Betraying the Planet

[Jon Miller]

If companies in the US are taxed a lot to be green, but the companies in China are not, and there is free trade, doesn't this make an unfair advantage for China?

And while yes, China does feel the effects of pollution more heavily than the US, much of pollution (specifically water and global warming) is felt by the whole world and not just a subset of it.

Therefore, the proper response is to tax chinese goods to make up for their failure to impose green costs on their own manufacturers.

JM

[Patroklos]

I said this: "Carbon-related industries and their employees have a material stake in any kind of taxation of carbon

Thats right, you said EMPLOYEES. Those carbon related industries would be the ones whose employees make up sizable (majority?) portions of the populations of the Democrat's center of power; the North East and lake states. As KH alluded two, people who also belong to entities like unions.

The price hike thing will effect everyone, but disproporionatly the national demographics more alligned with the Democrats.

Or in other words, the patrons (voters) of the Democrats are going to be feeling quite a bit of the pain from this, and it may not turn out well for them.

[KrazyHorse]

doesn't this make an unfair advantage for China

Jon, before you start this could you please bother to read about comparative advantage, how it contrasts with competitive advantage, and why competitive advantage is a useless goal to pursue?

[Jon Miller]

I am not talking about competitive advantage.

I am talking about costs. Polluting our environment has costs. We force our corporations to pay these costs (and they obviously extend the costs on to the consumers). We don't force corporations outside of the US to pay these costs.

This means that the corporations outside of the US might be not properly taxed as far as the costs of pollution goes.

BTW, as far as this goes tax = fine as far as accounting for costs go. As a fine should cause a change of behavior (and in increase of costs, like a tax).

JM

[Ramo]

Thats right, you said EMPLOYEES. Those carbon related industries would be the ones whose employees make up sizable (majority?) portions of the populations of the Democrat's center of power; the North East and lake states. As KH alluded two, people who also belong to entities like unions.

The price hike thing will effect everyone, but disproporionatly the national demographics more alligned with the Democrats.

Or in other words, the patrons (voters) of the Democrats are going to be feeling quite a bit of the pain from this, and it may not turn out well for them.

I specifically didn't enumerate everyone who would be affected. I specified the largest stakeholders in the status quo situation wrt carbon, i.e. coal and natural gas. Their patrons tend to be conservative politicians. And instead of doing a 100% auction, these stakeholders are going to get their take.

As for "quite a bit of pain," the CBO estimates the average tax increase to be pretty small. And there will be some redistribution (as well as allocation of permits) to lessen the burden on the poor. I'd like to replace FICA with cap and trade revenue, but that won't happen without a 100% auction.

[Patroklos]

I specifically didn't enumerate everyone who would be affected. I specified the largest stakeholders in the status quo situation wrt carbon, i.e. coal and natural gas.

You did no such thing, you stated "Carbon-related industries" which is pretty much any industry, especially according to the the proponents of this proposal.

And you very clearly said "emplyees." How many millions of Americans are directly employeed by the various oil/naural gas/coal industries? How many in the service industries specifically tailored to them?

Their patrons tend to be conservative politicians. And instead of doing a 100% auction, these stakeholders are going to get their take.

Why are you restricting the term patron to simply executives?

As for "quite a bit of pain," the CBO estimates the average tax increase to be pretty small.

2-3 thousand is small?!?!?.

And there will be some redistribution (as well as allocation of permits) to lessen the burden on the poor.

Please feel free to tell us how that will work (or why it is even a good idea given the goal of the legeslation). Remeber, the point is to make things more expensive.

[KrazyHorse]

I am talking about costs. Polluting our environment has costs. We force our corporations to pay these costs (and they obviously extend the costs on to the consumers). We don't force corporations outside of the US to pay these costs.

This means that the corporations outside of the US might be not properly taxed as far as the costs of pollution goes.

Now, this is obviously true, and is the reason that a global pollution problem like CO2 requires (if you're going to do something about it) a multilateral solution.

[Ramo]

You did no such thing

I obviously did (implicitly). What exactly do you think that KH and I were discussing? Which industries do you think the permits are going to? You took what I said completely out of context.

How many millions of Americans are directly employeed by the various oil/naural gas/coal industries?

Much less than the economy in general.

Why are you restricting the term patron to simply executives?

What? Where did I say that? I referred to funding, which executives have a disproportionate impact on, but I never even used the word "executives" in this thread (expect for that instance).

2-3 thousand is small?!?!?.

That's an order of magnitude too large. This is what the CBO actually says:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

Please feel free to tell us how that will work (or why it is even a good idea given the goal of the legeslation). Remeber, the point is to make things more expensive.

No, the point is to incentivize certain behaviors. A flat rebate to poor households does not negate that.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't understand how you weren't talking about competitive advantage when you said "unfair advantage" but I'll let you off the hook this time.

[Jon Miller]

Having US corporations pay the environment tax and outside corporations not isn't very fair is it?

We should set up a tax or tariff based on what the country fails to tax their own companies with and tell them that it will be removed if they start to tax their companies properly.

By tax I still am meaning fines/taxes/regulation.

JM

[Patroklos]

No, the point is to incentivize certain behaviors.

And they accomplish this how....?

HINT: Making things more expensive. Obama actually said exactly this Ramo. The problem is there is no way to contain those price hikes to just the specific things the bills proponents want gone. If they do find a way of mitigating the price hikes on the poor (which they won't), it defeats the purpose of the bill in the first place

[HalfLotus]

"...a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine etc., would fit the bill."

Emphasis added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

[Zevico]

I'd like to list my thoughts as a lay person on this issue here, simply for people to point out if/where I've misunderstood the issue.

1. The 'greenhouse gas effect' is a given. It works on a micro level (in a greenhouse), and it should work on a global level by analogy.

2. The real issue with regards to climate change is whether we can measure with an acceptable degree of certainty the extent to which the effect changes global weather conditions. Note that global weather conditions have *always* changed over time, and we simply don't know the process by which this happens in the long term. The cliche example of this is Greenland and Iceland: Greenland is now icy (whereas once it was green); Iceland is now green (whereas once it was icy). The difficulty lies in gauging whether the climate change is a result of natural forces or a buildup in carbon.

3. Most scientists think that we can measure the human impact of climate change with an acceptable degree of certainty. They think it will take its toll in a matter of decades (or a century, more or less).

4. Even if there is difficulty in measuring the precise effect of climate change, the fact is that eventually the build up of carbon will affect global temperatures (the greenhouse gas effect is a given). This may take years, decades, centuries or more time, time.

Anyways. Feel free to point out where my premises are faulty or if I have misunderstood this issue.

[KrazyHorse]

Patty, I have no idea what you're blathering about here. A carbon cap of some scale is equivalent to a carbon tax at some rate (assuming the cap is actually constraining, the equivalent tax rate is higher than 0). This raises the cost of all goods and services which have carbon emissions as input or end product. A lump-sum offset to households does nothing to change the incentives inherent in a carbon tax, and most certainly IS a way of mitigating the effect of the carbon tax on the poor. Will there be poor families worse off even with the lump sum offset? Of course. A poor family that does more driving than the average poor family, for example, will be worse off. And hopefully their behaviour will change because of that.

Could you please provide some sort of reasoning for your claim that

The price hike thing will effect everyone, but disproporionatly the national demographics more alligned with the Democrats.

which does not demonstrate spectacular lack of sense?

[Patroklos]

There are two things now being discussed.

1.) Whose patrons are going to be effected more by this. Given the demographics of the people affected, the Dems suffer a double punch because the industries specifically targeted employ a huge swath of their supporters and also encompass large organizational allies, and also because the general price increases will disproportionately affect their entire voter base.

2.) What the actual point of the legislation is. It is supposed to make the carbon intensive options more expensive, forcing a change in behavior. If you mitigate that greater expense, you are also diluting the behavior changing purpose of the legislation. That dilution may just reduce the incentive to change to that of the rest of the (higher income) population, but it will still reduce the incentive program wide.