Marlo Lewis, Ph.D. Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute marlo.lewis@cei.org 202-331-2267
Self-Identified Conservatives Who Advocate Carbon Taxes Irwin Stelzer, editor, Weekly Standard Bob Inglis, former GOP Congressman, South Carolina George P. Shultz, Secy. of State, Reagan Administration, 1982-1989 Kevin Hassett, Director, Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute Arthur Laffer, member of President Reagans Economic Policy Advisory Board, 1981-1989 Gregory Mankiw, Chairman, CEA, Bush II Administration, 2003-2005 Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Senior Staff Economist, CEA, Bush I Administration, 1988-1989; Director, CBO, 2003-2005; senior economic policy advisor, John McCain presidential campaign, 2007-2008 R. Glenn Hubbard, Chairman, CEA, Bush II, 2001-2003 Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute Andrew Moylan, Executive Director & Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Their argument . . . You cant beat something with nothing. Conservatives need a serious climate policy or well become politically irrelevant. Conservatives complain about EPA regulations and high income tax rates but have no plan to stop EPA or achieve real tax reform. A carbon tax is the solution. It taxes bads (emissions), not goods (capital, labor). It doesnt pick winners and losers but lets the free market decide. While making us credible on climate change, championing carbon taxes will give us leverage to rein in EPA and cut income, corporate, capital gains, and/or social security taxes. This aint pie-in-the-sky. British Columbia shows it can be done! Fundamental Error Carbon taxers confuse not supporting a compromising, inside-the-beltway deal with not having a plan. Our plan is to make the moral, economic, and scientific case for unleashing what technology analyst Mark Mills calls the North American energy colossus. AND . . . Work to throw the bums out in 2014 and 2016 so national policy facilitates rather than obstructs Americas market-driven energy renaissance. Carbon taxers unstated assumption: full-throated conservative victory is impossible, maybe even undesirable. Siren song of defeatism. You cant beat something with nothing! Many of the same pundits who push a carbon tax today did so during the debates on the Kyoto Procotol and the Waxman-Markey bill. Cap-and-trade was inevitable unless Republicans endorsed a carbon tax, they argued, because you cant beat something with nothing. Wrong! Cap-and-trade died in the November 2010 elections, because conservatives opposed it as cap-n-tax a disguised tax on energy. And skeptics challenged climate alarm. Rather than learn the obvious lesson we can rally Americans to our cause if we champion affordable energy and climate realism R Street et al. ask conservatives to do openly what Obama and the Democrats, fearing voter retribution, tried to do by stealth.
Carbon taxers are behind the times. Voters are not clamoring for carbon regulation, because the alleged climate crisis isnt happening. In the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is very unlikely, collapse of the great ice sheets is exceptionally unlikely, and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is very unlikely. IPCC AR5, Chapter 12 Voters care much more about jobs and economic opportunity. States where energy production is growing (Texas, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, West Virginia) are among those with the fastest GDP growth. Conflicted and Confused Conservative carbon taxers want to put pedal to the metal & slam on the brakes at the same time. They profess to support fracking, Keystone XL Pipeline, even coal mining. But the core premise of a carbon tax is: fossil fuels are destroying the planet and should be suppressed. If you tax a thing, you get less of it: Econ 101. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Conservative leaders cant promote carbon taxes without dividing the movement and demoralizing its base. Carbon tax: Serious climate policy? Using EPA climate sensitivity assumptions, Cato Institute climatologist Chip Knappenberger calculates that even if the U.S. economy were to shut down tomorrow, the net impact would be a reduction in global temperatures of approximately 0.17C by 2100 an amount that is for all intents and purposes, negligible. A politically-feasible carbon tax would achieve even less -- a costly exercise in futility. If climate change is a serious problem, the only real solution is technological breakthroughs that make non-emitting energy cheaper than carbon energy. Zero-emission energy will scale up rapidly only when it makes people richer. Taxing away carbon energy before commercially-viable substitutes are available is economically-harmful and therefore politically unsustainable.
Carbon Tax Pipe Dreams Revenue Neutral? Congresss big spenders and deficit hawks (often the same people) have no interest in tax reform that does not enhance revenues. That was the real attraction of cap-n-tax. CEI FOIA found Obama Treasury expected Waxman- Markey to generate up to $400 billion in new annual revenue. David Kreutzer: It is delusional to believe that $200 billion in new revenues could walk across town [in Washington, D.C.] without being molested.
Carbon taxes are regressive, therefore . . . (3) Carbon taxes cant be implemented without significant revenues used for welfare rather than to reduce other taxes. (1) Fuel poverty: On average, U.S. households earning <$50,000/yr spend more on energy than on food, medicine, clothing, insurance, or healthcare. (2) Many low income households already must choose between heating and eating, keeping cool or paying The rent, etc. (4) If conservatives insist on revenue- neutrality cutting e.g. cap gains taxes while increasing the cost of gas & utilities for the poor -- they will be pilloried (this time, justly) for seeking to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
(5) BUT: If even $1.00 of the revenues go for anything except offsetting tax cuts, conservatives who support the carbon tax will violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Even if possible, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would harm the economy The smaller the base on which a tax of a given size is levied, the more it distorts market signals. Imagine if 10% of U.S. personal income taxes were replaced with a targeted tax on automakers, farmers, or software developers. There would be a depression in the targeted sector, which would then have adverse multiplier effects on other industries. The base of a carbon tax particular commodities and industries (coal, power generation) is narrower than the base for retail sales, income, and labor taxes. Substituting carbon taxes for income taxes would make the tax system less efficient. It taxes bads not goods? A carbon tax is an activity tax, not a consumption tax. Its a tax on carbon-based (fossil) fuels, which supply 82% of U.S. commercial energy. Energy, like land, labor and capital, is a factor of production. Without carbon-based energy, few of us would be employed or even exist. A carbon tax is an indirect tax on labor and production on goods. Carbon tax: monster that eats its own tail A carbon tax aims to de-carbonize the economy. By design, it taxes away the base on which it is levied. The more CO2 emissions decline, the more the tax must be raised to generate the same revenue. The higher the tax gets, the more we must rely on costly, intermittent, under-performing energy sources (wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels) that are not up to the task of powering a modern economy. A carbon tax doesnt pick winners and losers? A carbon tax discriminates against carbon-based (fossil) fuels. Thats its core function! Just because the market sorts out the effects of a discriminatory tax does not make the tax non- discriminatory. Like green energy mandates and subsidies for Solyndra, carbon taxes rig energy markets but throughout the economy. Retail intervention bad, wholesale intervention good thats carbon taxers free market philosophy. Like cap-and-trade, the purpose of a carbon tax is to finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America (President Obama). Its to drive investment decisions towards clean energy (former DOE Secy. Steven Chu). A carbon tax is all about picking winners and losers.
EPA Rollback? Neither Waxman-Whitehouse nor Sanders-Boxer would remove one iota of EPAs authority or preempt any state GHG regulation. It [a carbon tax] would be the best legislative option. But I wouldnt want it to replace the other actions that, say, the EPA could take. Rep. Henry Waxman, Feb. 1, 2013 If greens really wanted to replace command-and-control with carbon pricing, Waxman-Markey would have repealed regulations. Instead, the bill contained hundreds pages of new regulations (e.g. national green energy quota) before it even got to cap-and-trade. Does anyone really believe Mass. v. EPA, the proliferation of state renewable energy mandates, fuel economy standards, federal energy efficiency standards, state electricity demand-reduction programs, etc. were just a strategy to put conservatives over a barrel so progressives could trade it all away for a carbon tax?
British Columbia: Model for the U.S.? 5 years after enactment, Pembina Institute lobbied to raise the tax from $30 to $200 per ton and scrap revenue neutrality.
Cost per household: $1000/yr in higher natural gas bills.
Christy Clark won Premier race in part by promising to freeze carbon tax for another five years. Less than 6% of BC electricity comes from fossil fuels! Political Big Picture: A movement that is pro-tax and anti-energy competes for hearts and minds with a movement that is pro-energy and anti-tax. Conservatives are truly the dumb party if we squander our tax and energy advantage, and mangle the product differentiation that gives voters a reason to support conservative politicians!