electricity accounts for
approximately 40% of carbon dioxide emissions , compared to about 21% from gasoline and 4% from
aviation. Two-thirds of the emissions reductions from a carbon tax are expected to come from the
electricity sector, 11% from gasoline and only 1% from aviation. Coal use is increasing and will continue to increase
without a price signal that reflects the harm caused by carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electric generating plants. In
addition, high oil prices encourage the development of new sources of energy with huge carbon dioxide
emissions such as the Alberta oil sands projects. Tar sands development is the single largest contributor to
the increase in climate change in Canada according to Greenpeace Canada. Even worse, according to a study by the Sage
Centre and World Wildlife Fund-Canada, "voracious water consumption by Alberta's oilsands threatens the quality and quantity of
water available to Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories through the Mackenzie River system." In fact, today's New York
Times cites a new study finding that "[h]igh levels of carcinogens have been found in fish, water and sediment downstream from
Alberta's huge oil sands projects." A carbon tax would reduce the economic incentive for such projects by
holding down the price of oil. A carbon tax actually applied to such projects would destroy their economics. Finally, right
now the high oil prices are enriching oil producing countries and oil companies and causing severe
damage to the United States economy. A revenue-neutral carbon tax will reduce demand and lead to
reduced prices for the oil itself. The results? Reduced carbon dioxide emissions, less money going
overseas and to big oil companies, carbon tax revenues returned to all Americans and strengthening our
economy, and increased national security as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Win-win-win-win!
48
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil solvency
Carbon Tax is the only way to solve oil dependence
Charles Komanoff 24 June 2006 Fuel Tax Magic http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17867 Accessed
June 26, 2008
… ...I offer two answers. Combined, they just might hold a solution to our era's twin overriding crises: the
oil-dependence crisis and the climate crisis. The first answer is that as we extend our time horizon,
gasoline's price-elasticity, or price sensitivity to break free of the jargon, gets larger -- a lot larger. Going
out several years or more, individuals have greater scope to take actions that economize on gasoline. They
can junk the gas-guzzler, or at least not replace it with another one when the old one gives out. They
might calculate the dollar tradeoffs between density (high rents but less need to drive) and sprawl (the
reverse) and pick up stakes for a less car-dependent area. They may gravitate toward job opportunities
closer to home. And they can make more durable commitments to behavioral changes that reduce the
need to drive, like forming a carpool or buying a roadworthy bicycle or selling the far-away vacation
home. The consensus of economists who have studied gasoline use is that the "long-term" price elasticity
-- the effect on demand eight or ten years hence -- is between 50% and 70%, or roughly triple the 20%
"short-term" elasticity I'm seeing in my spreadsheet. That is, over the long haul, rises in the price of gas
are likely to dampen demand several times as much as the modest changes we've seen in the past year or
two. The second reason price-elasticity matters is that prices of gasoline and other fuels will probably
climb in the future. Or, to be candid, fuel prices need to climb far and fast if America is to ever get off the
oil spike and the world as a whole is to avoid disastrous climate change. For all the promising antidotes to
oil dependence, from ethanol and hybrid cars to rearranging living patterns so people and goods don't
have to move as much, there's a growing awareness that the only surefire way to advance on all fronts is
to create an irresistible and universal market pull by pricing gasoline at a very high level -- perhaps in the
$10 a gallon range. And now that the climate crisis is overtaking oil dependence as the ultimate energy
nightmare, people are starting to face the fact that only vastly higher prices for all fossil fuels can reduce
CO2 emissions across the board, through conservation, not just of gasoline but of all petroleum products
as well as natural gas and coal. Yes, I'm talking about a carbon tax -- the only mechanism powerful and
direct enough for the daunting task of phasing out fossil fuels.
49
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil solvency
Carbon Tax would decrease oil dependence & reduce employment taxes
Bill Bradley 4/1/2007 “We can get out of these ruts” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002071_pf.html Date Accessed: 6/23/2008
We also need to change our tax system to reduce our oil dependence. In general, we ought to reduce taxes
on things we need, such as wages, and raise taxes on whatever is dangerous to us, such as pollution and
resource depletion. We could implement a $1 per gallon gasoline tax; or an equivalent carbon tax, which
is a tax on any energy source that emits carbon dioxide; or equivalent taxes on other major air pollutants:
volatile organics, nitrogen oxide, lead, sulfurous dioxide and particulates. These taxes could be phased in
over five years, with the revenue going to reduce employment taxes (Social Security, Medicare or
unemployment insurance) for employees and employers alike. The gasoline or carbon tax would
encourage the nation to reduce its dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil, and with payroll taxes
reduced to 15 percent of labor costs, businesses would have an incentive to hire workers. Such a shift in
taxation -- away from jobs and toward pollution, energy and natural resources -- would draw many of the
24 million part-time employees into the full-time workforce, and millions more who are not working
would be more likely to find jobs. After a few years of adjustment in the case of a gasoline or carbon tax,
cars would be more fuel-efficient, so consumers would pay what they used to pay for the same amount of
driving, and the broad middle class would continue to pay lower employment taxes. The result would be
increasing demand for goods and services; shrinking dependency payments such as unemployment
compensation and welfare; lowered social costs, such as crime and avoidable illness; and a more
equitable tax system that encourages rising employment.Reducing employment taxes also makes sense on
grounds of competitiveness and equity. Employment taxes now hit our most successful companies
hardest. A company such as Microsoft or McKinsey desperately needs talented people, and there is a
limited pool of those with the requisite skills. As a part of a company's compensation package, it has to
pay enough to offset the employment taxes paid by the employee. If it doesn't make up the taxes in higher
wages, the employee can go somewhere else where the employer will cover the taxes. Meanwhile, at a
lumberyard where there is an excess of labor, the company doesn't have to pay higher wages and the bulk
of the employment taxes hit the workers. Perversely, it is the lowest-paid workers and the companies
most essential to economic growth that are hit hardest by employment taxes. We will never make these
simple changes in our political system or in our energy and tax systems if we don't tell the truth about our
national circumstances. Political leaders should not arrogate to themselves, based on a desire to hold onto
political power, the right to hide the truth from the people. If we tell people the truth we can trust them to
do the right thing. Sounds like a radical notion, but it's really just common sense. Once we face the truth
about our abysmal voter turnout, our oil addiction, our health-care and education crises, and our
inadequate national savings, there is good news. There are answers to all our current problems. It's not
rocket science. What's required is the political will to enact policies that can allow us to thrive in the 21st
century. An administration bold enough to tell the truth will find an audience ready for bold solutions.
50
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil solvency
Increased taxes result in reduced consumption
Knickerbocker, Brad, February 2008 “North America Gets Its First Carbon Tax”. Christian Science
Monitor Vol. 100 Issue 65 Acc: 06/23/08
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=640d75aa-bd8f-45b7-aa39-
fba35986f2c4%40sessionmgr103
Taxing carbon-spewing machines to slow global warming certainly has an eat-your-peas aspect to it: "Trade your SUV for a hybrid
or we'll make you pay!" Then again, tax policy can have a huge and positive impact on individual and group
behavior. In part, high cigarette taxes explain why rates of smoking among Americans have plummeted.
The Canadian province of British Columbia last week became the first jurisdiction in North America to
enact a consumer-based tax on carbon emissions. The Vancouver Sun reported: "The move was seen as a huge win by
environmentalists, who depicted B.C. as a leader in taking action on climate change. 'I think this is a landmark decision in
North America as far as government addressing global warming,' said Ian Bruce of the Suzuki
Foundation. 'The B.C. government has decided to use one of the most powerful incentives at its disposal
to reduce pollution,' he added…." The goal is to raise US$1.75 billion over the next three years by taxing virtually all fossil
fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home-heating fuel. It starts in July at $10 per ton of carbon
emissions, rising to $30 per ton by 2012. Consumers will pay an extra 2.4 cents a liter (9 cents per US gallon) this year for gasoline,
rising to 7.2 cents by 2012. Home heating oil would rise 2.8 cents a liter (10.6 cents per US gallon), going up to 8.3 cents per liter
over the same period. The Globe and Mail (subscription required) reported: "'It has been a dramatic turn, I think, for this province
with this budget to say we're not just going to be talking about climate action,' said Finance Minister Carole Taylor. She said the
strategy is to 'tax something that we know is bad for us,' and use the revenue to stimulate wide social change
by providing incentives for people and businesses to become more energy efficient." The plan is meant to be
"revenue neutral," meaning that overall taxes won't climb. To compensate, corporate and personal income tax rates will drop, and
low-income families will receive an annual tax credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child. To jump start the program, every resident
will get a one-time payment of $100 this year. The Canadian Press reported: "[British Columbia] Premier Gordon Campbell said he
won't try to pressure any other provinces to take action on climate change but he hopes B.C. serves as an example. He said by giving
British Columbians tax breaks on things such as fuel-efficient cars and energy-efficient appliances, British Columbians are being
given real choices on battling climate change. 'It'll drive investment in the economy,' Campbell said. " The new carbon tax is not
seen as a panacea. It's expected to help cut B.C.'s greenhouse-gas emissions by about 5 percent by 2020, but that's well short of the
government's goal of a 33 percent reduction. The Times Colonist in Victoria, B.C., quotes University of Victoria climatologist
Andrew Weaver as saying that the tax will send an important message: "To me, what's important is the actual signal to the market
that carbon is going to have a price. And that price is going up, not down. And that, in itself, is enough to
do a paradigm shift as to how we do stuff." So far, the rest of Canada is not following British Columbia's lead. Ontario's
strategy, for example, includes a commitment to shut down the province's coal-fired generating plants. United Press International
quotes Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as saying: "We're doing something differently here in Ontario that suits our economy and
the direction that we're pursuing…." Some federal officials in Canada are concerned that individual plans by provinces could be
more costly and less efficient than a unified approach. The National Post reported:"'(Canadians) don't want to pay more for cars,
they don't want to pay more for other things because the governments can't get their act together and co-operate,' [Finance Minister
Jim Flaherty] said." That's essentially the argument the Bush administration has been using to block California and other states from
regulating vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
51
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Global modeling
Other Countries model after U.S. policies
Makram Haluani 2003 “Benign Neglect: Cooperation in the Western Hemisphere”
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LjnV1YQL29qLRWD5yq0y2LFPyXBy1yyNjxDv2
Ks3L6Qvdvycfxrh!-1672927978?docId=5000642709 Date Accessed: 6/26/2008
Governments around the world base foreign policy strategies on their interpretations of US attitudes.
They look for both consistencies and changes in the speeches, press conferences, and remarks of senior
US officials. The course of international events depends on these attitudes, and the rest of the world
knows it. This practice is especially true of Latin American countries, whose governments have followed
recent trends in US presidential discourse with some concern. On August 25, 2000, Republican
presidential candidate George Bush proclaimed, "Should I become president, I'll look south, not as an
afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment." He assured his audience that he would be the "mejor
amigo" of Latin America. Indeed, as president, Bush's first visit abroad was to Mexico and not to Canada,
a significant departure from tradition. According to Bush, Latin America holds a central place in US...
52
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Global modeling
International efforts to reduce warming will be rolled back without US action.
Liana G.T. Wolf, Yale Law School, J.D., Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall
2006 lexis
When a problem requires action by many different nations, the most ideal solution usually arises out of
multilateral cooperative behavior. However, when such an ideal solution is not obtainable, other mechanisms must be used
to achieve joint action. This paper proposes the SCM Agreement as a viable mechanism for encouraging countries to internalize
their environmental costs that have global effects. Under the SCM Agreement as written, or under the proposed amended version,
the failure of the United States to impose the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on its energy intensive industries should be
classified as a hidden subsidy subject to countervailing duties. These countervailing duties could be used for funding climate change
projects, and they could compensate for the trade distorting effects of the U.S. action. n168 This would give the United States the
incentive to actively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a more cost effective manner since the countervailing duties could only
continue as long as the trade distorting subsidy was in effect. The international system is currently plagued by "poor stewardship of
the global commons, lack of liability for transboundary environmental harms, and free riding in treaties." n169 [degree] If the
European Union and other countries are going to absorb the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the United States should
not be able to reap a competitive advantage from shirking its own environmental responsibilities. If the United States is
allowed to shirk its responsibilities, the European Union and various other industrialized countries may be
forced to reduce their environmental efforts to remain competitive in the international market. If that
occurs, global warming will continue to have an increasingly destructive effect on the global environs.
53
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Taxes good
Carbon taxes are revenue neutral.
Carbon Tax Center, May 2008, http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase Acc:
06/26/08
A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. At least that’s what we (Carbon Tax Center) and many other
carbon tax proponents are advocating. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised
by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be
returned to the American people, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative
impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users. Two primary return approaches are being discussed.
One would rebate the revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) equal dividends to all U.S.
residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. Just such
a program has operated in Alaska for three decades, providing residents with annual dividends from the
state’s North Slope oil revenues. In the other method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a
dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-
tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition),
existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This “tax-shift” approach, while less
direct than the dividend method, would also ensure that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. Note that each
individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is,
no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation
of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels
and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate
an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of
the costs of various goods and services.
54
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Taxes good
A carbon tax would allow us to reduce income tax.
Moffat, Mike, 2007 About.com
http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/pigouvian_tax.htm
Like Dr. Greg Mankiw, I am also a big fan of Pigovian taxes. He quite rightfully points out that they
"allow us to correct market failures without heavy-handed regulations, while raising government revenue
so we can reduce more distortionary forms of taxation." So like Mankiw, I'm a supporter of the aims of
the Pigou Club. What are Pigovian Taxes Wikipedia has an excellent article on Pigovian taxes, which
begins: "A Pigovian tax is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. For
instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to
reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the
pollution. Certain types of Pigovian taxes are sometimes referred to as sin taxes, for example taxes on
alcohol and cigarettes." In a country like Canada with socialized medicine, the cigarette tax atcs as a
Pigovian tax - it (more than) raises the revenue necessary to offset the expense to the health care system
generated by smoking. Why I Support Pigovian Taxes One of the uses of taxes is to discourage activity
that has negative externalities, or we believe is otherwise economically/socially harmful. That's why these
'sin' taxes exist - they discourage people from smoking and drinking. It's also argument often put forward
by those in favour of marijuana legalization - that a better and more cost-effective way of detering usage
would be to legalize marijuana and tax it rather heavily. These taxes also raise revenue for the state. In
2004-2005, the Canadian government collected $16.7 billion in "other" taxes, which were largely
Pigovian taxes such as energy taxes and excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Since taxes deter the
activity that is being taxed, then why in the world would we ever tax income? Don't we want to
encourage hard work and entrepreunership? Yet in Canada, over 45 percent of federal government
revenue comes from personal income taxes and 15 percent comes from corporate income taxes. I've been
rather hard on the supporters of the FairTax, but they have the right idea. Taxing activities we wish to
encourage (work) does not make a great deal of sense when we can tax acitivities we are not as interested
in promoting (consumption). The FairTaxers take it too far - the amount of revenue needed to finance all
the government programs we value cannot be generated by simply a consumption tax alone. But the basic
idea is sound. I live in the Southwestern Ontario region of Canada, an area with perhaps the poorest air
quality in all of the country. Each year we have a record number of smog days. Wouldn't it make sense
that we try to discourage the use of electricity generated from coal and the use of fossil fuels? Yes, this
would have negative effects on the economy in isolation, but if we used the revenue generated from such
a tax to lower employment insurance premiums or income tax rates, it's likely that the net economic effect
would be positive. Yes, we can go too far with Pigovian taxes. Wikipedia states that "One argument that
has been put forward against the levying of Pigovian pollution taxes is that if the tax is too high it will
lead to a level of pollution that is less than the social optimum." But can anyone claim that we have the
current optimum level of work? The optimum level of investment? The optimum level of savings? If we
are forced to overtax something, and we are given the cost of running government, air pollution seems
like the best place to start. It's true that Pigovian taxes tend to be regressive in the sense that they cause
the poor to pay a higher proportion of their income on them than the rich. While this doesn't seem to
bother many when we discuss raising the taxes on cigarettes, the overall effect of increased use of
Pigovian taxes would cause a level of regressivity that Canadians are uncomfortable with. This
regressivity effect can be eliminated through bundling Pigovian taxes with some form of negative income
tax, like the U.S. Earned Income Tax Credit, such that average tax rates remain progressive. With so
many advantages, I full-heartedly support the increased use of Pigovian taxes in Canada or any other
country. While I'm not a famous well-respected economist like Dr. Mankiw, I would still like to ask for a
membership into his club.
55
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
56
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Price volatility can wreck the economy and stem alternate energy production.
Congressional Budget Office, A CBO Study, "Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions"
February 2008 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf
The flexibility in reducing emissions that a tax affords is important because the cost of cutting emissions by a given amount could
vary from year to year depending on such factors as the weather, the level of economic activity, and the availability of low-carbon
technologies. A tax would provide a steady, predictable price for emissions. An inflexible cap, however, could
result in volatile allowance prices, making a cap-and-trade program more disruptive to the economy than
a tax would be. Experience with cap-and-trade programs has shown that price volatility can be a major concern when a
program’s design does not include provisions to adjust for unexpectedly high costs and to prevent price spikes. For example, one
researcher found that the price of sulfur dioxide allowances under the U.S. Acid Rain Program was
significantly more volatile than stock prices between 1995 and 2006 (see Figure 1-3).12 Price volatility was most
apparent in the summer of 2000 in Southern California’s Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), a program that capped
emissions of nitrous oxide (NOx) from the power sector. A heat wave caused demand for electricity to soar that summer, while the
availability of imported power from other states declined. The increase in demand had to be met by running many of California’s
old gas-fired generating facilities, which had not yet installed NOx emission controls. As a result, the demand for NOx RECLAIM
Trading Credits for 2000 rose significantly, boosting their average annual price tenfold (from $4,284 per ton in 1999 to almost
$45,000 per ton in 2000) and contributing to high wholesale electricity prices in California during that period.13 In addition to the
California experience, allowance prices in the European Union’s (EU’s) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)—a trading
program that covers CO2 emissions from roughly 12,000 sources across 27 countries—fell drastically when it became
evident that policymakers had overallocated emission allowances. Price volatility could be particularly
problematic with CO2 allowances because fossil fuels play such an important role in the U.S. economy.
They accounted for 85 percent of the energy consumed in the United States in 2006. CO2 allowance prices could affect
energy prices, inflation rates, and the value of imports and exports. Volatile allowance prices could have
disruptive effects on markets for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and make investment
planning difficult.14 The smoother price path offered by a CO2 tax would better enable firms to plan for
investments in capital equipment that would reduce CO2 emissions (for example, by increasing efficiency or using
low-carbon fuels) and could provide a more certain price signal for firms considering investing in the
development of new emission-reduction technologies.
57
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
58
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
59
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
60
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
61
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Cap-and-trade ↓ competitiveness
International regimes kill US competitiveness.
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A.
Hassett, senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, American Enterprise Institute,
"Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes" June 2007
It is possible that the defects of
There are two final, overriding reasons to be doubtful about global emissions trading.
previous emissions-trading programs could be overcome with more careful design and extended to an
international level, though this would require an extraordinary feat of diplomacy and substantial refinements of international law.
Even if such improvement could be accomplished, it would not provide assurance against the prospect
that the cost of such a system might erode the competitiveness of the U.S. economy against developing
nations that do not join the system. The second reason for skepticism about global emissions trading is that it fails the "no
regrets" test. It is considered bad form nowadays to express doubt or skepticism about the scientific case for rapid and dangerous
global warming in the twenty-first century. If warming is either less pronounced than some current forecasts predict or if emissions
reductions have limited effect in moderating future temperature rise, however, a severe global emissions-reduction policy through
emissions trading (on the order of a minimum 50 percent cut by 2050) could turn out to be the costliest public policy mistake in
human history, with the costs vastly exceeding the benefits.
62
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Carbon tax reduces emissions more than cap & trade given an open society while
avoiding wealth transfers
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/cooper/files/Kyoto_ct.pdf Alternatives to Kyoto: the Case for a
Carbon Tax Richard N. Cooper Harvard University 2006
This strategy of concealing or seriously downplaying an important consequence of proposed actions will
not work in open societies where skepticism of government claims has grown significantly. A strategy
more likely to be successful is to acknowledge that carboniferous energy needs to become more
expensive, and to accomplish the required increase in prices with an internationally agreed tax, revenues
to accrue to each tax-levying country, to avoid the issue of large unconditional transfers among countries.
Many countries would welcome the additional revenue; countries where this is not the case could use the
revenues to lower other taxes. This proposal – an alternative to Michaelowa’s -- is discussed in more
detail in the following section. It is not assured of success. But in my judgement it has a better chance of
actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions than does the proposal in Michaelowa’s paper.
63
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
64
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
65
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
66
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
67
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
68
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Consensus says carbon tax is cheaper and more effective than cap and trade
Brian Hansen February 19, 2007 "Carbon tax called more effective option than cap-trade for addressing
warming" Inside Energy with Federal Lands, Pg. 12
The U.S. government should enact a simple carbon tax instead of a complex cap-and-trade scheme if it
wants to tackle the problem of global warming, a noted economist said last week. Robert Shapiro, co-
founder and chairman of Sonecon, a Washington-based consulting firm, said a carbon tax would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions more effectively than a cap-and-trade program, and with fewer administrative
and economic side effects. "There is a general consensus among economists that a carbon tax would be
more environmentally effective and economically efficient than a cap-and-trade program," Shapiro told
reporters Wednesday in a conference call announcing a new study he wrote on the subject. He prepared
the study for the American Consumer Institute, a Washington think tank and advocacy group.
69
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
70
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
71
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
expected to go far. The obvious reason is that, for voters, taxes are radioactive, while carbon trading
sounds like something that just affects utilities and big corporations.
72
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
73
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Cap-and-trade – corruption
Permits encourage cheating and economic slowdown.
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A.
Hassett, senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, American Enterprise Institute,
"Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes" June 2007
A cap-and-trade approach to controlling GHG emissions would be highly problematic. A lack of
international binding authority would render enforcement nearly impossible, while the incentives for
cheating would be extremely high. The upfront costs of creating institutions to administer trading are
significant and likely to produce entrenched bureaucracies that clamor for ever-tighter controls on carbon
emissions. Permit holders will see value in further tightening of caps, but will resist efforts outside the
cap-and-trade system that might devalue their new carbon currency. Higher energy costs resulting from
trading would lead to economic slowdown, but as revenues would flow into for-profit coffers
(domestically or internationally), revenues would be unavailable for offsetting either the economic
slowdown or the impacts of higher energy prices on low-income earners.
74
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Cap-and-trade – corruption
Cap and trade is vulernable to corporate manipulation.
Keith Crane, senior economist and James Bartis, senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, a
nonprofit research organization, November 29, 2007
To understand the drawbacks of cap-and-trade, one has to look not only at the successful U.S. acid rain
program but the failed European Emissions Trading Scheme, the first phase of which started in January
2005. European Union members each developed emissions goals, then passed out credits to polluters. Yet
for a variety of reasons, the initial cap was set so high that the polluters fell under it without making any
reductions at all. The Europeans are working to improve the scheme in the next phase, but their chances
of success aren't good. One reason is the power of lobbyists. In Europe, as in the U.S., special interests
have a way of warping the political process so that, for example, a corporation generous with its
campaign contributions might win an excessive number of credits. It's also very easy in many European
countries to cheat; because there aren't strong agencies to monitor and verify emissions, companies or
utilities can pretend they're cleaner than they are. The latter problem might be avoided in the U.S. by
beefing up the Environmental Protection Agency. But there's reason to suspect that many of the corporate
interests pushing for a federal cap-and-trade program are hoping for a seat at the table when credits are
passed out, and they will doubtless fudge numbers to maximize their credits; some companies stand to
make a great deal of money under a trading system. Also hoping to profit, honestly or not, would be
carbon traders. Large financial institutions would jump into the exchange to collect commissions on
carbon trades, just as they do with crude oil and wheat. This presents opportunities for Enron-style market
manipulation.
75
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Competitiveness addon
Carbon tax key to maintaining US economic competitiveness.
Paul Anderson, Chairman and CEO, Duke Energy, “Grabbing the Carbon Elephant” 2005
An economy-wide carbon tax is the least prescriptive policy approach as it does not mandate reductions in any one sector.
Compared to other market-based approaches, such as “cap-and-trade” policies, a carbon tax provides greater certainty regarding cost
impacts. A carbon tax would not mandate targeted reductions from one sector or another, but would instead
send economic signals that enable businesses and individuals to make informed decisions. For this reason,
many economic experts believe that a carbon tax is more efficient than a cap-and-trade policy for addressing climate change over
the long-term. To be clear, adoption of a carbon tax need not increase the overall tax burden—instead, revenues from a carbon tax
could support reductions in inefficient existing taxes on productive labor and investment. And even if climate change turns out to be
less of a problem than many might think, a carbon tax is a “no regrets” policy that will result in lower overall air emissions and the
benefits of greater energy efficiency. Why would the CEO of a large energy company advocate less energy consumption? Because
it’s important to take the long view on environmental as well as economic issues.And it’s also where my faith in American
innovation comes in. A mandate to benefit the environment will spur the kind of technology innovation that
we saw in the last century. Innovation that propelled us to become the world’s leading economy. Set the
right goals and Americans can and will lead the way. Our international competitors—motivated by
mandatory emissions reductions—have gotten a head start. Japan is the world leader in solar power and hybrid cars,
and Europe leads in wind power. Their economies will benefit from greater energy efficiency, and ours will be
disadvantaged if we lag behind.
76
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming is real
Global warming is real.
Johann Hari, The Independent (London), “The last gasp of the global warming deniers” January 25, 2007
lexis
And so, at last and at least, the words come. The evidence is now so thuddingly inescapable that even George W.
Bush - a man who, when pricked, bleeds oil - has acknowledged "the serious challenge of global climate change"
in his State of the Union address. It is only a rhetorical concession, another excuse to fiddle as the West Antarctic ice-sheet melts -
but it is also a crux moment in the history of global warming denial. Today, the small, lingering band of global
warming "sceptics" are beached on the farthest shores of the wrong side of history. They are alone, abandoned
even by Global Warming Bush and the oil industry. Yet this is not a time to gloat. It is time to appeal to them to join the fight for
survival. Deniers, I am sure some of you were sincere. Man-made global warming is such a horrifying event, it is natural to want to
scramble for scraps of evidence suggesting it can't be true. And there are some small misanthropic parts of the environmentalist
movement it is perfectly natural to recoil from. The direct action group Earth First! famously made the vile statement that "the Aids
epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population ??? If [it] didn't
exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it]." Maybe you wrongly thought all environmentalists were like this. Maybe
that's why you were so eager to disprove our core issue. I know it's painful to give up on something you have passionately believed.
So let's - for one last time - go through your arguments. Deniers' Myth Number One: Scientists are divided on whether
man is causing global warming. In 2004, the universally-respected journal Science studied 928 randomly
selected scientific papers containing the words "global climate change". None of them - not one -
disagreed with the view that global warming is being caused to a significant degree by burning fossil
fuels. As Jim Baker, who was head of one of the leading scientific organisations in the US, explains, "There is a better
scientific consensus on this issue than any other, with the possible exception of Newton's Law of
Dynamics." Deniers' Myth Number Two: The current warming of the world is simply part of the planet's natural
cycle. After all, there were no carbon emissions when the last ice age ended - why should the current warming be due to them?
There is a sliver of truth in this: natural climate change has not stopped, and it never will. But we have
superimposed onto it a great blast of greenhouse gases of our own, with far stronger effect. To understand
this, you only have to grasp some basic 19th-century physics. As Professor Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey explains,
"There are natural greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere which trap heat on the planet, keeping the
surface temperature 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be. Since the start of the industrial revolution, we have
released lots more greenhouse gases - around 1,000 billion tonnes of them. This has enhanced the natural
greenhouse effect, and trapped more heat - currently 0.6 degrees. The more greenhouse gases we add, the warmer we'll
be. It's not rocket science." Deniers' Myth Number Three: The current warming in the world is all due to changes in the
energy output of the Sun. In 1991, the Danish scientists Knud Lassen and Eigil FriisChristensen found a correlation between
temperature changes on Earth from 1850 onwards and sunspot activity, which usually indicate changes in the intensity of solar
radiation. As the sun warmed, we warmed. Other scientists studied this closely, and found out that they were partly right: up to 40
per cent of the planet's warming is indeed due to solar activity. But since 1980, sunspot activity has been declining -
yet temperatures down here have been soaring to the highest levels ever recorded. So while the Sun can take
some of the flak, the world's scientists agree: the other 60 per cent remains with us. Deniers' Myth Number Four: In the 1970s,
scientists were warning about "global cooling" and a looming Ice Age. How can we now trust these warnings of global warming? In
fact, in the 1970s two - literally two - scientists tentatively suggested that cooling could occur over millennia. To compare that
meek, misreported suggestion by two people to the overwhelming scientific consensus from tens of thousands of climatologists is, I
am sure you deniers can see now, dishonest. Denier's Myth Number Five: Global warming is a religion. People have always had an
innate psychological need to believe in a looming apocalypse - this is just the latest version.
77
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Warming is real
The most recent and reliable models all prove warming is real and human caused.
Biotech Business Week, “Recent findings from Duke University, U.S., provide an update on new”
April 30, 2007 lexis
Report 1: Evidence presented in the first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th
Assessment Report, released in Paris, paints the clearest picture yet that human-derived greenhouse gases are
playing a significant role in observed global warming, said a Duke University scientist who co-authored one of the
report's main chapters. "We are now seeing, not merely predicting, effects of greenhouse warming on a scale
and in ways that were not observable before," said Gabriele Hegerl, associate research professor at Duke's Nicholas
School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, who also co-authored a summary of the report for policymakers. "When you
look at the changes in temperature, circulation, ocean warming, arctic sea ice reduction and glacial retreat
together, it paints a much clearer picture that external drivers, particularly greenhouse gases, are playing a
key role," she said. "As a result, we can be much more confident that 20th century climate changes were not
just linked to natural variability." Hegerl was a coordinating lead author of the IPCC report's chapter on "Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change." Francis Zwiers of the Canadian Centre of Climate Modeling and Analysis was also a coordinating
lead author of the chapter. IPCC assessment reports are issued every five to six years to provide a comprehensive review of the
current state of knowledge on climate change. The 2007 report will be issued in four phases during the year. The first phase,
released in Paris, focuses on the physical evidence of global change. The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations
Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization and draws on the expertise of about 2,500 scientists
worldwide. Hegerl and her chapter's team of co-authors were charged with reviewing the evidence of changes observed so far and
assessing which changes can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases and other external influences on climate. In the chapter, they
look at the actual measurements of climate and weather changes and compare them with predictions made for the 20th century by
sophisticated computer models. "We've studied improved observations from land, sea and space, as well as
better temperature reconstructions covering the last 1,000 years," Hegerl said. By comparing observation against
modeled projections, she said scientists are gaining a better sense of which external climate influences have been important.
"Understanding the observations is really what this all is about. For instance, looking at the patterns of change in 20th-
century temperatures, we can now distinguish between changes caused by greenhouse gases, man-made
aerosols, variability in solar radiation and major volcanic eruptions," Hegerl said. "We can also better
understand which changes in the more distant past were caused by external influences of climate, such as
volcanic eruptions, and how strong the variability of the climate system is. "One of the most fascinating things is
that we see that changes have already happened or are happening now in more climate variables than just temperature," Hegerl
added. "For instance, there have been observed changes in ocean temperatures, global rainfall and in circulation of the atmosphere.
We now are beginning to understand that these changes occur at least partly in response to anthropogenic influences on climate.
This allows us to better evaluate model simulations, which do simulate aspects of these changes, although not as
successfully as they simulate changes in temperature," she said. "There are still things, like ice-sheet melting, that the models don't
do very well yet. But overall, the predictions and uncertainty ranges of future climate change are becoming
much better understood and much more credible," Hegerl said. The IPCC report "hits the nail squarely on
the head," she said. "It gives a very balanced view of the evidence for climate change, predictions of future
change, and the remaining uncertainties, and it draws input from very large number of scientists
worldwide."
78
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
79
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
China addon
China will model the plan.
The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum, "Global Warming's Simple Remedy" February 6, 2007
lexis
Any lasting solutions will have to be extremely simple, and -- because of the cost implicit in reducing the use and emissions of
fossil fuels -- will also have to benefit those countries that impose them in other ways. Fortunately, there is such a solution, one that
is grippingly unoriginal, requires no special knowledge of economics and is easy for any country to implement. It's called a
carbon tax, and it should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or
building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a
wealth of innovations to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a
big chunk of money that could be used for other things. Anyone for balancing the budget? Fixing Social Security for future
generations? As a foreign policy side benefit, users of the tax would suddenly find themselves less dependent on Persian Gulf oil or
Russian natural gas, too. Most of all, though, the successful use of carbon taxes does not require "American leadership," or a U.N.
committee, or a complicated international effort of any kind. It can be done country by country: If the British environment minister
or the German chancellor wants to go ahead with it tomorrow, nothing is preventing them. If a future American president wants to
rally the nation around a patriotic and noble cause, then he or she has the perfect opportunity. If the Chinese see that such a
tax has produced unexpected benefits in America and Europe, they'll follow. And when that happens, we'll
know that the apocalyptic climate change rhetoric has finally been taken seriously.
Chinese carbon tax saves hundred-of-thousounds lives and will stabilize long-term
growth in China.
Maximilian Auffhammer, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Richard Carson, a professor in the
Department of Economics at the University of California at San Diego, is immediate past president of the
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, The Washington Post, “China's Chance to Lead”
August 2, 2007 lexis
China would gain in several ways from implementing a substantial carbon tax. By reducing its fossil fuel consumption,
China would prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens because of the short- and long-term
consequences of air pollution from burning coal. Investments in energy-efficient durable goods,
encouraged by a carbon tax, would generate energy savings over the lengthy life of these investments.
The demands of China's rapid economic growth are outstripping the country's ability to provide the
infrastructure necessary for continued growth; a carbon tax would slow short-term growth and allow
infrastructure investments to catch up. Ultimately, this would lead to greater long-term growth. If China
fears a drag on its economy from the carbon tax, it could make such a tax partially or fully revenue neutral by reducing other taxes.
80
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
China addon
Chinese hard landing will cause massive social unrest.
The International Herald Tribune, Matthew Benjamin and David Tweed, "Risk of bust growing
for Chinese economy" July 31, 2006 lexis
Growth is hurtling along at the fastest pace in a decade, defying official efforts to curb investment in unneeded factories and real-
estate projects. The government's immediate concerns are that overheated growth will saddle China with excess capacity, create
more asset bubbles and increase friction with the United States and other trading partners. ''China's unbalanced growth
model has now gone to excess and seems in danger of veering out of control,'' said Stephen Roach, the
chief global economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. ''The longer China's economic boom runs, the
tougher it will be to avoid a more treacherous endgame.'' That might include defaults on bank loans, and eventually
deflation and a collapse of asset values. Such a hard landing would risk breeding social unrest within China while
drying up export markets for neighbors like South Korea and Taiwan.
81
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
82
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
China – model
China uses US inaction on carbon to rationalize its economic growth and carbon
use.
Carbontax.org, "What About China?" May 23, 2008
The imminence of China’s leap-frogging the U.S. as the World’s #1 annual carbon emitter — it may happen as early as this year or
next — is being cited to defend American inaction on carbon reductions. This stance ignores several central points. For one thing,
the U.S. will continue to be the world’s biggest contributor to global climate change long after China, or even India, surpasses us in
annual emissions. That’s because carbon dioxide molecules, once emitted, remain “resident” in the atmosphere for approximately a
century. Considering the many decades in which America’s carbon emissions dwarfed everyone else's, of the CO2 now warming
Earth, more than three times as much is the product of American emissions as Chinese emissions. Based on present trends, the
earliest that China will surpass the United States as the leading source of CO2 is mid-century, i.e., around 2050. (See Slideshow,
slide #8.) Second, the United States will continue to dump the most CO2 into the atmosphere on a per capita basis for years to come.
The average American is responsible for creating as much CO2 in a day as do people in developing countries in an entire workweek.
Third, just as corporations here use China’s inaction on carbon to justify U.S. inaction, so too are industry
and government in China using our temporizing on carbon to rationalize theirs. The way out of this
“alliance of denial,” as The New York Times terms it, is to stop delaying and start acting. Breaking this cycle
should be easier for the United States, insofar as our per capita use of energy (and emissions of carbon) is many times
greater than China’s, and given our well-developed political and administrative institutions. Last, while it is true that only
concerted action by all the world’s nations and peoples can meet the climate crisis head-on, it is equally
true that every action that reduces carbon emissions helps protect and stabilize climate. The injunction
that the perfect must not become the enemy of the good has never been so apt as it is here and now, in
Earth’s climate emergency.
83
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
China – model
China and the US are in an alliance of denial on climate change policy.
New York Times, "Warming and Global Security" April 20, 2007 lexis
On Monday, 11 retired admirals and generals released a detailed 68-page report arguing that climate change could be a ''threat
multiplier'' in already fragile parts of the world. Rising sea levels could threaten the livelihoods of more than one billion people
living within 45 miles of Asia's coastlines. In Africa, recurring heat waves could cause widespread shortages of food and water,
leading to large-scale migrations and escalating tensions. Anthony Zinni, the retired Marine general, made the point elegantly when
he said that ''we will pay for this one way or the other'' -- either now, to control the emission of greenhouse gases, or later, in military
engagements and ''human lives.'' These same themes were taken up at the United Nations, where the Security Council, under
Britain's leadership, held its first-ever discussion of the link between climate change and international conflict. An
overwhelming majority of nations voiced grave concerns about climate change, and many urged stricter
worldwide controls on greenhouse gases. Among the few doubters were the United States and China --
neither of which has mandatory controls (the Bush administration actively opposes them). Both argued that the
Council was the wrong place to raise the issue. What they were really saying was that they don't want to
be pushed. In an alliance of denial, China and the United States are using each other's inaction as an
excuse to do nothing.
84
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
85
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
86
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
87
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
88
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
China – deforestation/biodiversity
Rapid Chinese growth is causing deforestation and destroying biodiversity.
The Korea Herald, "Korea needs environmental leadership" April 8, 2008 lexis
China's rivers, reservoirs, and other water resources are so polluted that they are affecting the Yellow Sea
and other oceans. Hazardous solid wastes are often dumped untreated. Serious deforestation and overuse
of other natural resources have fueled economic growth, but have also diminished biodiversity and
endangered many forms of wildlife. Neither the United Nations nor other countries can keep China in check. The
superpower is reluctant to admit that it is a major environmental polluter, or to commit significant funding to environmental
programs, even though it is just beginning to recognize the seriousness of the problem.
89
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
90
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
91
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
92
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
93
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
94
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
95
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
Oil impacts
Oil wealth is a curse—it hurts the economy and causes corruption and civil wars
Lutz Kleveman, free-lance journalist (has worked for CNN, Daily Telegraph, Newsweek) and book
author, 2003, The New Great Game, pg. 88
“In dealing with its sudden oil wealth,” says Andrew Rearick, director of a think tank in Almaty that counsels foreign companies
investing in Central Asia, “Kazakhstan has not yet done as badly as Nigeria but, God knows, it is not Norway, either.” The
Scandinavian country is seen as the one model for how a country manages to absorb the shock of an oil jackpot without serious
political or social crises, while at the same time distributing the wealth on a relatively equal basis. In almost every oil state
across the globe, the sudden windfall of petrodollars has proved more of a curse than a blessing, leading to
corruption, social tensions, coup d’etats, and civil wars. After the oil crisis of 1973, most governments of oil exporting
countries spent their new massive revenues on enormous investments in social programs, infrastructures, the military, and subsi-
dized state companies. However, the economies were unable to absorb such a massive cash infusion and in the 1980s, when the
oil prices dropped, these luxuries were no longer affordable and the boom ended. The modern skyscrapers of Lagos and
Caracas sat empty while unemployment and poverty skyrocketed. In most oil countries, economic growth in the two
decades following 1973 was lower than before the oil rush, and per-capita incomes dropped. Many
countries experienced deep social and political crises. In Iran, the shah’s modernizing program of the “Great Civilization”
led to the Islamic revolution, while in Nigeria one general’s putsch was followed by another. Algeria and Sudan drifted into bloody
civil wars, while Venezuela has been plagued by constant riots and military overthrows, bringing the country (and its oil industry) to
a virtual standstill under the present rule of President Hugo Chavez.
Oil wealth causes corruption, economic decline, political oppression, and civil wars
Lutz Kleveman, free-lance journalist (has worked for CNN, Daily Telegraph, Newsweek) and book
author, 2003, The New Great Game, pg. 263
No matter how many soldiers and civilians have so far died in Iraq and other Great Game battlefields for the sake of brazen energy
imperialism, they won’t be the last. With the industrialized world’s addiction to oil growing unabated, more energy wars are a
realistic prospect. As the planet’s remaining oil reserves are going to last for only a few more decades, the struggles over
access and profits between countries and multinational corporations are fast becoming fiercer, and they
continue within the societies of oil-rich countries. In Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Venezuela, Sudan, Angola, the Arab
sheikhdoms, and many other countries sudden oil wealth has led to corruption, economic decline,
political oppression, revolutions, or civil wars. “We are drowning in the excrement of the Devil,” the Venezuelan OPEC
founder Juan Alfonzo once said of an oil boom’s dire side effect.
96
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
97
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
98
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
99
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
100
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
US action to increase efficiency responds to our lack of action and sends a strong
message to allies.
Paul Roberts (energy expert and writer for Harpers) 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 325
Politically, a new U.S. energy policy would send a powerful message to the rest of the players in the
global energy economy. Just as a carbon tax would signal the markets that a new competition had begun,
so a progressive, aggressive American energy policy would give a warning to international businesses,
many of which now regard the United States as a lucrative dumping ground for older high-carbon
101
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
technology. It would signal energy producers — companies and states — that they would need to start
making investments for a new energy business, with differing demands and product requirements. Above
all, a progressive energy policy would not only show trade partners in Japan and Europe that the United
States is serious about climate but would give the United States the leverage it needs to force much-
needed changes in the Kyoto treaty. With a carbon program and a serious commitment to improve
efficiency and develop clean-energy technologies, says one U.S. climate expert, “the United States could
really shape a global climate policy. We could basically say to Europe, ‘Here is an American answer to
climate that is far better than Kyoto. Here are the practical steps we’re going to take to reduce emissions,
far more effectively than your cockamamie Kyoto protocol.”’
102
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
103
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: States CP
Federal government key.
Franz T. Litz, Esq., Senior Fellow, world resources institute, Prepared for the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, “toward a constructive dialogue on federal and state roles in u.s.climate change policy”
June 2008
The Arguments for Federal Action There are, of course, reasons some climate change policies might be better
effectuated at the federal level, notwithstanding the states’ important roles as first movers, policy innovators and on-the-
ground implementers. Among the reasons are the broader coverage of a federal program, the ability to level the
competitive playing field for citizens and businesses, and the ultimate need for coherent and
comprehensive national and international action. Indeed, many state leaders have themselves made these arguments to
advocate—and sometimes even to sue the federal government to compel—national action. The Challenge Demands All 50
States. A federal program guarantees coverage across all 50 states. In contrast, an approach that relies
solely on state actions leaves substantial gaps in program coverage. Not all states have acted to
meaningfully tackle climate change. Even among those states that have acted, there are differences in the
scope and stringency of their policies. A federal program would bring all 50 states into the climate change effort. Federal
Action Levels the Playing Field. A federal program would tend to level the playing field for businesses in all 50 states. Although the
state laboratories of democracy produce useful policy products, they also present a more difficult environment for
companies doing business in multiple states. Those companies must contend with different rules and
regulations, which presents competitiveness issues. In addition, the potential for emissions “leakage”—the result of
shifts in production from areas with stringent policies to areas without policies—is greater in an environment where some states act
and some do not.
104
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: States CP
Federal action is the only way to prevent a slew of commerce clause challenges.
Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., Esq., Maurice K. Goddard Professor of Forestry and Environmental Resources
Conservation, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Environmental Law Review, Winter 2004
lexis
The absence of federal action also presents certain legal constraints to some forms of state action. These constraints arise from both
the federal Constitutional restrictions applicable to states and a variety of state constitutional law constraints inapplicable to federal
action. Possible federal constraints on state action arise from three sources. First, innovative state programs will likely
face challenges based upon the contention that they will interfere with interstate commerce in contravention
of the restrictions on state action under the "dormant" commerce clause restrictions, n309 particularly where the state
attempts to deal with attempts to escape controls by switching production to other states. Second, attempts to forge interstate
and international cooperation, through mechanisms such as the Climate Change Action Plan may face challenges
based upon the compacts clause of the Constitution. n310 Finally, these programs may face challenges based on the
contention that federal laws preempt state action under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, n311 particularly [*68] where
measures attempt to capture mobile source n312 emissions where the Clean Air Act n313 or the corporate average fuel economy
standards n314 may apply. State attempts to create regulatory programs or taxes affecting interstate commerce have repeatedly been
subject to challenges based upon the premise that these unilateral state actions unconstitutionally "discriminate against commerce
under the restrictions imposed by the "so-called" dormant commerce clause. n315 State tax and regulatory programs that regulate
even-handedly and that either do not discriminate against interstate commerce or advance a legitimate state purpose that could not
[*69] be advanced by a less discriminatory alternative will withstand scrutiny under the commerce clause. n316 Most regulatory and
tax programs designed to limit greenhouse gas pollutant emissions within a state could readily withstand such challenges. However,
given the contribution by utilities to greenhouse gas emissions and the many recent experiments in allowing competition in electric
generation, states will need to adopt measures to assure that out-of-state sources face equal restrictions or
costs if they also wish to maintain an equal playing field for in and out-of-state electricity generators and to prevent
generators from fleeing to other states to avoid controls. Such measures may make the state programs more
vulnerable to a commerce clause challenge. Programs to maintain an equal playing field for utilities may withstand
commerce clause scrutiny, because Congress has authorized extensive state monopoly regulation. n317 The challenges should pass
muster if they are properly designed to maintain a level playing field, although the concept of what constitutes a level playing field,
as opposed to an unfair advantage to local generators, may be decided by the predilections of the judges hearing the case or the skill
of the attorneys in framing the issues. Congress could resolve these difficulties by either adopting a comprehensive federal program
or specifically authorizing comprehensive state regulation. n318 It is also possible that the voluntary state agreements to
cooperate on climate change, such as the Climate Action Plan or the plan by California, [*70] Oregon, and Washington to cooperate
on addressing climate change, could be subject to a challenge based on the contention that state cooperation in
the absence of Congressional authorization contravenes the compacts clause of the Constitution. n319 The
wholly voluntary nature of the current arrangements makes the likelihood of such a challenge succeeding remote. Such voluntary
arrangements do not require Congressional approval under the compacts clause. n320 Nevertheless, the compacts clause will limit
the enforceability of these relationships, absent federal action. The most serious limitation on enforceable state programs to limit
GHG pollution emissions is created by federal preemption of state regulation of mobile source air pollution
emissions under two statutes, the federal Clean Air Act and the federal law establishing corporate average fuel economy
standards. Preemption arises in two situations. A state law will be preempted where Congress has evidenced an intent to displace
state law in an area altogether, either through express preemption or by implication. Preemption also arises upon a
showing that there is an actual conflict between the federal standard and the state standard. n321 There would
be no actual conflict between state regulatory initiatives to address climate change and federal law, given the requirements of the
Framework Convention and the federal failure to implement these requirements. However, there are two sources of express
preemption which could seriously impair the states' ability to affect emissions from the transportation sector. Specifically, the Clean
Air Act expressly preempts most state regulation of vehicle emissions standards. n322 The federal corporate average fuel economy
("CAFE") act n323 preempts state regulations "related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for
automobiles." n324 These provisions will pose barriers to most states' attempts to regulate emissions from the transportation sector,
which represents a major and growing source of GHG emissions. Although [*71] these provisions do not constrain California to the
extent other states are constrained, California's attempt to regulate mobile source emissions through regulatory controls has already
encountered challenges based upon claims of preemption, and it, like other states, may need to consider implementing a different
model for addressing the transportation sector.
105
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: States CP
State law restrictions make uniformity impossible. Fiating through these laws causes
rollback.
Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., Esq., Maurice K. Goddard Professor of Forestry and Environmental Resources
Conservation, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Environmental Law Review, Winter 2004
lexis
Finally, state programs can still run afoul of idiosyncratic state constitutional and statutory restrictions,
which would not apply to a federal program. For example, in Pennsylvania, use of a tax to capture mobile
sources in a state program would need to comply with the requirements of that state's uniformity clause
n336 that all taxes be uniform and a state constitutional limitation on uses of taxes on products used by
automobiles. n337 Although a greenhouse gas pollution emission tax can likely be crafted that will be consistent with or avoid
these restrictions, one can never predict with confidence how courts will decide an issue of first impression.
Moreover, many state laws prohibit state restrictions that are more stringent than federal restrictions,
raising questions as to whether, how, and the extent to which these states can address greenhouse gas
emissions in the absence of a federal mandate. A federal program with mandatory elements would not be
hindered by and would overcome many possible state law restrictions.
State-laboratory arguments support federal action now – it’s the only way to
guarentee clarity and international solvency.
Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., Esq., Maurice K. Goddard Professor of Forestry and Environmental Resources
Conservation, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Environmental Law Review, Winter 2004
lexis
Perhaps even more importantly, the experiences gained in the state and private laboratories will inform both the states
that have already acted and states that have not in crafting state implementation plans and state regulatory responses. These
experiences will also assist industry in achieving compliance with the program ultimately implemented by
the federal government, whether through regulatory initiatives under existing regulation or new
legislation. Nevertheless, without federal certainty and a federal floor, progressive and multi-national
industries, states, and localities alike, are likely to suffer, along with the global environment.
Only strong political leadership can maximize the effectiveness of carbon taxes.
Inho Choi, S.J.D., LL.M., The George Washington University Law School, Natural Resources Journal,
Fall 2005 lexis
Emissions trading or pollution taxes can work well in the context of global climate change. Sources of
CO2 emissions are ubiquitous. Because of significant cost variations, trading between both high- and
low-cost sources presents a real opportunity to maximize efficiency gains. Fortunately, there is no
significant problem with monitoring carbon emissions because the carbon content of a fossil fuel can be
used as a proxy for expensive real-time monitoring. These and other factors clearly indicate that
flexibility mechanisms should be employed as a viable policy tool to achieve a carbon reduction goal in a
cost-effective manner. The fact that carbon capture and sequestration are not yet commercially viable
confirms the need for pursuing sustainable energy development: promoting energy conservation and
efficiency, and the development and commercial deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy sources
and technologies. Future climate change law will help to achieve these goals in a way that current U.S.
environmental and energy law have not. These goals are achievable because effective carbon control
policy will raise fuel prices and, thus, increase the economic value of energy efficiency and conservation.
As a consequence, entry barriers to clean energy technologies will be cleared and technological
innovation will be spurred by the elimination of implicit subsidies for existing dirty sources. The key to
success is strong political leadership with the wisdom and courage to tell the truth to and persuade the
American public about the need for prompt action on climate change.
106
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: States CP
Carbon tax is a burden-offset charge.
Eben Albert-Knopp, Vermont Law Review, “The California Gas Charge and Beyond: Taxes and Fees in a
Changing Climate” Fall 2007 p. ln
A further subset of regulatory fees, burden-offset charges, addresses the burdens imposed by individual
actors on the whole of society. n59 In many situations, an actor's behavior creates a burden that is shared
equally by many people. Climate change is a classic example, where the act of driving a car creates air
pollution that is widely dispersed. n60 Economists term these situations "externalities," since the costs of
the activity are borne externally by the public at large. n61 While consumers pay for the gasoline they
consume, they are not forced to pay for the costs of air pollution to the rest of society. n62 Burden-offset
charges are designed to simultaneously reduce the offensive activity and to help offset the costs to
society-thereby internalizing the external costs. n63
107
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
108
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Backstopping
No spare capacity - carbon taxes necessary to ease pressure.
The Times (London), Carl Mortished, International Business Editor, “Energy crisis cannot be solved by
renewables, oil chiefs say” June 25, 2007 lexis
The world is blinding itself to the reality of its energy problems, ignoring the scale of growth in demand from developing countries
and placing too much faith in renewable sources of power, according to two leaders of the global energy industry. The chief
executive of Royal Dutch Shell Enhanced Coverage Linking Royal Dutch Shell today calls for a "reality check". Writing in The
Times, Jeroen van der Veer Enhanced Coverage Linking Jeroen van der Veer takes issue with the widespread public opinion that
green energy can replace fossil fuels. Shell's chief gives warning that supplies of conventional oil and gas will struggle to keep pace
with rising energy demand and he calls for greater investment in energy efficiency. Instead of a great conversion to wind power and
solar power, Mr van der Veer predicts, the world will be forced into greater use of coal and much higher CO2 emissions, "possibly
to levels we deem unacceptable". Alternative energy sources, such as renewables, will not fill the gap, says Mr van der Veer, who
forecasts that even with major technological breakthroughs, renewables could account for only 30 per cent of energy supply by the
middle of the century. "Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our
problems," he writes. The warning from Royal Dutch Shell Enhanced Coverage Linking Royal Dutch Shell coincides with a critique
of public energy policy by Rex Tillerson, Enhanced Coverage Linking Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil. Enhanced
Coverage Linking ExxonMobil. Speaking at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London, Mr Tillerson pointed to a
widespread failure by policymakers to understand the extent to which the aspirations of people in developing countries are fuelling
growth in demand for energy. Mr Tillerson said that world energy demand would rise by 45 per cent by 2030, and
fossil fuels -oil, natural gas and coal -were the only energy sources of sufficient size, adaptability and
affordability to meet the world's needs. Mr van der Veer casts doubt today on the oil and gas industry's ability to keep up
with accelerating demand. "Just when energy demand is surging, many of the world's conventional oilfields are going into decline,"
he writes. Although there is no shortage of oil and gas in the ground, Mr van der Veer says, the industry currently lacks the
technology to recover even half of that resource. Mr Tillerson, speaking at Chatham House, expressed doubts about the oil
industry's ability to raise its game significantly without access to the oil reserves of the Opec countries of
the Middle East. "The supply outlook for non-Opec countries will be modestly up or flat," Mr Tillerson
predicted. He was sceptical about the drive by governments to increase use of biofuels and said that a fifth of America's corn crop
was being used to produce four billion gallons of ethanol, compared with targets of 12 billion gallons by 2012. The ExxonMobil
Enhanced Coverage Linking ExxonMobil chief criticised the EU's carbon trading system, calling it an
administratively complex system that lacked transparency and failed to deliver a uniform and predictable
cost of carbon. "It's all about moving the money around," he said. Mr Tillerson said he would prefer a carbon tax
that would enable the cost of carbon to spread through the economy in a uniform way, letting governments
use the revenues to mitigate its effect by reducing employment or income taxes.
109
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
110
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Economy DA
Business prefer national preemption to guarentee regulatory certainty.
Business Week, “Climate Wars: Episode Two” April 23, 2007
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031094.htm
Companies find it's no longer worth arguing this point. They're coming to the bargaining table for many reasons beyond the
science. On Apr. 2 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate CO2 as a pollutant. That
could bring legal challenges and EPA-imposed mandatory curbs. "The fear that the next Administration's EPA would
have its hand on the lever is a great motivator," says Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David
D. Doniger. Plus, a growing patchwork of state carbon-emissions limits has prompted industries to push
for a preemptive national law. And as energy executives face decisions, such as what kind of power plants
to build for the next 40 years, they want regulatory certainty. Despite the tough road ahead, proponents of
action inside companies are thrilled that the policy fight has finally begun. "We are long past debating the
science," said Entergy CEO J. Wayne Leonard in a recent speech. Waiting for stronger evidence is "the
equivalent of bleeding out of every orifice of your body and hearing your doctor say: 'Before we rush to
judgment, let's wait until all the facts are in'--meaning your autopsy."
111
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Economy DA
Carbon tax stabilizes the structural threat from the budget deficit
Richard J. Pierce, Jr (Professor of Law, George Washington University) Summer 2007 "ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING' Environmental Law (Lexis-Nexis)
Nordhaus also points out a globally-coordinated carbon tax has the additional advantage of responding to
each nation's fiscal needs. n38 This is a particularly important advantage to the United States. The Federal
Reserve Board has identified our present large structural budget deficit as our most serious long-term
economic problem. n39 No one knows how much longer we can sustain our present level of deficit
spending, but everyone agrees we must reduce the deficit soon. That can be accomplished only through
some combination of increased taxes and reduced spending. A large carbon tax would allow us to get our
fiscal house in order without having to make the politically and economically painful decisions to
increase income taxes or reduce spending. Many politicians and business leaders prefer a cap and trade
system to a carbon tax, but those preferences are based on dubious reasoning. Many politicians prefer cap
and trade because it allows them to avoid the dreaded "t" word. They either do not realize, or prefer to
ignore, the reality that cap and trade imposes a "tax" that is functionally identical to a carbon tax. Either
mechanism can be effective only by increasing the price of carbon-dioxide emitting activities by the same
large amount. The difference lies in the identity of the entities receiving the increased revenues
attributable to that price increase. In the case of a carbon tax, governments receive those revenues. In the
case of a cap and trade system, the holders of the emissions permits receive the added revenues. n40 That,
of course, is why many business leaders favor cap and trade. They hope to obtain massive additional
revenues attributable to the emissions permits the government allocates to them. By now, the extreme
difficulty of the political task of persuading citizens and politicians all over the world to agree to take the
actions needed to respond effectively to global warming is clear. When President Clinton attempted to
persuade Congress to enact a Btu tax that would have added only a few pennies to the cost of
hydrocarbons, his proposal was pronounced dead on arrival in the Senate. n41 It is hard to imagine what
it would take to persuade Congress and the public to accept a carbon tax that would have to [*602] be at
least twenty times the magnitude of the Clinton proposal to be effective. And, a carbon tax is the least
expensive means of responding effectively to global warming. A cap and trade system would be more
expensive, and a command and control system would be much more expensive.
112
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Economy DA
Carbox taxes cut emissions without economic harm
Gwladys Fouché 4/29/2008 “Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions Date Accessed:
6/23/2008
If there's a paradise for environmentalists, this Nordic nation of 9.2 million people must be it. In 2007
Sweden topped the list of countries that did the most to save the planet - for the second year running -
according to German environmental group, Germanwatch. Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon
emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic
growth of 44% in fixed prices. Under Kyoto, Sweden was even told it could increase its emissions by 4%
given the progress it had already made. But "this was not considered ambitious enough," explains Emma
Lindberg, a climate change expert at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. "So parliament
decided to cut emissions by another 4% [below 1990 levels]. The mindset was 'we need to do what's good
for the environment because it's good for Sweden and its economy'." The main reason for this success,
say experts, is the introduction of a carbon tax in 1991. Swedes today pay an extra 2.34 kronor (20p) per
litre when they fill the tank (although many key industries receive tax relief or are exempted). "Our
carbon emissions would have been 20% higher without the carbon tax," says the Swedish environment
minister, Andreas Carlgren. "It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly
solutions," reckons Lindberg. "It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-
efficient solutions." "It increased the use of bioenergy," concurs Professor Thomas B Johansson from the
University of Lund, a former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. "It had a
major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating [where steam and hot
water are piped to a building in a particular area]. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now
biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries." Another reason is that, paradoxically,
energy consumption remained relatively stable at a time of high economic growth. "Non-energy-intensive
industries, such as the service sector, grew more in Sweden, compared to energy-intensive industries,
such as paper mills," states Johansson. Sweden also became conscious of its dependency on fossil fuels
early on, after the oil shocks of the 70s. "The country switched in the 80s to direct electric heating and in
recent years increasingly uses heat pumps, which uses two-thirds less electricity to heat. People were also
helped with subsidies to substitute," says Johansson. And Swedes were perhaps environmentally aware at
an earlier time than most. "The general public concern in terms of climate change really arose in the mid-
80s. The authorities were very active in the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in
1988," reckons Johansson. "There was a real wish to turn Sweden into a leading environmental country,"
agrees Lindberg. "And Swedes are proud that their country is leading on environmental issues." Today,
environmental measures are common throughout the country. Take Linköping, Sweden's fifth biggest city,
which is running its fleet of buses and rubbish lorries, a train line and some private taxis on biogas, from
methane produced from the entrails of slaughtered cows. Similarly, Stockholm's central station is
planning to harness the body warmth of 250,000 daily commuters to produce heating for a nearby office
block. The body heat would warm up water that would in turn be pumped through pipes over to a new
office block. And King Carl Gustaf XVI last month had all the lights at royal castles turned off for an
hour to back an energy efficiency campaign. But not all is fine and dandy. Swedes are in love with their
gas-guzzling estate cars, and are among the worst vehicle polluters in the EU. Environmentalists are also
concerned that the authorities' green enthusiasm is waning. "[Swedish PM] Fredrik Reinfeldt is pushing
within the EU for more emphasis on flexibility, ie that a larger proportion of carbon cuts should be done
outside of the EU than inside," says Lindberg which, she argues will not help the EU decrease its
emissions enough to meet the target of limiting the Earth's temperature to less than two degrees Celsius.
The environment minister dismisses the claim, arguing that flexibility is the most-efficient way to reduce
emissions at the European level and that it will help technology transfers to developing countries. More
broadly, is there anything Britain could learn from Sweden? "Homes have virtually no insulation in
Britain. You could do a lot just by doing more of that," says Johansson. "When a building is renovated in
Sweden, it can be properly insulated and renovated, cutting energy consumption by at least half." "Impose
a carbon tax," suggests Lindberg. "You would make it more attractive financially to go for green solutions
than for carbon options." "A carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to make carbon cuts and it does not
prevent strong economic growth," adds Carlgren.
113
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
114
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Counterplans
Taxes better than picking a technology
Pearce (David, writer for The Economic Journal, Jul 91, “The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to
Global Warming”, online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2233865?seq=2, acc: 6/23/08)
Carbon taxes act as a continuous incentive to adopt ever cleaner technology and energy conservation.
Standards tend to be 'technology-based', and therefore encourage technology switches up to the point
judged by the regulator to be the 'best available'. But, unless standards are continually revised and set
slightly above the best available technology, there is no incentive for the polluter to go beyond the
standard. A tax, on the other hand, is always present as long as carbon-based fuels are used. There is some
evidence to suggest that this dynamic efficiency aspect of environmental taxes is important (Tietenberg,
I990). In the CO2 context, dynamic efficiency takes on an extra dimension because, unlike, say, sulphur,
CO2 is difficult to dispose of even if it is removed from stack gases. Proposals include injecting the
'captured' CO2 in gas or oil fields, or to the deep ocean. Incentives to develop disposal technologies are
therefore of particular relevance.
115
MSDI 2008 Carbon tax aff
A2: Counterplans
Carbon Tax is key to market based environmental choices.
by Clive Crook, editor, 06/22/08, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f9f9f96-4060-11dd-bd48-
0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html, 06/23/08
The US constitution makes it difficult for politicians to do much (except fight wars) and this avoids a lot
of damage that would otherwise result. But now and then some intelligent policymaking is needed, and
energy is again a case in point. Nowadays most Americans want to see action on global warming. Sensing
the mood, both presidential candidates advocate a cap-and-trade approach to reducing carbon emissions.
However, a carbon tax is needed. So the candidates must cater to that appetite as well. The US does not
know whether to tax energy or subsidies it, promote domestic oil production or forbid it, treat
ExxonMobil and Chevron as champions or pariahs. So it does all of the above. Instead, it should eradicate
these costly actions by simply using a carbon tax. What it knows for sure is that it wants energy security,
energy independence and clean air. Mr Obama has lately been pandering to the anti-business sentiment
that blames $4-a-gallon petrol on Big Oil and oil-market speculators. It is true, of course, that oil
companies are enjoying a profit windfall from the oil price spike. It is also true, or plausible, that futures
trading has driven spot prices above their market equilibrium. But these are not the main drivers of the oil
price – nor for that matter is the high price of oil a bad thing, if you care about climate change. Done
right, a surtax on oil company windfall profits is defensible – as long as one admits it would deter future
investment and that working out what “reasonable profit” means would open a can of worms better left
closed. The main thing, though, is that it would do less than nothing to cut the price of petrol. It is a
sideshow. Like Obama, McCain has a point. The present ban on offshore drilling is a mistake – just as it
would have been a mistake for Britain to ban production in the North Sea. If oil can be extracted
profitably and with appropriately strict environmental safeguards from offshore wells (or, for that matter,
from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Mr McCain still wants to protect), well and good. The
only reason to extract oil is because it is a valuable resource that would otherwise be wasted and that
diversifying US oil supplies has some benefit, not that it would lower the price of petrol. New oil would
take years or even decades to come on stream. So the amount is decreasing anyway. When the new
supplies arrive, they will most likely have no more than a marginal effect on the world market price. The
US has a compelling economic and geopolitical interest in curbing both its use of oil, especially oil
imported from unstable suppliers, and its emissions of greenhouse gases. The right thing is to pursue in a
carbon tax. If ever there were a case for the maxim, get prices right, this is it. The way to curb carbon
emissions is to add the environmental cost of carbon to the price of energy. The current oil price offers a
good opportunity: when it falls (as it probably will) a carbon tax could be used to set a floor, making the
transition to correctly priced energy much easier. Once the price of energy is right, other decisions
become simpler, or can be left mainly to the market. There is no need to legislate fuel economy standards
or subsidise conservation and low-carbon forms of energy; no need for an emissions trading regime, with
all the waste and complexity and gaming that that entails (witness Europe’s experience); no need to
scapegoat oil companies or environmentalists; no need to mislead or pander. For sure, the politics is a
challenge – but not, I am willing to bet, as hard as conventional wisdom insists. Carbon is bad: tax it and
use the money to cut other taxes. A new kind of politician could do something with that.
116