[lbo-talk] Patrick Bond on climate change strategy

[Gar Lipow]

On 4/24/07, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Gar:
>
> That is why I think the simple solution is best: a straight emissions
> tax refunded in the form of checks to the population. Consumption
> taxes ultimately do get passed on to consumers, so writing them checks
> for the total is certainly fair enough. It pretty much eliminates the
> regressiveness. And it provides incentives throughout the economy to
> either stop using hydrocarbons or use them more efficienctly.
>
>
> [WS:] How exactly will emission tax refunds provide an incentive to reduce
> consumption?  It is the same as the current system of subsidies that keep
> the price of gas or energy low?  The only way consumers will change they
> behavior is when they have to bear the full cost of what they actually
> consume - so the consumption tax is the way to go

Everybody gets a check for the same amount. So your total income goes
up by the amount of the money taxed. You have a higher income, but you
are paying higher prices too. And that gives you an incentive to
consume less energy, because if you do you can shift than consumption
to other things.
.
>
> Stated differently, if emission taxes are invested in energy efficient
> alternatives e.g. electric trains instead of cars - they are also "refunded"
> to the consumer but with a very important conditionality attached to it -
> the consumer gets a "refund" or rather a subsidy only if he/she refrains
> from using the taxed form of energy (e.g. gasoline that powers cars ) and
> uses the non-taxed one (e.g. electricity that power trains).

Because the tax is a short term tax. You pay it immediately. The train
is a long term investment: if you have a carbon tax and spend on
needed capital investments you have a long transition period (train
tracks and electric cars both take time to ramp up) where people aer
paying carbon taxes, but NOT getting the "conditional refund". Also
public funding of public transit is a good thing in the long run for
many reason in addition to resource consumption.  If carbon taxes are
part of set of policy that works, they will peak within ten years and
become a declining source of revenue. So I'm against funding any
important long term need from them, because you are setting up that
need for failure as its revenue declines.
>
> So why on earth do you insist on refunds?  They are counterproductive,
> unless one wants to implement Robin-Hoodism (which is a bunch of populist
> tripe.)

I'm avoiding reverse Robin-Hoodism. Besides your critique of
"Robin-Hoodism" is contentless, consisting of a bowel explosion of
rage at the "bums" in Poland. Having not content it requires no
refutation.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
Please note:  Personal  messages  should be sent to [garlpublic]
followed by the [at] sign with isp of  [comcast], then [dot] and then
an  extension of net