Should we put a price on emissions? What's a reasonable tax to apply?

Question

Is two cents a gallon too little? Is twenty-five too much?

http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Economics/emission_taxes.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSL1811360320070218

Answer 1

Oh, I'd all be for 25 cents per gallon.

The only variable I am not sure about is where this money would go. Hopefully not "subsidizing" some corporate interests in the name of alternative energy like ethanol (HUGE SCAM), or worse into somebodies slush fund. I just don't trust politicians and or government bureaucracy.

But if this taxed monies could truly go to conservation and cheep clean sustainable energy then I'd certainly be all for it.

Answer 2

There's carbon emissions, and there's the general shortage of petroleum since production has peaked (and is on the way down, permanently).

A $100/ton tax on carbon dioxide isn't very much on a per-gallon basis; 25¢ would cover it, IIRC.  But sending a billion dollars a day to OPEC is a much bigger problem.  Getting people to change their habits and preferences so we can be more independent (and keep our money at home) will take a much bigger price boost.  Robert Rapier thinks $2/gallon might be enough (see the link); I think we need at least $3, maybe more.  We don't need one shift instead of two at the SUV plants, we need them to close.

Make up for the higher gas taxes by eliminating FICA taxes, sales taxes and income taxes on the first $20,000 or so everyone makes.  Give it all back; people will spend some of it on gas, but spend some on ways to not use so much gas, or just not drive so much and keep the difference.  That money comes out of the pockets of Exxon and OPEC, and that's how it should be.

Answer 3

I get really miffed when doffs can't see in front of there faces whats happening to the environment ,if they can't make meaningful comment then they should go play space invaders. which is probably more in their realm of understanding.

There exists a form of payment in Carbon Trading where large companies or organisations which are inefficient in the utilization of fuel can buy carbon output from more efficient ones and so offset there own output.

So what happens is you've got lets say British Electricity burning coal in old inefficient furnaces and to off set the emmision they buy into some other companies which have spent wisely on emmision reduction. This save the large company from spending millions on revamping there equipment to be in line with acceptable standards.

This is then the crux of the matter because the big guy keeps on pumping c**p into the environment but does so with a some what clearer concience as he has invested in some one elses concerns.

If you are refering to personal vehicle emmision then why should you the consummer pay ? you have no control over the fuel your vehicle burns it is the fuel producing companies who decide that and the car manufacturers who design the engines.

Car manufacturers should be charged the premium as this would increase the initial cost of inefficient fuel burning vehicles and hopefuly put them out of the reach of the ordinary Joe thus putting les traffic on our roads and ultimately reduce emmisions.

WAH! I hear you say this guys mad, thats my car, it took me three years to save for that I'm not giving it up so easily, well thats how change starts by giving up on something less desirable. Think on !!

Answer 4

Yeah that is what will help more taxes!!!

Wake up and think for yourself.

Answer 5

No...We should put a price on illegal price gouging by big oil companies that are not being regulated by an oil tycoon president...

Answer 6

No,  unless you are will to accept a tax on the use of your pc or lap top and cell phone.

My fuel is used to go to work and home,   i don't get out and run around, hitting the store or what not.  I need it to feed my family,  very few on Yahoo q and a can say that

Answer 7

h**l yes it's a reasonable tax. I'm no one to overstate the climate change "hoax", as an earlier answerer put it, but people do need to be shown the hard way that a change has to occur.

The environment is important to us. It should be perceived in no other way. It's a nostalgic thing, and when it leaves us, we'll regret our bad decisions.

Answer 8

This is absurd, government spend trillions on the Iraqi war but is reluctant to spend a fraction of this amount to curb climate warming.

Answer 9

No, just make gas the real price it should be without all the subsidies the government (you, or more likely your grandkids) pays for.   Same for coal being strip mined off land and the poisonous waste spilling into our rivers and ground water- if the company had to pay to clean up their messes, the price of coal (electricity) would go up.

Answer 10

The issue of emissions is intertwined with the issues of finite and rapidly diminishing oil reserves and dependence on foreign sources of oil.  The economy must transition to alternative sources of energy over the next 20-30 years, or risk complete collapse when easily recoverable oil does run out.  The objectives of an emission tax are to alter human behavior to effect change and to allocate the cost as efficiently as possible.  Europe has higher taxes and has adapted to a greater extent.  Germany uses 2/3 as much energy as the US per unit of GDP.  It' too bad US car makers don't have more efficient models, because gas at $8 per gallon (a current European price) would have a lot of people lining up to buy more efficient vehicles.  The oil markets will likely reach that price level within 5 years so a tax is not necessary for the purpose of altering behavior.  By keeping direct taxes on gasoline down, US lawmakers are ensuring continued dependence on foreign oil and then dependence on foreign technology to replace the current fleet of gas guzzlers when the market price is truly scary.  US taxpayers are already paying hundreds of billions more tax for their gasoline by paying for their army to invade oil rich countries.

Answer 11

We should not pay anything, if you have not noticed the government is not real efficient when it comes to money and how to utilize it.  Why give them more?

Answer 12

NO, global warming, man made climate change etc. is a hoax designed to do exactly as you propose, take money from the people and control their behavior to gain power. The earth had always warmed and cooled even before man was here.

Answer 13

No. Reasonable would obviously be zero.

Answer 14

Since when were taxes a good thing?

Answer 15

We are already paying too much!  Gas is one of the few things federally taxed and that money is misused. It will change nothing. Federal tax is 18.3 cents per gallon. and depending what state you are living in you will pay between 7.5 and 32.1 cpg extra. The government should only collect it's tax on income and not through the other "sin" takes. Why don't you just send the extra 2 cents a gallon you feel guilty about, to some worthy cause and get the heck out of my pockets.

Answer 16

Like current tax proposals, the question fails to name any specific objective or account for any associated plan with measurable success metrics (just an observation, no offense intended).

If the goal is to curb fossil fuel use, we know that the increase in gasoline from $1.78 before Bush started his oil war to nearly $4.00 today has not curbed consumption, so no simple tax will be any more effective.  If the goal is to create a fund from which to fund carbon reduction projects to be named in the future, we know from experience that money simply gets abused and misused by politicians (the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, etc).  A tax would only create a new revenue stream for politicians to divert to their pet projects.  No new tax is appropriate.

What we haven't tried yet however is a reward system.  Have low MPG vehicle owners pay an amount directly proportional to how far their gas mileage is below average, and distribute that money to owners of vehicles with above average MPG.  

There's no net cost to the economy, and owners of high efficiency vehicles do not pay an extra tax for others' excess.  The bar of average MPG fuel economy will gradually climb higher, as it needs to, as people switch cars.  Demand will grow for high MPG vehicles, so the auto industry will shift design, marketing and production to fill that new demand, without needing to be forced into compliance.

As for the primary causes of global warming such as coal-fired electical power, do the same there.  Have the utilities collect revenue from their power, but guarantee that the revenue is paid back to consumers and coporations for specific uses that minimize coal power use and generate alternate power such as home solar and wind power.  The small scale solar industry will reach new economies of scale and competition and prices will fall, making systems even more cost effective, with faster return on investment.

Again, no net cost to the economy, but damaging behavior carries a cost, productive behavior is rewarded, and new sources of energy are created.

I propose that a third substantial savings can come from a dramatic reduction in the size of the U.S. federal government.  The income tax did not exist before 1913, and many new government agencies have been created.  I understand that it's virtually impossible to fire a federal employee, so we are now supporting millions of people with a lifetime entitlement, who are under no accountability.  Government should be no less acountable than other functions of society (in fact, it should be more accountable).  Outsource most government fuctions to private contractors, put that functionality up for bid every few years to keep cost low.  I wouldn't be suprised if we could reduce the size and cost of government 30% up front, perhaps 50% over the long run.  The reduced carbon footprint will be significant, the savings will greatly stimulate the economy, and some portion of the savings can go towards driving the government towards 100% carbon-neutral operations.

Answer 17

Are you talking about a gallon of CO2?

If so, that could be a lot of tax on CO2.

Now a per gallon tax on coal?

Are we including methane in the per gallon rate at the same price as CO2 or NOx  or ozone?

The thinking thus far has been in terms of  CO2 equivalents, in GHG effect, and expressing the volume in tons of CO2 equivalent or the tons of carbon in CO2.

As long as the tax on carbon is offsetting other taxes, so that carbon tax is not increasing our  net tax revenue, we could afford to take it to $140 per ton of CO2 equivalent as a start.

We then apply a tax on fossil fuels based on the content of carbon they contain.

If we assess for emitted methane, how do we propose to collect it? Charge everyone a tax on meat? tax on landfill tipping?

The more different ways we collect, the greater the fairness we may have. But small tax collections can be uneconomical to collect.

There still is no consensus on concepts like making the carbon tax revenue neutral... some people are talking about spending this money in new projects. Then the question of who should control or benefit from this taxation... some would like to hand it over to municipalities to reduce real estate tax, while some would want it spent to provide universal health coverage, either at a state level or nationally.

Paying for universal health care would be very popular, and opposed by those who oppose universal health care.

The problems with a general carbon tax is that we have not adequately discussed how the money should be used, and feel inhibited to discuss this for fear of dividing the electorate a dozen different ways. Yet, getting agreement on implementing a carbon tax may be most inhibited by suspicion that a lot of money may be taken out of our pockets and we have no idea where it would go.

Answer 18

are you just plain stupid? That's the reason they came up with the whole global warming thing in the first place!, to get more of your money, you fell into  it like a good little subject.