A revenue neutral carbon tax helps face climate change, inequality, structural unemployment (UBI) and promotes growth

Sir, Ed Crooks reports that “Eleven leading international companies… have joined a campaign backing a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the US, as a way of tackling the threat of climate change that “embodies the conservative principles of free markets and limited government”. “GM and Total among 11 multinationals to support US carbon tax campaign” June 21. 

And yesterday, George P. Shultz and Lawrence Summers also signed up completely on the idea. “The inevitable climate solution” Washington Post, June 20.

Indeed, as I have written to you many times before, a carbon tax which revenues are equally redistributed to all, “carbon dividends”, is the way of how to align the market signal that helps face the current environmental challenges, with the current concerns about inequality and lack of sustainable economic growth.

It also constitutes a fiscally sound way to begin funding the universal basic income the society so urgently needs in order to face growing structural unemployment, before social cohesion breaks down, as then it might be too late.

It follows the same principles as what I proposed in May 2016, in order to combat pollution in Mexico City, and that you surprisingly yet very kindly published.

So Sir, forget the Paris Climate Agreement lamentations, at least for a while. The Climate Leadership's Council proposed carbon dividends proposal carries a lot more green, social and economic punch.

Please, even if this could make Trump to become a greater green hero than Al Gore, swallow it, for the best of our young. If Washington Post seems to be able to do so, you could too. 

PS. A decade ago I protested the trading of carbon credits as being just indulgences issued in order to keep on committing environmental sins. But carbon-tax-dividends, is that not something like democratic climate change indulgences, applied to and shared by all?

@PerKurowski

Martin Wolf, if we are to save our pied-a-terre, that will not happen by pitting clean Obama against dirty Trump

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Trump’s bad judgment on Paris” June 7. 

Wolf writes: “Above all, the earth is not just an arena. It is our shared home. It does not belong to one nation, even such a powerful one. Looking after the planet is the moral responsibility of all”. Precisely! I agree 100%!

But when Wolf suggests, “the remaining participants in the accord must… commission an analysis of how to deal with free riders. Everything must be considered, even sanctions.”, then I disagree, 100%.

That has clearly little to do with how to help our planet and all to do with furthering the ongoing polarization in the world, all to do with fighting it out in an “arena”.

Really, what does “free riders”, in a “non-binding” agreement, in which “no coercion was involved” mean? So if US had remained in the “framework” (because a framework is all the Paris Climate Agreement is), and not done anything, would that have been better?

I was like most against Trump (the US) pulling out of the accord, but, after it happened, I take it as the best thing that could have happened. At least now we will no longer be lulled into feeling more secure about our planet by something that might just be a dangerous illusion of a solution. Something that might just have been a huge political photo-op; and a congenial gathering of green subsidies distributors and customers. Now at least we all know better how little punch that Paris Accord really carried.

So, let’s take it from here. Let us inform the Americans that a revenue neutral carbon tax, like the one recently proposed by some republicans, might carry ten times as much environmental saving punch than the Paris Accord. Let’s inform Trump that if he helps to support a successful implementation of such plan he could become even a greater hero to the Greens than Al Gore… that he would have been touched by Abraham Lincolns’ “the better angels”.

Sir, I sincerely believe that the price signals of a carbon tax; with all its revenues distributed among citizens, instead of being redistributed by some few, is the best way to live up to our moral responsibility towards what I often lovingly refer to as our pied-a-terre. If Donald Trump helps that to come thru, I at least am more than willing to forgive most of his very much salon inappropriate behaviors.

PS. And really, what is a Paris Climate Agreement that was signed by a president but not put up for ratification by the US Congress? In 1920, it was the US Senate that said no to the League of Nations with a 49 to 35 vote.

@PerKurowski

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com

If climate change believers do not abandon their holier than thou attitude, climate skeptics will always win.

Martin Wolf writes about China that “Its leaders feel rightly, that there is no moral reason to accept a ceiling on the emissions allowed for each Chinese individual far lower that the level Americans insist upon for themselves”, “Climate skeptics have already won” May 22.

And of course, if the climate change challenge, instead of being placed in terms of a shared human responsibility, where even the poorest of the poor, as a human, has the right to feel the same responsibility as the rich, and this is instead phrased as an issue of quotas and fairness, which only divides, the climate skeptics will win… almost by walk-over.

Also, at least in the US, it is clear that the climate change challenge has been politically captured. It is almost as “if you are not a progressive-democrat, you have no right to be concerned with climate change” or “if you are concerned with the environment you have no right to be a conservative-republican”. Before climate change is freed from that sequestration, there is no chance of a united front, and again the climate skeptics win.

Wolf mentions eight possibilities to curb emissions and buy some time and I fully agree with all of them, most especially with the “go nuclear” one, our only bridge between now and when something better for the environment is found. That said I would like to make the following comments:

First, with respect carbon taxes it is important to be consistent and transparent. That little dirty trick used by some European countries of taxing gas-petrol to assist the environment, while at the same time giving out subsidies to coal, cannot be allowed.

Second, in finding the best way of financing for creating and saving energy I have often mentioned that if we can use credit ratings to determine the capital requirements for banks, something which for no purpose at all distorts , why do we not distort somewhat with a purpose and do the same based on sustainability ratings?

But, first and foremost, in terms of advancing on climate change issues, we really need to get rid of all those holier than thou attitudes, which instead of making us plant a tree, so often makes us feel like going out and chopping one down.

The differences between winning a presidency and a Nobel Price

Sir after reading Michael Bloomberg’s “America must resist protectionism” December 12 I am torn between being happy that he is not running as a candidate and is therefore free to spell out the truths and sad because he is not running. Seems you can’t have the cake and eat it too running for president… though you can win a Nobel Prize for being environmental conscientious without even daring to spell out that gasoline/petrol taxes are needed in the US.

The environment needs a freed Gore

Sir in “Drafting Gore” October 15, you are absolutely right about that politics still pull a lot of weight for the Gore camp probably especially so for his closest aids. Many of us cannot wait for Al Gore to make clean break with the politics that tie his hands and so that he will at least be able to utter the word petrol-tax. It is a bit strange to say the least to see a country like Norway, and that even though an oil country applies immense taxes on the domestic consumption of petrol, because of his efforts for a better environment, awards the Nobel prize to a man that does not even mumble about the need of taxing more the consumption of petrol in the USA.

If Gore is really right then Lomberg is really right

Sir Clive Crook when reviewing Bjorn Lomberg’s recent book “Cool It”, “An inconvenient Danish pasting” October 15, underlines the differences between the Gore camp and the much smaller group of Lomberg followers. This is somewhat unfortunate because the more the truth in Al Gore sermons the more the need for a truly sceptical attitude that considers carefully every opportunity costs, not only to help us to attack the problem wisely but more importantly to keep at distance all those peddlers of green magic potions that could sure tempt us into monumental waste. If on the other hand Gore is not right and climate change induced calamities are not waiting for us around the corner well then a little waste does not matter that much since it would just constitute another drop in that brimming bucket of wasteful spending and throwaway investing

Al Gore’s crusade against global warning is not yet warm enough!

Sir, Al Gore’s crusade for a better environment has now an official web site http://www.climatecrisis.net/. The site includes a long list of recommendations on how citizens could help, where we find all the standards like driving less and recycling more but also requests to shift up gears and go for planting a tree and refraining from eating meat, since cows are one of the greatest methane emitters.

Unfortunately in the list we cannot find a “write to your Congressmen and ask for a tax on gas (petrol)", which by cutting that demand that consumes one of every seven barrels of oil in the world just on American roads and highways, would be the best and most concrete evidence of really wanting to help out the environment… and also the American economy at large.

As a result we have to conclude that Gore’s crusade has not yet warmed up enough.

Al Gore