The
idea of making it expensive to produce greenhouse gas emissions is
hardly new, and has been widely embraced by economists despite the
immense political difficulties involved in imposing such taxes. Most
economists and policymakers have designed carbon tax policies that
start relatively low and ramp up quickly over time. Proponents say it
would minimise economic hardship for consumers and companies for
their past choices while changing future decisions such as purchases
of polluting equipment or automobiles.
An
International Monetary Fund (IMF) study found
that a global tax of $75 (£59) per ton by the year 2030 could limit
the planet's warming to 2C, or roughly double what it is now. That
would greatly increase the price of fossil fuel-based energy -
especially from the burning of coal - but the economic disruption
could be offset by routeing the money raised straight back to
citizens.
“If
you compare the average level of the carbon tax today, which is $2
(£1.60) [a ton], to where we need to be, it's a quantum leap,”
said Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the fiscal affairs department at
the IMF. To
keep warming to just 1.5C, the carbon tax would have to be even
higher, though he said he is not sure how high because the group did
not do that analysis.
In
the United States, a $75 tax would cut emissions by nearly 30% but
would cause on average a 53% increase in electricity costs and a 20%
rise for petrol at projected 2030 prices, the analysis in the IMF's
Fiscal Monitor found. But it would also generate revenue equivalent
to 1% of GDP, an enormous amount of money that could be redistributed
and, if spread equally, would end up being a fiscally progressive
policy, rather than one disproportionately targeting the poor.
A
$75 a ton tax would also hit countries differently depending on
burning or exporting coal, which produces the most carbon emissions
per unit of energy generated when it is burned. In developing
nations such as China, India and South Africa, a $75 carbon tax
reduces emissions even more - by as much as 45% - and generates
proportionately more revenue, as high as 3.5% of GDP in South
Africa's case, the IMF found.
It
shows that in the G20 largest economies, the tax would raise energy
costs by an average of 43% for electricity and 14% for petrol in the
countries considered.
“Carbon
pricing is the single most powerful tool we have for reducing CO2
emissions from burning fossil fuels, and our current set of policies
leaves us nowhere close to meeting our climate goals,” said Marc
Hafstead, a climate policy expert with Resources for the Future.
Several
experts said that the IMF stance was important even as they noted
that the carbon price may need to be a lot higher, rendering an
already gigantic lift even more difficult.
Kenneth
Gillingham, an economics professor at Yale University who worked on
environmental issues during a stint as part of the Obama
administration's Council on Economic Advisers, said, a $75 per ton
carbon tax may actually be too low to hold climate change to 2
degrees, noting that he had expected the figure to be closer to $100
(£79) per ton, given the world's high emissions path.
Gernot
Wagner, who studies climate policy at New York University, agreed. He
co-wrote a paper published Monday arguing that a carbon price should
start high and gradually be reduced to take into account future
damage costs from global warming.
“If
one takes climate risk and uncertainty seriously, the numbers rise
much higher still,” Wagner said
Nobel
Prize winning Yale economist William Nordhaus has argued that a
carbon tax of $300 (£237) per ton or even higher might be required.
“Their
estimate is, in my view, if anything on the low side of what is
needed” but on the high side compared with policies already being
implemented in some countries, Nordhaus said
“The
climate crisis is so dire, and public/popular determination to attack
it is suddenly so strong and unquenchable, that even $75 per ton by
2030 seems far too moderate a target,” wrote Charles Komanoff,
director of the Carbon Tax Centre.
Policies
that impose financial burdens that fall hardest on a particular
segment of society could trigger unintended blow back. France's tax
hike on gasoline and diesel, for example, helped spur the “yellow vest” protests this year.
And do people actually believe that the increased revenue will ever be passed on to ordinary working families?
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-fossil-fuels-carbon-environment-tax-imf-a9151996.html
No comments:
Post a Comment