Solomon’s Solution
Ross McKitrick (yes, that Ross McKitrick of McKitrick & McIntyre) has a split the baby approach to carbon taxes:
Imagine a planet in which global warming was averted without the periodic need for thousands of people to fly around the world to promise to stop burning fossil fuels.Imagine no international conferences wrangling over the details of climate policy. Imagine entrusting the tough questions to a referee: Mother Earth.
That is the intriguing suggestion of Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario who, like me, is virtuously restricting his carbon footprint by staying away from Copenhagen this week. Dr. McKitrick expects this climate conference to yield the same results as previous ones: grand promises to cut carbon emissions that will be ignored once politicians return home to face voters who are skeptical that global warming is even a problem.
To end this political stalemate, Dr. McKitrick proposes calling each side’s bluff. He suggests imposing financial penalties on carbon emissions that would be set according to the temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. The penalties could start off small enough to be politically palatable to skeptical voters.
Interesting thought. Alex Tabarrok chimes in:
Addendum: As predicted most of the objections (in the comments) are from climate change proponents. In essence, they argue that the problem is so serious that we must act before the evidence is in. Aside from the obvious epistemic problems with such a position do note that a) this is a way of getting agreement where otherwise there might be none b) the tax can be non-linear so it rises (in Bayesian fashion) with the strength of the evidence, i.e. the tax need not always lag.
My knee jerk reaction is to resist such a thing. But I think, conceptually, I need to give it further consideration.
Dave:
Why is the supposed answer always a TAX????????
Just another scheme for funding the coffers of corrupt govt. and to impose “redistribution” on a global scale.
Not worth thinking about at all.
JAC, respectfully I think you’re being a bit pedestrian in your reaction to the word, as you write it, TAX. Do you object to user fees for the maintenance of national parks? A tax by any other name… I mean, at some point some group does pay for the maintenance of “the commons.”
I also think you make a valid point about the potential misuse of such an agreement by government – which is why I said it needs further consideration. But conceptually, this looks like a use tax that’s tied to outcomes in the interest of maintaining public goods. In it’s basic construct it certainly seems more rational than an arbitrary tax imposed by sweeping and manipulated regulation.
What scares the shit out of climate scientists are looming feed back loops that will trigger run away warming. One of these loops is the melting of the perma-frost in Alaska and Siberia. This is a huge resevoir of co2 and ch4(25 times worse than co2). Warming > co2 release > more warming. This portends to the fact that warming isn’t a lenier relationship with co2 but will be a much steeper curve than that . The point being that relief would probably come too late in Mckitricks’ plan. Kind of like a two pack a day smoker who stops smoking when the cancer shows up on the x-ray.
Anthropogenic contributions of C02 is between 3 and 4%.
Dave:
I don’t think I am being pedestrian at all. You propose a user fee for maintaining parks. That is not a TAX. A TAX involves the Govt collecting from the unwilling.
A user fee by its very definition is “voluntary” not “involuntary” like a TAX.
You ignored the real question. Why is a TAX always the proposed solution? It serves no real purpose that can’t be achieved in other ways.
Any TAX involves govt. So explain how a govt imposed tax is not subject to manipulation and political gamemanship, like any other regulation put forth by government.
So, JAC, the gasoline tax then doesn’t fit your definition of a tax, does it? After all, you voluntarily buy gas, right? And, do use fees for the parks not involve government?
When I said you were being pedestrian I was refering to your lexiconography – semantics. Beyond, that, however, how to you propose paying for public goods? Just asking.
Craig,
3% to 4% of ….
…of Total Global Production from all sources?
Then, you’re about right…. insignificant!
JAC,
Any collection made by government is a tax.
A similar idea though, that I beleave would be more widely accepted and might work would be tying a co2 tax to the concentration of c02 in the atmosphere. This would lead the damage better that temperature which I am afraid is an indicator that is too late to effect the change necessary. Also temperature is still a function of other phenomina . At present we are at 390ppm up from the 280 ppm upper limit of the last 650,000 years. Most scientists thing that 350ppm should be our upper limit. We have been increasing at a rate of about 2ppm /year at present.
But Ken,
What happens if the temp. goes down and the Co2 goes up?
If you believe Co2 ‘does damage’, what damage does it do?
“…are looming feed back loops ….”
Ken,
That is ridiculous.
The Earth is a massive negative-feed back loop.
If it wasn’t, we’d have been toast the first time a volcano exploded or an asteriod struck.
By observation, we are here – therefore, no positive feedback loop.
It’s Le Chatelier’s principle.
Negative feedbacks govern stable systems and mechanisms materialize that act against the initial changes;
-the longer timescale one considers, the more negative feedbacks – e.g. channels to consume excessive “commodity” in the environment;
-the slower types of responses we consider, the more negative the total feedback factor is likely to be….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier_principle
Dave:
Gas tax is a tax. It is a cost imposed by govt on a private commodity. I have no choice but to pay the tax as there is not gas option without such a tax attached.
The user fee for visting a Federal Park is just that, a user fee. A fee for using the owners property, who happens to be the govt. I am free to use another park, whether State, County or private. I am in no way compelled to use the Federal Park.
Black Flag: I disagree with your definition of tax. I do not see how a voluntary payment to the govt for using a govt owned facility is a tax. Unless of course the funds are used for purposes other than operating and maintaing the facility in question. Then I would agree, it becomes a tax. Is that the split in your meaning?
Dave:
By the way, you still have not responded to my primary question.
Why do all proposals to cure man made global warming involve a TAX?
What does a TAX achieve that can’t be achieved without it????
BF- If that happens then we have nothing to worry about, so far though the trend is temperature is rising as the co2 raises.
Ken:
Actually Ken, the CO2 has been rising AFTER temps has risen. The cause/effect relationship is the reverse of what is claimed.
Oh yeah, there is the little fact that temps have been dropping for a few years while CO2 continues to increase.
So now that we see there is an exception to the theory, how do we still support the theory?
JAC – I can’t answer why all climate change mitigation proposals are taxes. The quick answer is that it’s the easiest way to collect money – from the point of a gun. I’m not a big fan of taxes but I am a fan of fair taxes to the extent that taxes exist.
Now, you can answer my question. How do we pay for public goods?
p.s. you’re not compelled to by gas. You can make your own biodiesel as an alternative.
“Black Flag: I disagree with your definition of tax. I do not see how a voluntary payment to the govt for using a govt owned facility is a tax. Unless of course the funds are used for purposes other than operating and maintaing the facility in question. Then I would agree, it becomes a tax. Is that the split in your meaning?”
Because the building (or seizure of land in the case of Reserve and Parks, or the purchase of such land) by use of tax dollars, or Treasury-credit money (the “Money Tree”).
Dave, why do we need “public” goods?
Ken T.
Whether Co2 goes up or down is moot. We can’t stop it, we can’t change it, we are observers not actors in that regard.
If you want your dog to hunt, focus on land use. That does have (at least) potential for local climate change (though not Global)….re: Mount Kilimanjaro.
Why do we need public goods? It seems an odd question. Can we privatize air? Can we privatize migrating game birds? It’s not that we “need” private goods, it’s that we have them. But if you don’t like the notion of some things being “goods” the same question applies if we use the term “commons.”
Dave:
I could ride a horse to, but the point is that to participate in society and to benefit from the specialization of our advanced economy I pretty much need to buy gas.
A more appropriate way to pay for roads would be toll booths by major road segment. Then I could choose to drive farther to avoid the user fee if I want.
I did answer your question regarding the public goods. User fees.
Or any other revenue source that is voluntary. They can ask for donations or run a national lottery.
For example, the Fair Tax is almost voluntary in that it only applies to new retail. But it fails because, like the gas tax, many of us will have little choice but to buy retail. And of course it descriminates for used products and against new products.
To the bigger question, what are Federal “public goods” other than the court system and military?
I don’t see how National Forests and Parks are true “public goods” and they certainly aren’t true “commons”. They generaly serve, or benefit, only a portion of the population.
Peter Taylor is a renowned conservationist and research analyst. Among his many achievements, he has previously taken successful action in challenging the UN to alter it’s stance and policy regarding dumping of hazardous materials into the ocean (in other words, he cares about the environment and his research is credible). In this presentation, made at the Alternative View Conference Totnes UK 2008, he explains the conclusions of his detailed studies which indicate man is not responsible for global warming/climate change,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148&hl=en#
Dave,
You said “Pay for public goods”.
Air not a ‘good’ – it is not property, it is not scarce and it is not diminishable and it is not owned. Why would I have to “pay for it” then?
So, “Can we privatize air?”, No, because no own owns it, and no one needs to.
So, “Can we privatize migrating game birds?” Sure we do. If it lands on my property I shoot it.
So “It’s not that we “need” private goods, it’s that we have them.”
We do have private goods, I agree – but ‘public’???
At some point there exists an owner of a good (that is, property; something rare, something diminishable when used) – that is, the person who decides on who gets to determine the use of that product.
This does not exist in air or your birds.
Flying around the world to promise to end global warming?
Ya think maybe some of these guys could’ve driven.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y4InWXmERU&feature=player_embedded
Yes, let’s all stop and take time out of our day to go and watch Swede express his thoughts by means of a YouTube.
¥