What do you think of James Hansen's carbon tax and 100% dividend plan?

Question

James Hansen is the head of NASA GISS. His plan is:

Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend

1. Tax Large & Growing (but get it in place!)

- tap efficiency potential & life style choices

2. Entire Tax Returned

- equal monthly deposits in bank accounts

3. Limited Government Role

- keep hands off money!

- eliminate fossil subsidies

- support technology development (no Manhattan projects!)

- change profit rules and motivation for utilities

- watch U.S. modernize & emissions fall!

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf

Essentially he wants to raise the price of carbon emissions via a carbon tax, but return all the tax money to consumers. The higher price of carbon fuels will encourage people to consume less fossil fuels. People who consume less than average will come out ahead (make money on the deal), people who consume above average will lose money (since everyone gets an equal fraction of the dividend).

What do you think?

Answer 1

For those of us that are already ahead of the curve and made the significant changes towards net/zero energy homes via; active & passive solar, super insulation, and sustainable material composition,  re-localized economic choices, growing our own vegetables, driving less and advocating appropriate actions for others.  

WE DON"T NEED NO STINCKING INCENTIVES, because the pay back on investment has been huge! The pride of making a positive contribution feels awsome, and acctually leading by viable economic example and life style accomplishes a lot more than words and debate with the people that will only change when they see how it is possible and how well it works!

Tax and rebate turns too many people off!

It is sad that the only way to sway some people is to bride them, and perpetuate their lust for materialism and all that glitters like gold.

If there was more exposure of what has already been done, and what is working well for those already traveling down the green and ultra green path, the sheeple would follow in huge flocks!

It is time to end the Parade of Homes folly where every major city shows Mac Mansions that are green pigs with lip stick, cost $300.00 or more per square foot to build, and contribute to mass consumption, waste and greed. Then there's the fact they are always built on the edge of towns, contributing to sprawl.

We need a World's Fair, State Fair and Parade of Homes that showcases effective sustainable practises, and diverts our competetiveness in the right direction.

Just like most of us can learn a second language if we enter a total imerssion program, people need to be exposed and surrounded by green practices that demonstrate their viability, ease of use, return on investment and practicality.

People in suburbs should consider buying up foreclosed homes in their neighborhoods, change the zoning and open up small businesses that offer goods and service within walking distance.

We must move away from centralized corporate control and decentralize our energy production, localize our food production, live close to work, support effective mass transit and use our cars only when needed not out of habit, and all the other things that taxes and rebates will never achieve.

If the media were to focus on the postive things already out there rather than death and destruction and infotainment, we could hit sustainable goals in record time!

There is a new Planet Green channel that just came on line this week, but what I've seen thus far will only maintain the us and them polarization... but it is a huge step in the right direction to be in people's faces about what has been done, is being done and the potential for the future as we change direction and move forward.

Answer 2

Who has the Constitutional authority to impose such controls on erstwhile free citizens?  Does this have anything to do with sound environmental policy as much as a new marketing twist on the wealth redistribution schemes of the Left?

Answer 3

I think that Hansen's plan is a good talking point, but it needs some seasoning.  I would like to hear what the critics have to say and Hansen's responses before forming an opinion.

Answer 4

By itself would raise gasoline by at least $1 a gallon. maybe more.

Australia already has a carbon tax, one based on the number of cows, because their flatulence emits tremendous amount of emissions.

In California, if you add the cow total to the ten cement manufacturers we have, it would take a few hundred thousand green type people just to reduce it a tad.

About as serious as this one?

Answer 5

It seems like a good idea, maybe as part of a larger solution, but on its own will it make much difference?  

Its not just a question of incentives, we need alternatives to switch to as well.

You're the expert, Dana, what do you think?

Answer 6

I kinda liked the motto, “100% or fight! No alligator shoes!”

It was an interesting read, but too short.  Were the omissions intentional or not?  For instance, his comment: "A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead." This just begs for follow through, and I'm not going to offer it here, but he should have, I believe.

He also made some comments about leaders/politicians not caring if targets were achieved because they'd be out of office or retired.  I'm assuming that any plan worth it's weight in gold would offer both incentives and penalties to assure that a serious attempt at compliance is made.

Stuff like this gets me thinking, and that's good.  What I'd like to have is 6 or 8 or a dozen of men and women like Hansen, scientists and specialists capable of holding their own in a forum, get together and brainstorm right before our eyes and ears.  I'm sure some great things would be said, some absurd things, and a few things that would be followed up for further discussion, research and implementation.

Thanks for passing it along.

Answer 7

Whether or not this plan is perfect, we know that without incentive people will NOT change their consumption habits.  But I would suspect that this plan would provide enough incentive for non-painful consumption changes (how hard is it to car-pool? or switch your light-bulbs?) and enough incentive to accelerate the development of new clean energy technologies.

Answer 8

Thanks for the summary.  Without following the link, I suppose that if the money goes through our desperately indebted government, it will be unlikely that all of it will return to consumers.

Answer 9

I think it will turn out to be a very regressive tax, since people with more disposable income are those that are most able to make lifestyle changes to minimize their carbon footprints.  Most lower income people can go out and buy a fuel efficient car to get back $40/mo in their carbon dividend.  Similarly, it has been demonstrated that people living in inner city areas have less access to quality, low-carbon input foods.  

The double whammy for lower income people is that the if the tax is computed as a flat tax, averaged across everyone, the well-off use more carbon per capita so the average tax will be weighted towards their use.  Lower-income people will have to pay a proportionately larger share of the tax than would be determined by their actual carbon use.  So the poor pay more, get back less, and are less able to make lifestyle changes to mitigate the burden.  If the tax and the rebate are progressive in that the poor pay less and get back less, they have less incentive to reduce their footprint.  And there will probably be exemptions (e.g., if you are handicapped and need a big van to carry the wheelchair) which suggests the administration will need to be huge.

People will have to start making lifestyle changes, but the government won't be able to impose them.  I'm all for something, but this plan needs to be run by some economists before it should be taken seriously.

Answer 10

I think scientists should stick to science and policymakers should stick to policy.

I also think that if that scientist didn't waste his time with policy recommendations and spent that time instead on his predictions, perhaps one of his predictions would come true.

Answer 11

If this wasn't coming out of Columbia, I'd think it was hatched in Berkely.

Answer 12

The government wastes enough money as it is, and this is just another tax to pay the wealthy.

Answer 13

Interesting plan. It will never happen, if the the government is going to tax, they aren't going to give the money back to consumers.

The only problem: at this point in time, we are HIGHLY dependent on fossil fuels. I don't know that people really understand the correlation between oil, coal, natural gas and our economy. We are seeing the impact of high fuel prices now, how would a carbon tax impact our economy? If you said, negatively, you are right. The market is already pushing gas prices upward, it doesn't take the government to step in and say "let's create high fuel costs", don't they see this is already happening. Why not let the market adjust itself to our high demand for oil.

This is better than the cap and trade system that our liberal, sorry, I mean progressive politicians want. We should not set an arbitrary limit on our energy consumption, it just doesn't make any sense. Where do we draw the line, what is too much? Oh yeah, the market does that, that's right.

This plan would make other forms of fuels and energy more economically feasible, even though this is already happening.

I don't care so much about coal, because we have so much of it domestically. However, oil concerns me the most because we export so many dollars in exchange for it.

A carbon tax is not a bad idea because we are emitting pollutants when we consume fossil fuels. These pollutants and the cost that we as individuals pay doesn't resemble the true cost on society and the environment.

The problem then becomes, how do we measure the negative externalities (the costs not reflected in the price)? Who is responsible for determining this, the government? Makes me a little uneasy, this would become just another way for the government to redistribute wealth. See where this is going?

Answer 14

I think they need to quit wasting time green-washing all these laws, and come up with some real solutions.

Answer 15

smart plan. drastic times call for drastic mesures