I did some reading up tonight on what a carbon tax could cause in economic terms and I found this article which I thought was interesting so I figured I'd share it here.

I did some reading up tonight on what a carbon tax could cause in economic terms and I found this article which I thought was interesting so I figured I'd share it here.

and from another message board discussing these subjects I found these. They apply to the USA rather tha Canada like the first article.
Myth. Heavy fuel taxes will wreck the economy.
Who says? Traditional growth champions, fossil fuel interests.
Rebuttal: What causes economic havoc isn't high energy prices or even rising prices, but price volatility. Even fairly steep price increases can be manageable so long as they're regular and predictable, particularly now that the share of economic activity occupied by the fossil fuels sector is at an historic low. And carbon taxes need not be draconian to accomplish their mission. Our program of recurring annual increases of $37 per ton of emitted carbon equates to 5-10% increases in energy prices per annum (with the percentages shrinking as the "base" rises and as non-fossil energy assumes a larger share). By comparison, the average annual real increase in U.S. gasoline prices in 2003-06 was 14%, and this didn't stop the economy from growing at 3.5% a year. Needless to say, the true threat to the economy (and everything else) is unchecked climate change, as the Stern Report has shown.
Myth. Heavy fuel taxes will price U.S. goods out of the marketplace.
Who says? Some business groups, some labor unions.
Rebuttal: This argument assumes a static economy, sans adaptation and innovation. In reality, increased energy taxes will shrink the trade deficit (by cutting both volumes and pre-tax prices of foreign oil), while reduced reliance on oil imports will make it harder to justify military expenditures and activities on grounds of protecting foreign supplies. The higher prices will also spark innovation in clean, efficient technologies better suited for world markets than, say, supersized automobiles. Finally, taxing energy will create parity with our traditional competitors -- the EU and Japan -- while encouraging like-minded actions in the emerging powerhouses of India and China.





^^^ doesn't anybody actually take the time to read the fine print of these proposals ?
from
(snip)"Our overall conclusions are, first, that a carbon tax is superior to other tax instruments. Second, by using the revenues to reduce the most burdensome taxes, namely taxes on income from capital, economic growth can be stimulated rather than retarded. Of course, reducing the tax burden on capital by substituting other forms of taxation would produce similar effects with no effect on emissions of greenhouse gases."(snip)
Translation ... economic growth can be kept positive by 'subsidizing' those businesses most affected by the carbon tax. This would be accomplished by collecting carbon taxes from every American (either directly via the purchase of fuels or indirectly via higher prices for electricity etc.), and then transferring part of this tax revenue to reduce the taxes on 'capital' i.e. big business and rich investors in those businesses. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The implied point is that without 'subsidies', imposition of the carbon tax will reduce the standard of living of average Americans significantly, stunt US economic growth, and provide strong incentive for flight of capital from the US to other parts of the world in order to avoid the carbon tax.





Fortunately for the US, Canada will be serving as a carbon tax guinea pig via the recently approved Quebec carbon tax law.
(snip)"QUEBEC -- Quebec plans to adopt tough vehicle emissions standards and will become the first province to levy a "carbon tax" on oil and gas companies as part of an ambitious plan to fight global warming.
The tax will raise about $200-million a year over six years, provincial government officials said yesterday, and will finance a $1.2-billion Green Fund to make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions called for under the international Kyoto accord.
Environmental groups welcomed the measures, but a petroleum industry spokesman said the tax will be passed on to consumers.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Environment Minister Claude Béchard said that from 2006 to 2012, the province will tax oil and gas companies for hydrocarbon products sold in bulk to retailers -- non-renewable fossil fuels such as heavy oil, gas, natural gas and propane."(snip)
(snip)"Oil and gas companies were quick to point out that the carbon tax will be passed on to consumers. Neither government officials nor company officials would speculate how much that will mean at the gas pump.
"There is no doubt that consumers will pay more for the measures," said Carol Montreuil, a spokesman for the Canadian Institute of Petroleum Products. "We are talking about $200-million, and in one way or another, this money will have to come out of the pockets of consumers. . . . You can't expect an industry to absorb an additional $200-million cost.""(snip)
from
It will be very interesting to see what Quebec's economy looks like a couple of years from now !
Ah. Taxes. A very new way of prompting innovation.
I mean, back in the 60's, the "space race" tax and the "electronics" tax helped put us on the moon and build an entirely new industry!
So pathetic. Now we borrow from communist countries and tax our way to innovation. How far we have lost our way.



To some extent, whether or not any of this is true is tied to how dependent any geographic area is upon tourism. In California, Anaheim(Disneyland), San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angles all have a large component of their economies dependent upon tourism. I believe the same is true for Miami as well. But the one U.S. city which would suffer the most harm from such a tax is Las Vegas,
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/p...2001_1017.html
While the effects of a carbon tax upon LV will not be as draconian as 9/11, they will still hurt the city quite a bit. And while Democracts/liberals/progressives claim they support the working poor, the working poor will be the first to lose their jobs in LV should a carbon tax be implemented. Even if most of these workers do have to belong to a union, for all the good that will do them, should this ever be attempted in the U.S.
As to "...Finally, taxing energy will create parity with our traditional competitors -- the EU and Japan -- while encouraging like-minded actions in the emerging powerhouses of India and China," I highly doubt this will be the end result, especially in the case of China. And as to creating parity with the EU and Japan, I doubt this as well, although it will bring even more of an incentive to outsource jobs outside of the U.S. altogether. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the luxury tax imposed by the U.S. Congress in the past. Because wealthy people bought items such as yachts, the Congress was going to add a heavy tax to such purchases. What the uninteded consequences of this little exercise in "taxing the rich" led to was the complete elimination of quite a few middle-class jobs. Shipyard workers as well as other middle-class jobs associated with the yachting industry. So a carbon tax would be a mixed bag, to say the least. And there isn't any way to know whose "ox is being gored" until after such a tax is implemented.
Last edited by PhaedrusZ; 07-04-2007 at 02:46 PM. Reason: typos





speaking of being 'Gored' ...
more important of course are the fundamental economics behind a carbon tax ...
#1 - by definition the carbon tax is based on total energy consumption, thus it will disproportionately affect the poor and barely touch the multimillionaire rich on the basis of tax $ as a percentage of net income.
#2 - also by definition the carbon tax will disproportionately affect those who live in colder states where fuel use for winter heating is substantial, as well as those who live in hotter states where electricity use for summer air conditioning is substantial.
#3 - by implication the carbon tax will deeply affect suburbia, because the carbon tax resulting from fuel use commuting will fall in direct proportion to the commuting distance. This in turn will devalue suburban properties (mostly owned by the US middle class) and upvalue urban properties (mostly owned by the multimillionaire rich).
#4 - given America's dependence on imports and retail distribution systems based on high volume suppliers selling to nationwide retailers, the carbon tax will also significantly affect retail prices of damn near everything in direct proportion to the fuel used to transport and distribute products for sale. This will likely affect retail prices in direct proportion to the distance products must be shipped from a major seaport or from the domestic manufacturer's facility. As above, this will disproportionately affect suburbia and the US 'heartland' and will offer an advantage to coastal cities.
#5 - based on the above, it is logical to assume that the imposition of a carbon tax will result in new/increased social welfare benefit programs to provide/increase benefits to low income Americans to offset their rapidly rising costs of heating, air conditioning, electricity etc. ... which constitutes a 'double whammy' on the US middle class who will not only have to pay the new carbon tax but will also have to pay increased income taxes to fund these subsidy programs for the poor
#6 - based on the above, it is logical to assume that the imposition of a carbon tax will soon result in new/increased 'subsidies' for certain energy intensive US businesses whose margins / global competitiveness are adversely affected by rapidly rising costs of energy as gov't attempts to stop such businesses from closing up shop and/or leaving the country to avoid the carbon tax. Besides the additional tax burden on the US middle class necessary to fund such 'subsidies', this also moves these businesses further away from the economic realities of a 'free market' and closer to a gov't managed 'artificial' economy because the future profitability / viability of energy intensive US businesses becomes heavily dependent on a continuation of gov't policy re subsidies. Also, these 'subsidies' will directly benefit investors in subsidized businesses i.e. primarily the multimillionaire rich.
Thus it is arguable that a carbon tax will have a net positive effect ... providing of course that you are one of the multimillionaire rich who lives in California or Washington state or New York or Virginia/DC for example ! Hmmm ... these are exactly the locations of those political candidates advocating a carbon tax, and also the locations of major media advocating a carbon tax !
Last edited by Melonie; 07-04-2007 at 04:41 PM.

Well I don't do the whole endless debate thing like somebody else around here. I prefer instead to state my case then back it up. I feel that is more than enough so i'm not going to jump all over the latest posts here but honestly I really think you all are dead ass wrong about this stuff. I guess time will tell for sure though.
For now I'm just happy the majority of the real economy and climate experts of the world aren't in agreement with what you're saying either.![]()



Regarding real experts, Reed Bryson, known as "the father of scientific climatology," considers the global warming theory to be "a bunch of hooey." As indicated at the following, only one of many links with the same info,
http://digg.com/environment/Father_o...theory_hooey_2
Considering he was one of the primary founders of this scientific discipline, I'd personally much rather be in his camp than that of a politician looking for any excuse to wrest control of the economy for himself and others in his party.
Especially when said politician has a financial interest in selling carbon offset credits, etc., so he is pretty much in the same boat as to how the other side of this debate describes the fossil fuel corporations.
Last edited by PhaedrusZ; 07-05-2007 at 04:33 AM. Reason: added material





^^^ I would expand on this to add that there are MANY scientists who depend on the continuing goodwill of the US gov't and/or of (liberal) foundations and endowments to either directly pay their salary or provide their next research grant. Thus there is a substantial amount of negative consequence which stems from any scientist who depends on gov't or (liberal) foundations and endowments to voice a 'non-consensus' opinion re global warming.
Remember this little sequence of events ...
followed by
followed by

The flaw in the no problem with CO2 or global warming is "a bunch of hooey." argument is that majority of the climate experts do not agree. And it's not a small majority either, it's like 90+% of the world's experts. If some of you people want to entirely discount the research and opinion of the majority world's experts, not just the ones in the USA's but the bulk of all the world's climate experts well the you just go right ahead. Me...I'm sticking with the majority expert opinion on this subject.
I can also understand being suspect of politicians with $ interests but as you already mentioned that goes for both political parties in the USA. Except one side has alot more $ to gain or lose and it's not the DemsIn my situaton I give more credit to the science and economy experts than I do any political party. I'm not so sure if that is the case with Melonie though. I can't say yet if I think that's the case with you.
I have already pointed out these facts about the majority expert opinion at least once before too so forgive me if I don't continue to butt heads with you, Melonie or anyone else on the subject. I'm done here.
ps-the edit isn't working for me so I had to delete and repost this with typing corrections. Is this happening to anyone else?





I'm curious as to where you came up with a 90% figure ... perhaps 90% of the scientific opinions that have been published by the NY Times ? 90% of the scientific opinions taught as part of the 'approved' US grade school curriculum ?And it's not a small majority either, it's like 90+% of the world's experts. If some of you people want to entirely discount the research and opinion of the majority world's experts, not just the ones in the USA's but the bulk of all the world's climate experts well the you just go right ahead.
Seriously, I am not trying to be an ass-pain on this subject. Nor am I trying to 'sell' a particular viewpoint. All I am trying to do is get people to consider ALL of the evidence. The fact that mainstream media coverage and DOE approvals tend to exclude or criticize scientific studies that do not agree with the 'consensus' (i.e. global warming is the result of human activity / fossil fuels) does NOT invalidate the scientific studies that have reached different conclusions.





well, speak of the devil ...
(snip)"
New York Times
July 7, 2007
Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 6 — A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.
The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.
But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.
“I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,” said Mr. Dingell, whose committee will be drafting a broad bill on climate change this fall.
“I will be introducing in the next little bit a carbon tax bill, just to sort of see how people think about this,” he continued. “When you see the criticism I get, I think you’ll see the answer to your question.”
The idea behind a carbon tax is to provide an incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels like oil and coal, which are loaded with carbon, and increase the use of cleaner, renewable fuels like solar power, wind and fuels made from plants and plant waste.
Many economists like the idea of a carbon tax, saying that it would be simple to administer and could profoundly affect energy choices.
But most Democrats are staunchly opposed, saying that a tax would raise the costs of travel, commuting and heating and cooling homes, and that it would be wildly unpopular at a time when voters are already angry about high energy costs. Republicans, they said, would seize on any such proposal as proof that Democrats were bent on raising taxes and increasing the size of government.
Indeed, many Democrats still cringe at the memory of President Bill Clinton’s trying to pass a broad “B.T.U. tax” in 1993 on most forms of energy. The measure passed the House but not the Senate, and more than a few Democrats believe the effort was one reason they lost their majority in the House in 1994.
Now, House and Senate Democrats are writing bills that would require factories and power plants to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases through a so-called cap-and-trade system of mandatory requirements and tradeable pollution credits."(snip)





It's also rather easy to understand why most politicians prefer a 'cap and trade' approach to a straightforward carbon tax ...
A. it would require a large expansion of gov't employment i.e. expanding the EPA in order to establish pollution caps for existing companies and to monitor future pollution generation by those companies
B. the additional costs of a 'cap and trade' system would be embedded in the costs of doing business for US companies, and similarly embedded in higher future prices, such that the general public could not isolate price increases due to 'cap and trade' carbon limits vs price increases for other reasons.
C. the trading of carbon credits via 'cap and trade' would create a new marketplace where 'brokers' i.e. the US financial industry would gain a new source of commissions / profits.
D. 'cap and trade' creates a strong incentive for US companies to shut down US operations and pocket new profits via 'selling' their now unused carbon credits ... while at the same time outsourcing or investing in new factories outside the US / EU where little or no pollution costs exist.



I've heard Lehman Bros. is a heavy supporter of a carbon tax and carbon credits. Primarily since they would be the financial house which would benefit the most if the carbon credits system were put into place alongside a carbon tax. Only hearsay, though, as this was not from a neutral source. Still, it is possible, and I wonder how many advocating this tax understand they are advocating something which will make multi-billionaires even richer.
On a different, but related note, I ran across this link earlier this morning,
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....ticle_id=83600





Re Lehman Bros, they will not be the only ones that will profit from the institution of a 'cap and trade' carbon credits system. You'll have everybody from industry lobbyists to commodity brokers sloshing around carbon credit moneys, as well as the outstretched hands of more than a few politicians.
On your other point, I really do try to avoid second guessing the environmentalists ! IMHO they already have their hands full with guesswork !
However, the stat from your link showing a 0.2% decrease in malaria again reminded me of the utter absurdity of some environmentalist positions i.e. the de-facto unintended (?) result of the 'Silent Spring' inspired ban on DDT. I'll try to cite an objective international source at ttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s22432.htm
Of course there are some people out there who would make the case that the results of the environmentalist inspired ban on DDT achieved a result that was NOT unintended ...



I find it rather ironic, considering much of the support re: global warming is from the left/liberal side of political beliefs, that a carbon tax and carbon credits will make billionaires even richer!
There is no doubt in my mind that global warming does exist, but I'm not so sure just how much of it derives from human, vs. other sources just yet.
And having a lot of trouble trying to find a neutral site, which will list as many funding sources as possible for both the pro and con sides of this issue. I'd really like to know how much funding is being financially sponsored by both conservative and liberal organizations, re: all of the scientific research re: global warming.
OTOH, there is this particular problem, and while this link is primarily a critique of a tactic used by left/liberal websites, I've seen it used by conservative sites critiquing liberal sites as well,
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005248.asp





^^^ the double irony is that oil companies are NOT going to either lose significant business or lose revenues as a result of a carbon tax. Obviously, a carbon tax may slow the growth or perhaps even slightly reduce consumption of oil products, but in general oil products have no acceptable substitute in the short term. Also, oil is a global demand commodity meaning that any drop in oil products sales in a country with a carbon tax will almost certainly be made up for by growth of oil product consumption in countries that do NOT have a carbon tax !
As clearly stated by a Canadian oil industry executive after Quebec enacted their carbon tax, this additional cost of a carbon tax is going to be passed onto the consumer in one way or another.
Again this isn't all that surprising given that leading figures on the left/liberal side of things are already extremely 'rich'. Some would argue that the ultimate objective of very 'rich' leaders is to erase the pesky 'middle class' and wind up with an economy that consists of a rich and powerful 'upper class' and a poor and powerless 'lower class' with very little in between. Admittedly, there are leaders on both sides of the aisle that are seemingly pursuing this objective.find it rather ironic, considering much of the support re: global warming is from the left/liberal side of political beliefs, that a carbon tax and carbon credits will make billionaires even richer!
and
Well obviously mainstream media has thoroughly publicized oil industry funding. However, extremely little mention is made of state university funding, federal agency funding, liberal foundation funding etc. Again, one has no way of actually knowing how much the source of funding might affect the outcome of scientific studies or the publicly offered opinions of funded scientists (or lack thereof) ... other than blatant examples i.e. the recent NASA chief scientist's 'turnabout'. There is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence in this regard ... however mainstream media tends to write off such comments from scientists as lunacy i.e.And having a lot of trouble trying to find a neutral site, which will list as many funding sources as possible for both the pro and con sides of this issue. I'd really like to know how much funding is being financially sponsored by both conservative and liberal organizations, re: all of the scientific research re: global warming.
(academic viewpoint)
(mainstream media viewpoint)
!
Last edited by Melonie; 07-08-2007 at 05:02 PM.
Bookmarks