No Democrat is going to win the 2020 presidential
nomination without a position on the Green New Deal. At least six of the declared Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed the GND to one degree or another. Some of their endorsements have been notably lacking in specifics.
For example, Sen. Kamala Harris, endorsing the GND in her first-of-the-season town hall on CNN,
stuck to safe generalities. Climate change is an “existential threat,” she said.
“Children need to breathe clean air and drink clean water,” “we have to invest
in solar and wind,” she went on.
We would expect such sentiments from a
Democratic candidate, but as Brett Hartl, government affairs director for
the Center for Biological Diversity, recently told the Washington Examiner, “Just saying you support
the goals of the Green New Deal is better than nothing, but it really does
matter what those details are.”
One detail that definitely matters is the role for a carbon tax
in the GND package. The draft version of the GND resolution currently being circulated in Congress is clearly still a work in progress. Section 4(B) of the draft speaks of "ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions" through "existing laws" and "new policies and programs." That certainly could means a carbon tax.
However, some GND supporters see a carbon tax as too timid. They have just read the latest U.N. report and
the new National Climate Assessment. They see the clock ticking
on global catastrophe. A carbon tax may be a nudge in the right direction, they
say, but it is still just a nudge. They want to make big changes, and make them
fast. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemed to take this view in an FAQ posted at the time of the GND launch, and then quickly deleted. (An apparently authentic version of the FAQ can be read here.) "Were're not ruling a carbon tax out," she said, "but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal."
My answer is that a carbon tax can be a lot more than a tweak or a nudge. It can be
as powerful a tool as Green New Dealers are willing to make it. In fact, it
should be the centerpiece of a GND package. Here are some ideas how the
too-timid kind of carbon tax you may have been thinking about could be made
much bolder. If you think a carbon tax is not enough, raise it The most obvious action for those who think that a carbon tax is
not enough is to raise the rate. Many proposals envision a carbon tax of $40 or
so per ton of CO2, based on estimates of the social cost of carbon conducted
during the previous administration. As a rule of thumb, each $1 of tax per ton
of CO2 would raise gasoline prices by about one cent per gallon. That means a
$40 tax would add 40 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, with similarly
modest effects on other nonrenewable energy prices. Considering that the
effective price of gasoline is currently at a historic low,
such an increase very well might not have the kind of impact the Green New Deal
is calling for.
Backers of doing more and doing it faster can point to estimates
that place the social cost of carbon much higher than $40 a ton. For example, a study by Katharine Ricke and
colleagues published last year in Nature Climate Changetook note of estimates ranging
from $10 to $1,000 per ton. Using a variety of socio-economic scenarios,
economic damage functions, discount rates, and climate models, their median
estimate for the global social cost of carbon was $417 per ton. A carbon tax of
$400 per ton would put U.S. gasoline prices roughly on a par with those in
European countries like the Netherlands, Germany, or the U.K., where people
already choose more efficient cars and use public transportation a lot more
than Americans do.
In short, a carbon
tax is a flexible policy instrument that can be set at levels reflecting the
goals of those who want to take relatively gradual or more aggressive action
against climate change. Furthermore, raising the level of a carbon tax is not
the only way it can be made more effective. Here are more ideas. Broaden the tax
Many proposals limit
carbon taxes primarily to fossil fuels. The tax would be levied at the point of
extraction and passed along to the consumer through higher prices at the gas
pump or the electric meter. Although fossil fuels account for about three-quarters
of all human greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from nonfuel industrial
sources like cement plants are just as bad, and should also be taxed. So should
carbon emitted when goods are produced abroad for consumption in the United
States. A border tax could take care of those.
And don’t forget methane, an even
nastier greenhouse gas than CO2. About a third of methane emissions come from
production and distribution of fossil fuels, especially natural gas but also
coal and oil. Those should be taxed at a price reflecting their CO2 equivalent.
In the event that some emission sources, for example, leakages from natural gas
pipelines, remain under direct regulation, the social cost of carbon used by
the EPA in setting regulatory standards should be harmonized with the level of
Even more methane –
more than 35 percent of the total – comes from agriculture. Of that, livestock
accounts for as much as 80 percent, through enteric fermentation, manure left
on pastures, and land cultivated for livestock feed. A really bold version of a
carbon tax, then, would extend to agriculture, especially the livestock sector. A two-way carbon tax to reward carbon removal
Removing carbon from the air and sequestering it or recycling it
as fuel could potentially have a huge impact on climate change. It can be done,
but with current methods it is costly. Until recently, estimates were
running as high as $600 per ton of CO2. However, there are new methods on
the horizon that could bring the cost of direct air capture down substantially.
Those technologies could get an immediate boost from a carbon tax that worked
both ways – you pay the government if you emit, the government pays you if you
Even if the carbon
tax itself were initially below the cost of carbon sequestration, you could
jump-start removal by offering a premium rate for removal for a limited period.
For example, if the carbon tax is initially targeted at $400 a ton, but the
cost of removal is $600, offer a 2-for-1 bonus for carbon removal, phased out
over a 10-year period. The removal process would be profitable immediately, and
as the technology matured, costs would drop enough to keep it going without the
bonus. Speed response with buyouts
An aggressive carbon
tax would make it uneconomical to construct new fossil-fuel power plants while
encouraging purchase of more efficient airliners and automobiles. However, both
industrial managers and consumers would ignore the sunk costs of previously
purchased equipment when deciding whether to continue operating what they
already have. Based on fuel costs alone, obsolete vehicles and factories might
remain in service for years.
To handle that problem, part of the revenue from a carbon tax
could go into a buy-back program to accelerate the retirement of old,
emission-intensive equipment. California’s Cash for Clunkers program,
which pays up to $4,500 for vehicles that have failed the state’s stringent
emissions tests, provides a model that could be applied to everything from
obsolete refrigerators to giant coal-fired power plants. The case for tech-neutral solutions
It is easy to
underestimate the difficulty of picking winners from among the wide spectrum of
new green technologies that are being pursued. When there is no way to know
what will work, it makes more sense to offer modest but equal incentives for
all alternatives through a tech-neutral mechanism like a carbon tax than to
guess which competing fix might work best.
A broad, tech-neutral incentive would also help defuse the
danger of opening the choice of winners to influence by special interests. At
the same time, it would reduce the risk that that dead ends would never be
abandoned, even when they are shown to have failed. The Renewable Fuel
Standard, which mandates the use of corn-based ethanol as
a motor fuel, is a classic case in point. Environmentalists fell out of love
with ethanol long ago, but agribusiness has not.
In contrast, putting
a price on carbon emissions is the ultimate in tech neutrality. A price signal would
provide unbiased, neutral pressure across the full spectrum of potential
methods for cutting emissions. It could be dialed up or down depending on your
assessment of the urgency of the climate threat. It could be implemented
narrowly to cover fossil fuels only or broadly to encompass industrial sources,
farming, carbon removal, and anything else you want to include.
So, Green New
Dealers, what’s not to love about a carbon tax? This is a revised version of a commentary previously posted at NiskanenCenter.org