Taxes, Subsidies, and Regulation: A Guide to North Carolina’s Proposed Global Warming Policies

Taxes, Subsidies, and Regulation

A Guide to North Carolina’s Proposed Global Warming Policies

Daren Bakst

FEBRUARY 2008

POLICY REPORT



policy report

Taxes, Subsidies, and Regulation

A Guide to North Carolina’s Proposed Global Warming Policies

D

aren

B

akst

February 20082 Introduction2 Big Picture: Three Major Assumptions3 Classifying the CAPAG Recommendations4 Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Recommendations6 Energy Supply Recommendations8 Transportation and Land Use Planning Recommendations10 Agriculture, Forestry, and Waste Management Recommendations12 Cross-Cutting Issues

13 Appendix: Summary of CAPAG Recommendations16 Notes18 About the Author

The views expressed in this report are solely those o the author and do not necessarily reect those o the sta or board o the John Locke Foundation. For more inormation,call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org. ©2008 by John Locke Foundation.



John locke foundation

iodo

In 2006, North Carolina’s Department o Envi-ronment and Natural Resources (DENR) ormedan advisory group called the Climate Action PlanAdvisory Group (CAPAG).

1

This group’s task wasto “develop recommendations or specic actionsto help reduce or prevent climate change.”

2

On October 16, 2007, CAPAG released a “naldrat” o its 56 recommendations.

3

One week later,these recommendations were presented to the Leg-islative Commission on Global Climate Change, a legislative body that will develop a nal report withndings and recommendations by April 15, 2008.

4

This report translates each CAPAG recommen-dation into plain English so that the public andpolicymakers can understand what really is being proposed. The recommendations oten are vague,overbroad, or even contain multiple options withinone recommendation. The goal is to cut throughthe og and identiy the essence

5

o each recom-mendation.

B p: th Mjo amo

There are three major assumptions underlying the recommendations. First, there is an assump-tion that action needs to be taken to address glob-al warming. There was never a discussion withinCAPAG as to whether action is necessary. In act,CAPAG expressly did not discuss the science o global warming.

6

Instead, the Center or Climate Strategies(CCS), which ran every aspect o the advisorygroup process or DENR, provided CAPAGmembers a master list o more than 300 recom-mendations.

7

Members o the advisory group thenreduced the number o these pre-selected recom-mendations by eliminating some o them or sim-ply combining several recommendations into onerecommendation.

8

Second, there is an assumption that reducing carbon dioxide (CO

2

) emissions will aect cli-mate change. It is well-established that there isnothing the United States could do to have anymeasurable eect on temperature.

9

In act, i ev-ery country that signed the Kyoto Protocol (theUnited Nations climate change treaty) compliedwith the treaty, there still would be no measur-able eect on temperature, even ater a century.

10

This point is not even disputed by global warming alarmists.

11

While Kyoto would have reduced emissions to7 percent below 1990 levels, the CAPAG propos-als would reduce North Carolina’s emissions towithin 1 percent o 1990 levels.

12

In other words,i Kyoto is not going to have any impact on cli-mate change, then the CAPAG approach, even i adopted by the whole globe, certainly is not going to have an impact.It is not a coincidence that CAPAG does not identiy the impact these recommendations wouldhave on global climate change. CAPAG tries toget around the “temperature problem” by ignor-ing the act that the goal is to reduce temperature.Since changing the global climate is not possible,the means become the ends — reducing CO

2

be-comes the goal and reducing temperature is simplynever mentioned again. CAPAG also underminesits own recommendations by not recommending nuclear energy, arguably the best approach to re-ducing CO

2

emissions.

13

Third, there is an assumption that the only wayto reduce carbon emissions is or the government totake action. There is not one recommendation that presumes individuals and other private actors willtake action on their own. As a result, it is not surpris-ing that new taxes (23 recommendations) and subsi-dies (32 recommendations) are recommended.

taxes, suBsidies, and regulation

|

introduction