Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Three Questions for Charles Komanoff on Carbon Taxes
Charles Komanoff of the Carbon Tax Center does his very best to plead the case for a carbon tax against environmentalists at Environmental Defense who favor the superior cap-and-trade approach. I'm not going to repeat myself here on the subject of why the cap-and-trade system is superior. But I would like to try to move the debate on a bit, by asking a few questions of Komanoff.
Question One, about this:
To make [the] transition requires a pricing mechanism that’s simple, transparent, and equitable. A straightforward, ecumenical carbon tax meets that standard; devilishly complex cap-and-trade does not.
Can you please explain how a carbon tax would be simple, transparent, or equitable, compared to a cap-and-trade system? The main complexities of both, it seems to me, center on the question of accurately measuring carbon emissions. Why is that less of an issue with the tax? You say that a carbon tax "would resist gaming" and would be "much less vulnerable to evasion". Can you explain why that might be?
Question Two: You say that under a carbon tax, revenues "could be dedicated to public purposes," while under a cap-and-trade system, "dollars flow to market participants". But isn't that the whole point? Under a cap-and-trade system, market participants who radically reduce their carbon emissions get generously rewarded for their inventiveness. Under a carbon tax, revenues will get hidden in the public fisc, where they can be much less of an incentive to emissions reductions. Surely the market knows better than the government how best to spend money to reduce emissions -- wasn't that proved by the market in sulfur trading?
Question Three: You say that a carbon tax would provide certainty about energy prices. Energy prices aren't certain now, with no tax; why should they be certain when there is a tax? And why would energy prices be more volatile under a cap-and-trade system? I understand that the market in emissions rights might be volatile, but once an emitter has bought a certain number of rights, his prices are just as certain as if he was paying a tax, no?
Update: Charles Komanoff answers.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





