Dear Friends,
For those who might speak tonight during public comment in favor of the passage
of a resolution to support a federal carbon tax, I've prepared the following
talking points. Meeting's at 7PM on Monday Dec. 17th (meeting on the 2nd Fl
because someone else has Council Chambers.)
The debate between a federal carbon tax and emissions trading may seem
remote from daily life in Ithaca, but the outcome will affect residents for
decades. NYC is also remote from Washington, however Mayor Michael Bloomberg
has declared his support for a federal carbon tax.
It?s said that a federal carbon tax is politically impossible, but if the
substantial advantages of a tax over trading in emissions of carbon dioxide
both for the economy and the environment were more widely known, a tax would
become a political possibility.
For example, usage of the tax proceeds to fund income tax rebates would
motivate reductions in usage of fossil fuels while stimulating the economy and
making it more efficient.
Although emissions trading is being pushed as an alternative to a tax, the cost
of trading spreads throughout the economy like a tax. However, due to its
complexity, trading costs society substantially more than an actual tax.
In addition, the volatility of trading makes returns on investments more
uncertain. This volatility will likely prove a deterrent to investments in
energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
Offsets associated with trading create disconcerting challenges for fair
quantification and for reliable verification, with many offsets also actually
building-in warming. Offsets undermine the U.S. economy due to potentially high
volume purchases of inexpensive offsets from abroad, worsening the balance of
trade and sending jobs abroad.
The European experiment in cap-trade has been called a failure. Effective
action requires reducing emissions at the source, not trading off the pressure
to reduce emissions.
A federal carbon tax is projected by many economists to be more effective than
unwieldy emissions trading at achieving reductions in fossil fuel usage, and at
motivating investments in the U.S. in energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources that would create jobs in the U.S. and stimulate the economy.
A tax achieves annual goals for reduction of emissions by applying judiciously
adjusted price-demand modeling. Using this well-developed modeling, the fixed
tax rate for each year gets determined by the goal for each year?s reduction in
usage of fossil fuels.
The major part of the proceeds of a tax could fund an income tax rebate. The
rest of the tax proceeds could fund projects such as energy conservation and
the production of energy from renewable sources.
The competitive position of the U.S. could be maintained by imposing a border
tax tariff on products imported from countries without a carbon tax. A carbon
tax could be implemented more readily in a worldwide protocol.
A new tax is said to be politically impossible, but that?s only until both
labor and business learn of the above reasons for each to support a tax over
emissions trading. These advantages mean a federal carbon tax could soon become
a political possibility.
With local entities? support for enactment of a federal carbon tax fueling
further discussion and sending signals of support to Washington, a federal
carbon tax could soon become the general preference over cap-trade.
- From Sylvester Johnson, Ph.D. Applied Physics, of the Climate Change Action
Group of Central New York. The above summary is from his article at
http://climatehealth.net/ArticleCarbonTax.html.
Happy Holiday!
Best regards,
Sylvester
Sylvester Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Non-profit website: www.climatehealth.net
P.O. Box 146
Brooktondale NY USA 14817-0146
_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
