Prosperity Caucus » Research

Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade

admin — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:01:53 +0000

This non-technical paper provides some straightforward arguments against the current legislative proposal to reduce carbon emissions via cap and trade. The two authors believe global-warming is a serious problem and carbon emissions need to be addressed—but cap and trade legislation is not the way to do it. Their proposal is for the federal government to implement a more efficient carbon tax on the production of oil, coal, and natural gas.

Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann argue that while cap and trade provides benefit certainty—i.e. the government can set obtainable reductions in carbon emissions—it does not provide cost certainty. Other deficiencies in cap and trade include: 1) the likely delay in implementation due to prolonged litigation by effected parties; 2) problems of setting base-lines for emission targets and how to price them; 3) such a program is untested on a global scale; 4) the legislation would allocate allowances for free—which could lead to abuse by members of Congress as the distribute allowances to constituents and donors; 5) and this type of program would be difficult to enforce.

The authors feel the need for a tax because of the classic argument of externalities. They say a carbon tax should be imposed on all oil, coal, and natural gas production. They like it because it “captures what is now an externality, namely the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions.” A carbon tax is easier to implement and would start to reduce carbon emissions faster (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 is over 300 pages while the carbon tax proposal by Rep. John B. Larson was only 17 pages.) The carbon tax creates greater economic efficiency as it provides greater cost certainty to the producers of coal, oil, and natural gas—something cap and trade does not.

If one is looking for arguments to use against cap and trade legislation in the upcoming debate they would be wise to read this paper.

Related Articles

The Washington Post

Heritage Foundation

We Were All Keynesians Then

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:53:30 +0000

One thing history teaches is that the person who conceives a great idea may not get the credit for it. In 1961, a little-known economist at Carnegie Tech named John Muth published a piece in the journal Econometrica demonstrating that people thoughtfully use available information to predict future prices and then make economic decisions based on those “rational expectations.” Muth’s insight seems obvious today, but it was radical in 1961, during the heyday of Keynesian economics.

Link to Paper

Will the $800 Billion-Plus Stimulus Plan Bring Economic Recovery?

admin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:50:23 +0000

Among these policies, less stringent mortgage lending terms generated millions
of subprime mortgages with a face value of several trillion dollars. Cheap money under Greenspan’s leadership at the Federal Reserve led to a bubble in housing prices, which burst in 2006. Falling house prices, rising adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), negative home equity and rising foreclosure rates triggered widespread losses in the financial sector. Unprecedented attempts by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to strengthen the financial system have only been partially successful. The Obama Administration and the Democrat- controlled Congress pushed a deficit spending program of $800 billionplus. Will this stimulus package bring about economic recovery?

Link to Paper