Menu
/REGISTER
PPB
Fielding
Montecito
Powershare
Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Opinion  >  Op/Eds  >  Current Article

Op/ed: The case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax

By   /   Friday, October 11th, 2013  /   6 Comments

We have a moral responsibility to future generations to take powerful action now to moderate climate change, by severely curtailing our greenhouse gas emissions.

    Print       Email

By John D. Kelley on October 11, 2013

“Men argue. Nature acts.” — Voltaire

No argument will prevent ice from changing into water when the temperature shifts from 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 33 degrees. The climate of our planet is not controlled by wishes and opinions. It only responds to the natural forces that drive it.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities are warming the Earth in dangerous ways.  Worldwide, people are experiencing the effects of climate change with sea level rise, bigger storms, larger floods, extreme heat, longer droughts and huge wildfires. Four of the five largest wildfires in California history have occurred since 2003. The Rim Fire that burned near Yosemite National Park is the third largest, at more than 400 square miles.

We have a moral responsibility to future generations to take powerful action now to moderate climate change, by severely curtailing our greenhouse gas emissions.  A revenue-neutral carbon tax that would change the economics of energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is getting support across the political spectrum. The essence of this concept is to tax carbon production and return 100 percent of the proceeds equally to all citizens. This is a powerful way to cause a shift away from carbon fuels while protecting American families from higher energy prices.

A growing number of people believe that a national carbon tax is the most efficient, transparent and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a clean energy economy. To make the economic transition as smooth as possible, the tax would start small and increase annually and predictably. At the same time, fossil fuel subsidies would be phased out. This would mean energy prices would be predictable for people and businesses.

A national carbon tax would be easy to administer. The tax would be charged at first point of sale — the mine, wellhead, or border crossing — and would be collected by the IRS. The funds would be placed in a Carbon Tax Trust Fund and rebated to American households. All adult citizens would receive equal monthly dividends and families would also receive one-half share per child under 18 years old, with a limit of 2 child-shares per family. It is estimated that 70 percent of families would see a net increase in income.

A national carbon tax could be reconciled with existing state programs such as California’s cap and trade system. There are a few ways this could be done: preemption, stacking or integration.
With preemption, the California program would cease to function once the federal law took effect. With stacking, the program would continue to function as-is on top of the federal regulations. With integration, the state and federal programs would work together. To ensure that U.S.-made goods remain competitive in international markets, carbon tax equivalent tariffs would be charged for goods entering the U.S. from countries without equivalent carbon pricing, while carbon tax rebates would reduce the price of exports to those countries. These tariffs and rebates would provide an incentive for international adoption of carbon taxes.

Five years ago, British Columbia implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It gradually added to the cost of fossil fuels while cutting both personal and corporate income taxes. A recent study reports that BC’s use of petroleum fuels has dropped by 15.1 percent. The study also found that BC’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now the lowest in Canada, due to the carbon tax shift.

Perhaps we are finally approaching a political tipping point regarding climate change policies. Currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is under court order to issue climate change rules. The fossil fuel industry is fearful of what the EPA may do, so there is a new congressional debate over climate change policy.  As part of this national debate, a revenue-neutral carbon tax must be considered. It would be efficient, transparent, and enforceable, because market decisions would select the best clean energy programs and technologies, and the dividends would stimulate the economy. By acting now to implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax, we can create a stronger economy and ensure a more livable climate for our children and grandchildren.

• John D. Kelley is a former president of the American Institute of Architects in Santa Barbara and a founding member of the Sustainability Project, the Green Building Alliance, and Mesa Architects. Contact him at [email protected] The Business Times welcomes alternative perspectives on this topic.

    Print       Email

6 Comments

  1. Rebecca Claassen says:

    What a novel approach to a complex problem. Thank you for outlining a brilliant way to use the strength of the US marketplace to lead us out of the climate crisis. We should consider asking for something like this at the state level as well! Thanks John!

  2. Sue Brinkmeyer says:

    Thank you for this well reasoned and articulate opinion piece. I hope every reader will be moved to help create a better future for us all by writing or calling their representatives in Congress today to urge them to support a revenue neutral carbon tax.

  3. Dennis Thompson says:

    This seems like the best way to respond to climate change, letting the market work and eliminating the need for many layers of regulation.

  4. Charlene Little says:

    Thank you for the intelligent and reasonable response to the reality of climate change. Now we must get Congress motivated, by our calls, letters, and ultimately our votes, to enact legislation to help us as a nation to get off of our irrational, compulsive addiction to fossil fuels. Thank you, Mr. Kelley, for your proposal which should help stimulate more forward thinking.

    Sincerely, Charlene Little

  5. Rudy Field says:

    Thank you for your well articulated opinion piece. I hope the deniers and industry propagandists got something valuable from your piece.

  6. Helen N. Hanna says:

    Thank you for this excellent article, the best I have seen yet seen on this topic. A carbon tax could certainly be designed to be eminently fair to all members of the public. It is high time for our members of Congress to take up this matter and recognize their responsibility to future generations and civilizations.

You might also like...

Our view: Plains All American Pipeline must change corporate culture

Read More →