Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post has a problem with the idea of a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions: since it increases the cost of energy, it’s a tax, not a “trade,” and so should be called a “cap-and-tax” system instead.
I have a problem with his characterization, but not because he’s wrong about how energy costs will go up with the implementation of a a cap-and-trade system, or the straightforward carbon tax he prefers. Suddenly pricing what was previously free will absolutely increase the price of energy, no matter whether the price is determined by supposed market mechanisms or by government fiat. No, what I have a problem with is that he appears to be implying that anything that increases the price of energy is a tax.
Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund asserts that the cuts can be achieved “without significant adverse consequences to the economy.” Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.
From 2006 to 2030, the U.S. population will grow 22 percent (to 366 million) and the number of housing units 25 percent (to 141 million), the Energy Information Administration projects. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is, at best, optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a 15 percent cut of emissions would raise average household energy costs by almost $1,300 a year.
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the CBO’s estimates of $1,300 per year average are more accurate than the EDF’s estimates. That’s definitely a price increases, but I fail to see how it’s a tax.
Taxes are levied by governments, and the rate of the tax is determined by the government. In the case of a cap-and-trade system, the government is auctioning off (or giving away) allowances to pollute and then gradually ratcheting the total tons of permitted pollutants back over the course of years. Even if the EPA auctions off those allowances initially and thus makes money off of them, that’s no more a tax on energy than the FCC auctioning off valuable electromagnetic spectrum. And if the price of energy increases as a result of the cap-and-trade system (and, make no mistake, it will), is that any more of a tax than if the price of your wireless service goes up because some of the available wireless spectrum went unsold due to the “open-source wireless” demands of Google?
The only difference between these two situation is that everyone has to use energy to survive, while wireless access is not a necessity of survival, no matter that your teenager might think otherwise. The atmosphere is a vital national “commons” just like electromagnetic spectrum is, and so it falls under the purview of the government to regulate it. But unless you’re a hard-core libertarian, regulations themselves are not equivalent to taxes. A cost of doing business that adds to the price of things, certainly, but that’s not fundamentally a tax.
If we look at Samuelson’s suggestion from the “energy price increases are a tax” side, what he’s really suggesting is that any time the price of something that is vital for survival increases, that’s a tax. So when energy price increases drive up the price of fertilizer and thus the price of food, that’s an increase in the tax on food. The rising cost of electricity from your local regulated utility because China’s demand for U.S. coal is driving up local coal prices also qualifies as a tax. And the increasing price of gasoline qualifies too. But if the price of food goes up because of drought, floods, or other supply disruptions, isn’t that a tax too? I mean, the price rose, didn’t it? And if the price of electricity rises because local growth has pushed demand enough to require your utility to build a new power plant, that’s a tax too, right? The price per kilowatt-hour went up, after all…. And when the price of gasoline goes up in the winter due to heating oil demand and up in the summer due to the summer vacation driving season, those are tax increases as well, right?
Great! That means I get a twice-yearly tax cut when the price of oil drops in the spring and autumn as a result of lower demand for heating oil and fewer people driving long distances. Whew, I was all worried there for a second that it was all tax increases, no tax cuts. And please, let me know which of my Representatives or Senators I should contact to demand that God lower the drought and flood taxes on food….
Taxes exist to make governments operating capital in order for them to provide the services that commercial ventures, industry, and individuals are incapable of providing themselves. Anything that doesn’t qualify as funds acquired for the operation of a government simply are not taxes, even if the government makes money off them (as in the aforementioned FCC auction). When the government finally gets around to regulating carbon emissions in some fashion, the resulting increases in energy prices will not be taxes.
The price increases that are coming as a result of carbon reductions may well be taxing, but that does not make them taxes.
Categories: Economy, Energy, Environment/Nature
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 
Well-argued. I gotta think about this some more. Thanks.
Have you seen all the crazy things oilheat users have been doing. Some are going to extremes: stealing, concocting their own mixes. It’s a really horrible situation right now. I don’t know how we’re going to fix this. There is one way. Bioheat, it’s oil blended with biodiesel. This B5 blend can help conserve 400 Million gallons of regular oil, imagine that. That would be great. Plus, while working for NORA, I hvae come to realize how “green” we need to be. B5 oil is biodegradable, produces NO greenhouse gases and reduces emissions. Here, check it out for yourself: http://oilheatamerica.com/index.mv?screen=bioheat
“In the case of a cap-and-trade system, the government is auctioning off (or giving away) allowances to pollute and then gradually ratcheting the total tons of permitted pollutants back over the course of years.”
I dispute the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. If you want to get into these semantic games at this level, all animal lifeforms are being categorized as “polluters” which is absurd. I’m not sure this passes the constitutional test of protecting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Without expelling co2, there is no “life.” Categorically, your assertion is shaky.
That doesn’t even address the science, which is also shaky. The global warming theory has not been proven as indisputable, and is in fact disputed by a sizeable number of climatologists.
I have no conclusion about which side is correct, but I have seen manipulation of the historical temperature record (Mann’s “hockey stick” data set has been challenged in peer reviewed publications).
And I also dispute your assertion that this isn’t a “tax.” Of course it’s a tax. Governments often regulate by taxing, discouraging the behaviors they want curtailed. Playing semantic games does not alter that they are planning a new money stream from the citizenry.
There are already gasoline taxes. You only pay them when you buy gasoline. You can choose to not buy gasoline if you want, but does tnat make them any less of a tax? It’s a silly argument you have made.
Co2 is also plant food. That never gets mentioned, especially when millions are currently starving. Better photosynthesis is one byproduct of increased Co2 in the atmosphere. More yield, better crops. The whole picture is often cropped in these discussions.
Rather than a punitive system that exploits the carbon fuel consumers, we need a new system that replaces it. Why no discussion of tide, wind and solar? Why can’t the govenrment retool and help make the great conversion to the next energy generation infrastructure? New taxes are being shoved down our throats, and where will the money go? Who will benefit? This is a power grab, clear and simple (money is power), and so where is this power going to accumulate?
A distributed generation system (individuals producing their own power) takes power away from the oligarchs and puts it back with the public. Is it any wonder why no one in (absolutely corrupt, absolutely power mad) DC is even considering it?
COTS
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
According to the Supreme Court, in MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., the Clean Air Act
Therefore, legally if not necessarily scientifically, Congress and the Supreme Court have defined carbon dioxide as an “air pollutant.”
As far as my argument on taxes, you seem to have either a) misunderstood my argument entirely or b) chosen to define every form of government regulation as taxation.
Problem a) you can remedy by re-reading my post, focusing on the following lines:
and
If, however, you suffer instead from problem b), then that indicates that you’ve chosen to view the world through a very narrow, and unfortunate, set of prejudices.
Brian,
According to Mass Law, oxygen could be considered to be a pollutant, just like water vapor:)
Jeff