Journal mdsolar's Journal: Taxoholics 3
During the StepItUp campaign to get Congress to set a policy for the United States to cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2050, I had a chance to talk with Steny Hoyer about what practical steps might help. One thing we discussed was using a tax on carbon to bring down demand and improve the economic environment for substitute ways of producing energy. He'd been thinking about it and had noticed how large a tax would be required and how some were suggesting a shift in taxation for social security. His point that this would be destabilizing for social security since it would take it out of its insurance model of funding was thoughtful.
Since then, the Supreme Court compelled the EPA to consider the dangers posed by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and, the danger having been recognized, regulations have been promulgated to reduce emissions. Thanks @BarackObama
It turns out, Congress already acted when it passed the Clean Air Act. So why do we still hear about a carbon tax, when regulations are doing the job?
Some think that markets have a magical efficiency that regulations can never match. This point of view is mistaken because it confuses market efficiency in distributing goods with effective policy.
But mostly it seems to be willing blindness. As an example, Charles Komanoff claims that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards increase owing to increased fuel prices. Basically he is urging that Congress make a carbon tax to get Congress to increase CAFE standards. A very circular and confused mode of thinking, but also wrong in the premise. CAFE standards were first implemented to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have been increased because the EPA determined that GHG emissions are dangerous. Those are national policy issues not some worry about prices.
We can see further confused thinking when he discusses price elasticity. It is very well known that price does not affect gasoline consumption much. People still have to get to work. Over the long run, high gasoline prices do slow the economy creating unemployment and people don't go to work, but that is macroeconomics, not elasticity. Komanoff dances around this but tellingly claims that elasticity is better for industrial consumers with more options for substitution while simultaneously claiming that the carbon tax is not laid squarely on the backs of people who need to get to work. More confused thinking.
Komanoff also misunderstands the problem. He wants to slowly phase in his carbon tax, but action is needed urgently for GHG emissions. He also wants to reduce but not eliminate emissions, but that ship has sailed from a dock on the River Seine, and mathematically, a tax just can not bring emissions to zero, only regulations can do that.
A carbon tax, regardless of its other impracticalities, is just too little too late and a pointless distraction promoted by confused thinking only.
Since then, the Supreme Court compelled the EPA to consider the dangers posed by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and, the danger having been recognized, regulations have been promulgated to reduce emissions. Thanks @BarackObama
It turns out, Congress already acted when it passed the Clean Air Act. So why do we still hear about a carbon tax, when regulations are doing the job?
Some think that markets have a magical efficiency that regulations can never match. This point of view is mistaken because it confuses market efficiency in distributing goods with effective policy.
But mostly it seems to be willing blindness. As an example, Charles Komanoff claims that Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards increase owing to increased fuel prices. Basically he is urging that Congress make a carbon tax to get Congress to increase CAFE standards. A very circular and confused mode of thinking, but also wrong in the premise. CAFE standards were first implemented to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have been increased because the EPA determined that GHG emissions are dangerous. Those are national policy issues not some worry about prices.
We can see further confused thinking when he discusses price elasticity. It is very well known that price does not affect gasoline consumption much. People still have to get to work. Over the long run, high gasoline prices do slow the economy creating unemployment and people don't go to work, but that is macroeconomics, not elasticity. Komanoff dances around this but tellingly claims that elasticity is better for industrial consumers with more options for substitution while simultaneously claiming that the carbon tax is not laid squarely on the backs of people who need to get to work. More confused thinking.
Komanoff also misunderstands the problem. He wants to slowly phase in his carbon tax, but action is needed urgently for GHG emissions. He also wants to reduce but not eliminate emissions, but that ship has sailed from a dock on the River Seine, and mathematically, a tax just can not bring emissions to zero, only regulations can do that.
A carbon tax, regardless of its other impracticalities, is just too little too late and a pointless distraction promoted by confused thinking only.
In Vegas they call it the house skim. (Score:2)
In Vegas games of chance and skill have a percentage or fixed action skim
of all money that moves past.
The roulette wheel has numbers 1-36 and pays 36:1 except that
the green 0 and on most wheels 00 reduce the odds of a player winning.
Thus the odds of each turn of the wheel are no longer even.
The craps table has the best odds for the player but the game is
vastly quicker so the house effectively taxes the cash flow faster.
Carbon taxes are transaction or action based. If you play you pay.
Homes in some states
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any federal carbon taxes. There is a motor fuel tax, but it has an agriculture exemption because it is aimed at paying for highways. It is not really aimed at carbon emissions.
Not exactly yet.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/th... [wsj.com]
At the most trivial surface level carbon taxes sound OK. However
if you look at who brokers and gains from all the proposed plans
the winners are not common people AND the net result is that we will
still have unbounded CO2 emissions.
Consider that the coal in the US could run a lot of air conditioning units
it could burn a lot of limestone for cement (trees do not grow fast enough)
to construct new housing, dams... infrastructure to cope with changes.
It could fu