Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Mankiw's Case for a Carbon Tax:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_16-2007_09_22.shtml#1190253598


   On Sunday, economist Gregory Mankiw wrote [1]a piece in the New York
   Times making the case for a "carbon tax." Among other things, Mankiw
   discusses how a carbon tax could be adopted without imposing
   regressive tax burdens.

     [The] natural aversion to carbon taxes can be overcome if the
     revenue from the tax is used to reduce other taxes. By itself, a
     carbon tax would raise the tax burden on anyone who drives a car or
     uses electricity produced with fossil fuels, which means just about
     everybody. Some might fear this would be particularly hard on the
     poor and middle class.

     But Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of economics at Tufts, has shown
     how revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce payroll taxes
     in a way that would leave the distribution of total tax burden
     approximately unchanged. He proposes a tax of $15 per metric ton of
     carbon dioxide, together with a rebate of the federal payroll tax
     on the first $3,660 of earnings for each worker.

   Mankiw also explains why a carbon tax is preferable to various energy
   conservation regulations, such as automobile fuel economy standards.

     Enhancing fuel efficiency by itself is not the best way to reduce
     energy consumption. Fuel use depends not only on the efficiency of
     the car fleet but also on the daily decisions that people make �
     how far from work they choose to live and how often they carpool or
     use public transportation.

     A carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel
     in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more efficient
     cars encourages more driving. Increased driving not only produces
     more carbon, but also exacerbates other problems, like accidents
     and road congestion.

   Mankiw also explains why a carbon tax would be preferable to an
   equivalent cap-and-trade regime. In addition to the points Mankiw
   raises, I [2]have argued that a cap-and-trade scheme is likely to
   result in greater corporate rent-seeking.

References

   1. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html?ex=1347595200&en=c01f67013fa7eb6e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
   2. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1177606109.shtml

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to