Given that the taxes were already high, and kicked in as the result of something before his administration took over, it's not as simple as we might think.
We in the US are highly resistant to pricing fossil fuels based on their cost to ourselves and to earth; instead we subsidize them. Now *that* is dumber than a brick.
"We seem to have an aversion to national self-criticism in general. We began as a nation of rabble-rousers, bent on change. But now, patriotism is often severely defined as acccepting our country to be a perfect finished product." (Barbara Kingsolver, about "The Lacuna")
5
Like Vincent Picard, the Frenchman who was quoted in the article, we are all for taking measures to reduce carbon emissions until it hits us in the wallet. Then not so much. Then it's make the rich pay to save the climate but don't interfere with my life and my energy consumption. The fact is that if climate change can be truly addressed, it will take a toll on everyone. The sad reality of life is that some people will be more affected by others, particularly when looking at specific actions like a gasoline tax. If we manage to successfully and quickly reduce green house gas emissions so that the world remains livable despite a world population of 7 billion, the required measures will cause an economic catastrophe. If we don't adopt those measures. If we continue to point fingers at other sectors if society while defending our own comfort and make everything contingent on "protecting the most vulnerable", we won't protect the environment and we will face a massive human die back. Either way, our way of life has only a few decades left to it,
1
@PWR
"The cost of a gallon of gas in France is about $6 or more — with taxes accounting for about 60 percent of that — compared with about $3 on average in the United States, where high fuel taxes have been a nonstarter."
"But the French government’s tax increase, written into law before President Emmanuel Macron was elected, proved a tipping point for hard-pressed families already laboring under some of Europe’s highest overall tax burdens."
2
Nothing written here excuses direct action, which is the enemy of democracy and a neat cover for vandalism and looting. All those protestors have a vote but year after year the French riot, taking over toll booths and hijacking ports, more recently ramming legitimate UK scallop boats. They have a penchant for action over talk. Ask any Briton how fed up we are with their loud, anarchic ways. However it goes to show how hard it will be to tax our way out of climate armageddon even with more level-headed nations.
Rather than punitive taxes which many readers are saying they pay anyway, we need huge incentives to go hydrogen or electric. Like 50% discounts. As many have pointed out, electric vehicles only benefit mankind when a nation’s mix has a high proportion of renewables like New Zealand. There has to be the will first coupled with the assumption that leaders have the foresight to act. Once Trump reads his entrance to Trump Tower might be underwater in 80 years time with a metre rise in sea levels, he might be persuaded to act. Those levels are irreversible of course, unless pending a new ice age, for which nobody really has time to wait.
2
It's too late to do anything about climate change. Even if we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams of orchestrating the world to stop deforestation, change over to sustainable energies, shut down coal plants, build all the infrastructure needed to support green energy, have people drive the speed limit, have people turn off lights when they leave the room - it would take decades for the climate to show the fruits of our efforts. We should start thinking about how to adapt to a warmer planet.
15
@HC45701
How warm do you want it to get?
3
@HC45701
It does not matter how late it is in terms of efforts to limit the damage, these will have to continue unabated and even increase in intensity for as long as the issue remains and especially if it worsens as it is expected to. This is because the issue has no limit on damages up to and including an existential threat to our and many other species on this planet. Mitigation and adaptation will likely be implemented either way, it'll just be called something else in the case of the elements that deny anthropogenic climate change.
The most dangerous aspect in all this is actually geoengineering. Elements that deny climate change do so because they don't want their industry to pay to clean up the mess that they have profited from but they are well aware of the issue and could push for a "quick fix" in the face of overwhelming pressure that might manifest in the coming decades. That, especially when implemented in a hurry and sporadically, would likely have devastating consequences in terms of polluting and other side effects and also in terms of geopolitical consequences as some geoengineering efforts could adversely affect other regions if they are applied by individual nations without appropriate global planning and analysis.
This is likely something we will have to worry about in 20-40 years time. That is, those of you that will still be around then.
2
@HC45701
It’s not just the warming, it’s the melting of the Greenland ice sheets and sea level rise of over a metre. Meltwater interferes with the Atlantic conveyor and gulf stream, which alters precipitation patterns etc
4
Solving the problem of global warming is not going to be easy. Slamming the poor and middle class with more taxes, shutting down entire industries and throwing a whole bunch of people out of work and above all globetrotting elites lecturing people on their big cars and penchant for pickups from their 50 room mansions is not going to win more converts to the cause.
Even more to the point, for every American or European who eschews automobiles for the subway there are thousands of people in China, India and elsewhere are yearning for their first car, air conditioning and a diet rich in meat.
We need to not only create the infrastructure, the environment, if you will, for change, we also need to make the new technology affordable, convenient and above all fun.
How about programs on HGTV showcasing modestly sized passive solar homes--and remakes of older less efficient houses? You could call it "Getting to Net Zero". How about an electric vehicle version of NASCAR? Cooking shows which feature more sustainable cuisine.
Lay off the lectures, just make conservation cool and its opposite, McMansions, gas guzzlers and burgers simply old, dated and thoroughly uncool and people will follow.
34
"If nothing else, the maelstrom in France showed that the political challenge of how to create incentives for people to move away from fossil fuels requires much more than raising a tax on gas at the pump or subsidizing solar panels."
It's not the people's responsibility. It is the government and society's responsibility to develop a new system based on clean energy. Once that system is in place the people will follow.
5
The protests over an increase in a gas tax hide a much deeper and longer lasting problem in France: the 35-hour work week. When this was introduced it was meant to encourage businesses to hire more people. In fact, it encouraged the growth of a gray market on which labor was exchanged for cash without taxation. Thus, a person that worked full-time for 35 hours at a profession or trade could also hire his/her services out to customers willing to pay in cash. This became popular throughout the country and robbed the state treasury of valuable revenue. Now, it is increasingly difficult to convince people to work a 40-hour week and pay taxes on the extra income. So, the state has to find other ways to increase revenue and one of the likeliest is to increase the fuels tax. Yet, as we have seen, this is very unpopular among people who are more dependent upon motor transportation than public transportation. Macron apparently did not figure this into his technocratic calculations. Why should he? He doesn’t need to drive anywhere. He is chauffeured everywhere.
5
I am not entirely agree with you. I am French and I am a nurse in the North of France.
France is world champion of taxes. It is not only fuel but everything. The living cost increased but the pay remained the same. For example, in January 2019, we would have an increase on the price of fuel and electricity but we will also have the new system of taxes. Moreover, everyone saw that public service degrades with time.
In addition, the violence in Paris is not the consequence of yellow vest but the result of rioters who set in the movement. These persons were not there to defend their rights.
For the moment, it is not a failure because the government abandon taxes in 2019.
We must not forget the past. French revolution in 1789 and Student crisis in May 1968 proved it.
Let’s just hope that the situation will change.
6
A revenue neutral tax would have been a smarter place to start from. Of course that's a lot more work for those imposing it as they have to decide how that revenue gets redistributed. With France's high unemployment continuing unabated it would have been interesting to see them set up training and jobs programs in the rural areas to catch the low hanging fruit in energy conservation. I know these programs already exist but they are not being pushed out to the furthest communities because of the inherent difficulties in managing such a farflung and thinly spread organization that involves many small but complex decisions at the local level. These initiatives take time because they only work when the organizing comes from the grass roots. I doubt it can be successfully be implemented from above. I'm sure the will is there it just has to be ignited and fostered.
2
I do not entirely agree with you. I am French and I am a nurse in the North of France. France is world champion of taxes. It is not only fuel but everything. The living cost increased but the pay remained the same. For example, in January 2019, we would have an increase on the price of fuel and electricity but we will also have the new system of taxes. Moreover, everyone saw that public service degrades with time. In addition, the violence in Paris is not the consequence of yellow vest but the result of rioters who set in the movement. These persons were not there to defend their rights. For the moment, it is not a failure because the government abandon taxes in 2019. We must not forget the past. French revolution in 1789 and Student crisis in May 1968 proved it. Let’s just hope that the situation will change.
3
A gas tax is not the way to price carbon. That would only punish the people. If we want this to work we need to make sure those in power are affected. Put a carbon tax on corporations and the wealthy. If a person own more than one house, it's excessive. Tax that. If a household has more than a reasonable amount of gas/diesel burning vehicles, given the size of the household, tax that. Give corporations incentives to switch to cleaner fuels, and fine them for burning too much. Things we can do without a carbon tax include subsidizing clean vehicles, support reforestation, close and seal outdated mines and restore the land around them, remove useless dams, replace current nuclear power plants with safer, more efficient nuclear power plants, subsidize solar/wind farms. There is so much that can be done to slow/mitigate carbon exhaust. Taxing the people is to achieve that goal is an insult.
2
@Stephen Place a percent tax. That would insure the wealthy pay in proportion to their ability to do so. Since they have the wealth because of society and it's structure and the issue at hand threatens to undo these structures that provide the wealth and power affluent people enjoy, they should pay in proportion the these benefits just as everyone else is expected to do.
Now, one could offer more affluent people the option to invest in technologies that have a chance of fixing the problem in the amount of the tax instead of just billing them that percentage. That way, they can use their knowledge of making money to choose the most likely direction to succeed. The technologies can be chosen based on the most elementary requirement of lowering greenhouse gasses. This can be reported annually to prove the effectiveness of their investments.
2
The carbon tax idea is too tough on the consumer.
A better alternative would be to develop a source of non-fossil energy and then let the consumer market make its own selection.
For example, very cheap electricity, about 2 cents per kwhr, has been described by Franklin Medalist Dr. James Powell in his book"Spaceship Earth", in which a Maglev Space Launch System that can put payload into geosynchronous orbit for less than 1% of a chemical rocket launch. The payload envisioned by Powell and NASA scientist John Mankins is a photovoltaic solar cell structure that collects solar energy 24/7 and then converts to low-energy microwave to beam energy to fields of antennae for distribution on the grid.
With cheap electricity, all transport except jet aircraft could be converted to electric power and operate much more cheaply than internal combustion engines. Cheap electricity can power all agriculture, home, and industrial functions. Desalinated water can be cheaply distilled, and the low cost of electricity can be used to scrub the atmosphere of excessive greenhouse gases. For those that must fly, and fly fast, the cheap electricity can be used to make jet fuel from air and water.
Development of Maglev Launch should be internationally funded to prevent it from being used militarily. So, I am writing this to inform the Climate Change and the international community that there are solutions and an orderly market-based approach to addressing global warming. www.magneticglide.com
1
Maybe working 35 hours a week is part of the income inequality problem. Maybe try working 50-60-70 hours a week and see how your life improves.
with respect to all the doom sayers about fighting climate change because it won't work and nobody will stand for the taxes and any other objection you can raise. the real fact about the whole issue is that here in the USA we have not united around (a) recognizing the problem and then (b) backing a crash national program. I recall John Kennedy making it a national goal to reach the Moon. I have read the history of the WW 2 war effort and the country united and my Dad told me it was the best time of his life because everyone was working for the same goal- the defeat of nazis and the axis- and we can do the the same thing with climate change- it will take national leadership ( Trump has to go either by impeachment or defeat in 2020) ; a charismatic leader as President; and a Congress and Senate that has enough reasonable folks to outnumber the naysayers and the can't doers, and the handmaidens and trained seals of the fossil fuel industries and vote for a 20 year plan with major upfront investments in jobs, technology,emission reduction, and greening of all sorts. We know how to do this stuff- i can design a parking lot that is temperature neutral and produces more energy than it consumes. - same for a building or a neighborhood. It is time for as Lincoln said "a new birth of freedom."
1
Climate change is a hoax. Let’s do more off shore drilling and build nuclear power plants and get the cost for energy as low as possible.
1
Hmmm....how to cushion the blow to the most vulnerable?
Maybe a more equitable distribution of wealth?
Economies have grown exponentially while incomes have shrunken for the average person.
Austerity, in an age of massive profit for the few, is even less sustainable then fossil fuel.
2
Actually, the French are way ahead of Europe and the rest of the world in reducing the carbon footprint of power generation. They do this by heavy reliance on nuclear power, which does not generate any carbon. We would do well to emulate their example. Other "non-polluting" technologies, e.g., wind power and sunlight generation, lack the 24/7 capabilities of nuclear power plants.
2
The science of climate change is an inconvenient truth for every ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational nation state.
We humans want prosperity without sacrifice. We want to go to Heaven without the inconvenience of dying and living a humble humane empathetic moral life.
If we humans are in the midst of the 6th major mass extinction, the question is whether or not African primate apes are as evolutionary fit as were birds and bony fish in the wake of the 5th mass extinction 65 million years ago.
The science of climate change has no socioeconomic, political, ethnic sectarian, national origin, education, color aka race, gender historical bias or preference.
1
This is no lesson for climate change; the lesson is that the oligarchs who run and plan our so-called laissez-faire economies leave no stone unturned when it comes to further diminishing the standard of living of the working classes. These assaults are made even more outrageous when they occur at a time when it is widely acknowledged that the standard of living of working classes across the industrialized world has stagnated for nearly thirty years. The shot across the bow that the French tax proposal represents sends the message that if world wide climate is to be protected, it is the working classes that will pay for those protections, and, thus obviously it will be their fault if nothing is done. Only the most sanctimonious hypocrites can take any satisfaction in such an argument which would only have merit if other decisions affecting climate change were also within the purview of workers such as automobile mileage requirements, planning for mass transportation and regulations for industry.
2
So what are these "vulnerable" people doing to help? I don't see where they're keeping their tires up to pressure, their engines tuned, where they're driving calmly and carpooling whenever possible (and even when it's inconvenient).
Fine, you tell me you don't want to help with global warming by suffering more expensive gasoline. How DO you want to help, then?
1
@Jim
Have you ever been to France? It has an excellent, affordable, integrated public transportation system. People walk, and bike and other wise carpool or take a train or bus.
City's are designed for walking and the culture supports it. People who live in cities often don't have cars at all.
1
I am old enough to see some merit to climate change. The winters here seem much milder than they were 30 years ago. When I went to engineering school, the guy who taught computer modeling told us it was a shaky concept. Mostly because if you change the initial inputs within the margins of error you can get very different results esp with cyclic modeling.
But what really gets me is the lack of any positive solutions. Most of the ocean is devoid of life why can't we grow plankton to suck up the CO2 and feed the fish? We now have CRISPR tech why aren't folks talking about using plants to suck up CO2. More CO2 and a warmer world should make trees and plants grow faster which would suck up CO2 making wood or food and money. What would happen if we crossed say a Long-leaf Pine with a Sequoia tree or maybe Kudzu with Live Oak?
Yes, there could be a downside but we are never going stop burning fossil fuel until it is way past too late.
2
I read that the new tax would have had consumers paying just over $7.00/gallon. The situation presents an extreme hardship to lower-income folks, esp. those in rural areas without other transportation options. It would be hard for citizens of any country to manage paying for such a highly-taxed necessity and the anger is understandable. Nonetheless, as someone who has been lucky to have lived in Paris, I found the images of extreme violence shocking, and it's just all very sad.
1
Please ... this is as complicated as you want it to be. The province of British Columbia, Canada, has had a carbon tax for years. It was intended and implemented to be revenue neutral for the average taxpayer. Lower income people get actually get more back than they pay, higher income earners end up paying a little more. Let's just get on with it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283757444_British_Columbia's_revenue-neutral_carbon_tax_A_review_of_the_latest_grand_experiment_in_environmental_policy
5
The last line in the sub-headline blurb for the article on page one ". . . The question is how to cushion the blow on the most vulnerable." is the wrong question. To recast the debate over how governments should mitigate the impact of necessary economic adjustments in a more enlightened direction for the overall good, the question should be phrased this way: How to sharpen the focus of the blow on the least vulnerable? Clearly, the most vulnerable know who the best position to cushion the blow are. Note the choice of targets last week: Arc de Triomphe (handy symbol of state power) and the Champs Elysees (titans of economic power).
6
Two looming existential threats to all people is the rising global inequity of wealth and climate change. I suspect they are connected. Messes like this are the result.
2
@mary bardmess
The theme connecting rising global inequity of wealth and climate change is the demands (on the system) are greater than the supply (i.e. resources w/ in the system) AND given "selfish" human nature (i.e. basic mismanagement) it should be no wonder we are where we are,...
FWIW the theme "illustrated" using various editorial cartoons
www.tinyurl.com/DifferentDay
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political or business leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Climate change is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. 99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth's crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.
The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost more than $100 trillion -- $15,000 per human being. A colossal mistake. About humanity's cumulative savings over recorded history. And will not affect climate at all. A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas.
Coal & gas dominate electric energy generation because they are cheap and reliable. Without the CO2-driven global-warming boogeyman, wind and solar power will be relegated to the niches they deserve. Using renewable energy is like paying first-class airfare to fly standby.
2
Couple a gas tax with strict limits on flying. Let the wealthy get some skin in the game.
7
How about a Save the Planet app that quantifies and compensates users for practicing environmental restraint? No panacea, but could be useful. The user could opt in to sharing that data with the IRS and be compensated for it in the form of tax credits? One could also choose to share that data with companies looking to find a market for alternative products and lifestyle choices? Bicycle commuting, foregoing plastic bags, foregoing meat, all of this is data can be tracked and quantified. In fact, it already is.
It would be a whole new branch of tax law and preparation-sifting through one’s fiscal year’s worth of data for credit eligible restraint.
Corporations would be able to offset their taxes by buying our restraint credits, along the lines of the carbon credit model, but applicable to the 99%.
It could be endorsed and funded by environmental foundations, state and federal governments, even the UN to include people from less developed countries.
It could be used by nations to meet their goals from the Paris Climate Agreement.
@MsB Your comments and many others like it need to be repeated again and again. I've mentioned the point you make many times. The French just don't realize how very good they have it. The fact is that regardless of what faults Macron may have, the reforms are essential if France wants to finally move beyond its never ending level of nearly 10% unemployment. In the meantime, every time that something any French government of the right, left or center does that a large enough sector of the population doesn't like, folks are out blocking the roads and burning cars. It's not just this time, it's nearly every time. One can imagine how helpful that is to the economy! But Macron, if he survives all this, had better realize that these needed reforms will have to be cushioned with help for those really in need. Meanwhile, we see plenty of folks protesting who are walking around with fancy smartphones and driving some pretty nice vehicles. Let's face it, a fair amount of people will always want more without the willingness to pay for it. The French have free medical care, 6 weeks vacation and retire earlier than just anybody else in Europe, but many don't seem to realize that they have to pay for it. Macron or any French leader wanting to make France work is really caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
5
@Judith Testa
While unemployment in France may be as high as 10% this does not account for all of the work done on the "gray market" for cash payment or exchanges in kind. With a 35-hour work week many people have incentive and time to work on the side without paying taxes in a cash-for-labor market that is pervasive in France. I have asked French people during my visits about this and they acknowledge that the gray market of labor flourishes.
2
The fundamental problem with fighting climate change is that it's inextricably linked to an even bigger problem (from a political/economic viewpoint, not scientific), and that is that tax evasion by the super-rich, who are definitely NOT paying their fair share--just ask the Gilet Jaunes in France how they feel about that--is also a global problem. Just like the Paris climate accord, we also need a global accord on taxation policy to close the loopholes that allow the richest on the planet to squirrel their money away in tax havens around the world. That's really the only economically viable way to solve both problems; income inequality and climate change.
5
Macron's effort to inhibit gas consumption by raising taxes is an empty, useless gesture that will have no effect on the climate. Suggesting that nothing man can do- or stop doing- will make the world cooler is, of course, forbidden. As in any debate with the many, many people who have religious fervor over "climate change", the name calling is the first response. So we see all the plans for more useless gestures that will impact on the workers of the world much more than those promoting this nonsense, all of which won't move the needle on a thermometer the slightest. But you can't tell that to the "believers". Their minds closed a long time ago.
5
There should be a three year warning about increased carbon taxes, so that people affected by them the most have time to avoid purchasing large, less fuel efficient vehicles.
1
The American Revolution was a precursor for the French Revolution. Now the situation may be the reverse: our problems are not that different. Where can I buy a yellow vest?
3
The French have a long history of complaining. Their farmers exceed the complaints of US farmers, which is saying something. It is their obsession with language which constrains their thinking and leads them to obsessive behaviour. Anything ‘Gilet Jaune’ Is organised through ‘troupes colores’ or ‘angry troupes’, which Minister Christophe Casataner properly describes as a ‘monster’.
Back in your barns you unproductive basics.
"What France’s experience has made clear, analysts say, is that fuel taxes work best as part of a more comprehensive plan that tries to offset the disproportionate pain felt by lower-income workers who can least afford the changes."
That statement is made in the article without citation or example. Where has a "more comprehensive plan" worked? What sort of plan is going to help a rural commuter who needs to drive from a small village to work? You can't run rail lines to every village.
If you push people to shift from gasoline powered cars to electric, where is the electricity going to be generated? France is planning on phasing out nuclear (a stupid move in my opinion). Are they going to replace the electrical generation by coal?
3
In praise of the yellow vests:
\\Of course the gilet-jaunes revolt isn’t just about fuel tax. It expresses a broader sense of public anger with the new political class and their cult of bureaucracy, their preference for technocracy over democracy, their gaping, astonishing distance from the concerns and beliefs of ordinary people. In essence, the people’s revolt against Macronism speaks to a profound crisis of legitimacy among the 21st-century political class and a willingness within the public to kick up a fuss about things they might previously have been silent about. But it is not an accident that climate-change policies were, in the French case, the spark that lit the populist flame. Because environmentalism has always been a central feature of the new elitism, a means through which a self-styled virtuous political class could demonstrate its eco-awareness by shaming and punishing those who drive cars to work, or work in polluting industries, or fail to recycle their rubbish. . . //
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/in-praise-of-the-gilets-jaunes/
6
This isn't rocket science. Send checks for all of the taxes collected via the carbon tax back to the taxpayers.
Environmental advocates for a generation have pushed programs that discriminate against ordinary folk. Your electric and gas bill support “efficiency” and distributed renewables (solar) the middle class cannot access, with the rebates we all pay. A few dollars tossed to low income as does not cure this unfairness. There are fairer program designs, (like PAYS) but they have been pushed aside. Dollars spent becomes the benchmark. Actual success often takes a back seat (it IS hard to establish the impacts of rebates, but dollars spent is not a very good proxy). Actually, more GENUINE attention to equity could create a new and true “win-win-win” effort.
Nancy Brockway
Former state utility regulator
2
Carbon tax should be on vehicles based on their mileage and pollution rather than on diesel gas itself. This will trigger the demand for higher mileage vehicles and hence change supply. Subsidize public transit with this carbon tax.
41
@SV a tax on the gas itself has the same effect, since consumers will opt for more fuel efficient cars to limit their trips to the tank, and hence their exposure to the tax.
2
@Colin not really. gas and diesel are inelastic goods and a necessity for many. Price changes impact everyone poor or rich and the impact is more on poor. The type of car you buy is a choice. Rich can afford to pay more for cars with low mileage even if they cost more.
It should be clear that global warming can only be stopped, or rather, be slowed, if problems like the enormous difference in income or in welfare are solved too. This is what is going on in France, this is what happened in the US with the Trump drama. If only the rich and especially the very rich are forced to give in, things could get better... I am not hopeful
47
@Loudspeaker
I humbly disagree - If we have to make "solve the problem of inequality" a prerequisite to solving climate change, we are truly in trouble. We have to find a solution that works with current social structures in place, whether they be good or bad.
4
You are right. That's why I am not hopeful.
3
We have a carbon levy in Alberta, Canada.
It’s unpopular.
I haven’t changed my fuel consumption at all. I cannnot afford a different vehicle and the distance to work and everywhere else I drive remains the same.
Any fuel tax increase means I spend less on other things.
I don’t know anyone who has changed their fuel habits.
It’s just a consumption tax that impedes growth in the economy.
59
@Georgia M The problem starts when government sees any carbon tax as just another revenue source. It is not. Those revenues should be entirely used to, for example, create, improve and provide incentives to use less polluting transit and production methods. For example, your country, Canada, has plenty of untapped potential to generate large amounts of additional carbon-neutral electricity, in addition to the already existing capacity, which is mostly hydro. Instead of just taking your money and keeping it, a direct subsidy or income tax break might persuade and reward you to switch to an electric car, or convert to CNG, which is lower emission than gasoline. The problem with the current carbon taxes is that they impact mostly regular people, and are often used to make up budget shortfalls that originate from giving generous tax breaks to the top 1% earners.
5
@Georgia M
When the cost gets high enough, you'll have to adapt. Question for you, my western cousin: how often do you carpool to work? How often do you plan your weekly outings (shopping/groceries/etc) so that you make one trip with your SUV? (I'm assuming you have a pick up or a SUV - the last two times I was in Calgary, seems like 80% of the vehicles were thus.
Like another person wrote, govt's will have to use the money wisely - some countries are improving transit systems and reducing cost to users.
One thing is certain - humanity's existence depends on our changing our ways.
5
@Mike Bonnell Well, if you keep taxing him he'll never have enough for a better vehicle.
1
The issue is class equity. You can't just add a carbon tax to the existing tax structure, which is far less progressive than it used to be. A carbon tax is regressive in that poor people have to spend a far greater percentage of their income on basic energy consumption needs.
Eliminate income taxes for poor to middle income people and replace those funds with a carbon tax (to provide incentive to lower tax bill by conserving while raising income by working more with perverse incentives) and greatly hike income, capital gains and luxury taxes on the rich to pay for climate remediation efforts (since the rich won't conserve and the rich are to blame for climate change - they created the demand - not the coal miners that worked for lousy pay in treacherous conditions to provide the supply).
Tax the rich. Its simple. Don't try to spread the pain fairly so that the rich can convince the poor and middle class that big bad gov't is coming for their money too. Just tax the rich. Its fair. Its right. Its the only way (and if it slows GDP that's great because GDP = emissions; we need lower GDP and more equitable distribution and lower population).
80
@John Not only tax the rich more and cut taxes on the poor -- but also tax corporations more, end fossil fuel subsidies, and use the extra revenue to pay for things the poor and middle class need: free education with well-paid teachers, free healthcare, free childcare.
29
@John
This problem goes away if you give a dividend based on headcount in a household, not income status. Poor might use a greater portion of their income for energy, but in absolute terms less than the rich guy. If everyone got equal dividend checks, studies have shown the poor generally come out slightly ahead. Check out the household income study at citizensclimatelobby.org
11
@Edward Beshore Much like in France that really depends on if you are poor in an urban environment or poor in a rural environment. Poor in an urban environment rarely own vehicles but poor people in rural areas or cities that don’t have good public transportation typically do. Typically these vehicles are older and have poor fuel efficiency.
4
Hello,
I'm french and I live in a small village, 32 km from my work. So I've been carpooling and eco-driving for years. Not only for savings but also to reduce pollution. It seems I don't represent the majority.
The problem in France is that people want less taxes but not less help from the state for unemployment, illness.
retirement...
If we listen to the demands : less taxes, higher wages, earlier withdrawal (we can still retire from age 60, or even less for some employees), etc... the cost of sick leave is increasing... etc...
You have to know that an employee in the private sector costs almost twice the net salary received.
There is no obvious and easy solution.
90
@Vincent - actually, there is an OBVIOUS solution, but you're right, it's not EASY.
"If we listen to the demands...."
1
@Vincent - we have similar things here. People complain about our infrastructure falling apart, but the tax that pays for keeping up the federal highway system is still at the same rate since 1997, and revenue per mile traveled is down because of increases in vehicle efficiency (even though here, much of that efficiency has been negated by the supersizing of vehicles.)
17
@Vincent
Death and Taxes is all we poor humans have too look forward to. Unfortunately our selfish demands, greed, requesting a free ride with out contributing back to our society. Good well functioning infra-structure, Clean Air, Clean water, Energy, come at a price - paid in fees and taxes! If we don’t pay to save the planet, we can expect it to die... the rate we are polluting it means this will happen sooner rather than later. CO2 levels at 408 ppm and rising faster than ever!
9
The problem with taxing carbon emissions is the same as with most other taxes: It's easier to take the money from many ordinary people than from the top one percent - those can afford lawyers, lobbyists and overseas accounts to avoid paying their fair share. That also applies to CO2 emissions: if actual fossil energy use would be taxed, the kerosene that fuels many a private jet would cost a lot more than it does now.
Most of the people in France who are angry about the increase in fuel tax are not doubting the reality of climate change, nor the need to do something about it. They are, however, fed up with being singled out to do most of the economizing/paying. France has seen the same trend as the US: more and more of the tax burden is placed on those who cannot evade paying them, whereas the rich and really rich are left untouched. And that makes people angry, because it's not fair.
137
@Pete in Downtown discussion on earlier comments might be of interest to you. The bill supported by CItizens Climate Lobby is a carbon tax that limits administrative cost to 2% and has a simple formula to return the rest to taxpayers on a per capita basis. Simple formula that should be able to gain bipartisan support. HR 7173.
6
@Pete in Downtown so pete, who are the rich and really rich? I am just wondering.. to me that is those who like Mitt Romney pay 14-16% in taxes when making millions. But many a millionaire businessman pay 39% (well now 35 or 36%) on their top earnings. so I hear this phrase rich and wonder what is a fair share for those people. I believe that those making 1 mil and less actually promote the economy, spend more than they save and actually help the economy.. but the hidden employment of investment income where the high earners pay little in investment taxes is an interesting problem, because that money is taxed multiple times before it gets to the earners. Is not an IVA tax or consumption tax a better way to go?
@matt It is the .01% who should be heavily taxed to pay for renewable energy.
5
Query the dogma of using taxes to influence behavior -- this might be appropriate in some cases, but it shouldn't be assumed that it's the only possible approach. In this case it puts a burden directly on those who can least afford it, and is very indirect in its approach to the real problem.
2
Revenue- neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend with a Border Adjustment tax. Revenue returned to households in a monthly dividend check. Please check out HB 7173 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.
This new bipartisan bill deserves a careful analysis by The NY Times. It is an elegant market-based policy. It is conservative in its approach. It’s foundational concepts are supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
Why not? Does anyone have a coherent argument why it wouldn’t work? I haven’t heard it yet.
3
I don’t understand why the old tax idea is always the first to be implemented.
Can we have a think tank that will create a new idea instead of taxes taxes taxes?
Yes we need to control carbon & air pollution & all forms of pollution.
But why is it a tax idea?
The big geniuses should develop better ideas.
Taxes are ancient & lazy old non-creative ideas.
Let’s put on our thinking caps.
Thanks
1
Is there an article anywhere that breaks down where the carbon tax goes after it is paid? How does it help in anyway the use or non use of fossil fuils , and why natual gas seems to be an enemy that is really the answer over oil
2
Tax and dividend: Collect taxes on all carbon energy consumption. On a quarterly basis send every household a check in equal amounts of the tax collected for that quarter. Punish carbon pigs, reward those who use public transport and/or use carbon energy frugally.
2
People have brought out the point with a much more scholarly manner than I would...but I’ll just state it simply...what’s clear as day is that what’s left of the middle class, working poor, just plain poor and desperately poor would pay the price of any tax on fossil fuels...plus...it would eat into corporate profits...so, it ain’t gonna happen.
Congress lives in utter fear of not being re-elected...nobody has the average citizen’s back.
1
Carbon taxes are nothing more than an excuse for western governments to sponge more money out of the advanced economoes to fix a problem that has not been properly analyzed nor understood. Through it governments will achieve the right to control the extraction, distribution and cost of fossil fuels while reaping ever more PROFITS from it. Climatology is in its infancy. No one knows what climate will be like in fifty years, nor do they have a clue what technologies will be invented to help deal with the problems that may, or may not arise because of it. Late in the 19th century, the "experts" were certain that the greatest problem faced by advanced societies in the 20th century would be the accumulation of horse manure in the streets. Prophets of Doom are seldom correct in their predictions.
Governments already collect trillions in energy taxes. When is enough enough?
5
Please support the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, HR 7173.
This policy is expected to cut emissions 40% by 2030, and does not interfere with auto emissions standards, pollution regulations or any other regulation that doesn’t directly address climate change.
We need to cut emissions by 50% in 12 years to have any shot at limiting warming to 1.5C.
This carbon fee, together with state actions, remaining regulations and judicial judgments could actually get us to 50% by 2030.
We could actually preserve a livable planet.
Imagine.
And then, please, support this bill.
Here’s the skinny on HR 7173:
$15/ton, increasing $10/ton annually (adjusted up or down to ensure emissions targets are met). 100% refunded to taxpayers. No liability waivers for fossil fuel companies. Very limited regulatory roll back (only regulations directly on CO2 that are identified as addressing climate change, ie, the Clean Power Plan, are impacted. Full regulatory power on auto emissions, on methane leaks, on other pollutants, and so on, remain in full force.). Border adjustment.
This bill is bipartisan. But no one should think it is therefore weak. This is the real deal. It will cut emissions 90% by 2050. How can we be sure? It is fully adjustable to ensure 90% by 2050.
This is the bill that can preserve a livable world for our children.
1
It’s not just the carbon tax or taking care about the months’ end vs the end of the world.
It is rather an issue of Macron’s tax policy favoring the rich rather than the poor. With the removal of ISF (global wealth tax) and the introduction of IFI (real estate tax), Macron was hoping that the rich in Fance would invest into France’s economy and we have yet to see this happening.
Meanwhile next year the wealthiest French will be 6% richer while the middle class will see its wealth actually decrease (ofce).
The middle class and poor people of France are just fed up of fiscal injustice and how it’s always the same people that are winning.
5
Carbon taxes are essential to any market-based solution.
How much tax, on exactly what, and who pays?
Some people are easier political targets for those who impose taxes. They get the taxes, whether it is the most efficient way to do it or not.
Increasing $6/gallon gas to substantially more may be easy to sell to big bankers and corporate lobbyists, but it is not the right way to do this.
Carbon tax doesn't need to be directly on the carbon. It can be on the things that consume the carbon. It can be on the profits from producing or using carbon.
Gas-guzzling cars can be more expensive to buy -- we did that, it worked, and then we allowed politics to reclassify the worst of gas-guzzlers right out of the tax, hence SUV's became "light trucks" that don't count.
The lesson here is not that carbon can't be priced. It is that politics can't get away with bungling that to push the burden on those least able to carry it, least able to solve the problem. Again, as always, the little guy is the easy victim, but only because he can't avoid it, and so can't even solve the problem.
Seems to me that the solution here is simple: FIRST, figure out ways for people to live their lives without burning carbon. That means, using Vincent Picard as an example, giving him options for public transit to get to work every day. Car pools, electric buses, something? For other people, who can work from home, strongly encourage employers to let that happen. How much gasoline could we save if everyone only had to drive to work twice a week instead of five days? THEN, and only then, after these mitigations are in place, THEN you start raising the taxes to encourage people to take advantage of them. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
5
Could be it that instead of taxing fuel we should taxing the efficiency of the vehicle driven?
Just a thought.
People who are forced to live outside, or on the fringes of, major metropolitan areas due to cost, as apparently are these French protesters, need to use their cars more than people living in areas superbly served by mass transit.
Perhaps we need to instead tax gas guzzling vehicles out of practical existence?
1
Carbon taxes are successful when the money generated is used to offset other taxes citizens have to pay, or are simply refunded to citizenry. It thus has the desired effect on use of carbon containing fuels, and also provides an economic stimulus. This is not rocket science, folks, despite the balderdash of other commentators, such as McGrath below.
5
There's a perfectly clear template for a politically viable carbon tax: make it directly revenue neutral by paying all the money back to the public as a carbon tax dividend. That would provide a net gain for those whose actions produce less CO2, with an initially modest net cost for typical citizens in the early transition stages. And don't just focus on gasoline!
1
Shoving a "never-ending" and "always increasing" Carbon Tax on the French Middle- Class is Like President Obama shoving Obamacare down the throats of American businesses and homeowners right in the middle of a recession.
This is not a fuel tax it is a Carbon Tax AKA Paris Climate agreement and the French people aren't having it. The French unemployment rate is 9.3% and Macron approval is at 18%. Go yellow jackets!
7
@P McGrath Obamacare works for millions of people. Why can't you keep your remarks to the topic at hand?
1
We will all have to make significant sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. People who own houses close to shore will find the value of their property declining and insurance costs rising. Drought will drive people to migrate within countries and across continents. Higher costs for gasoline will pressure people to shift their living arrangements to move closer to the workplace, or close to public transportation. These people will suffer but it will be better for society in the long run. Too much of the infrastructure, such as highways and suburbs, in the US and elsewhere was designed during the 20th century when it was assumed that gasoline would always be plentiful, and individuals driving private autos would always be the norm. This should all be rethought and the zoning of living/working arrangements redesigned. Change will be hard, but it better than the alternative, which would eventually mean overshoot and collapse. I'm not very optimistic about all of this.
If taxes must go up, governments would be wise to create progressive forms of taxation whenever possible, or rebates for lower income people.
6
OECD statistics just published confirm that France is the most highly taxed nation on Earth. The French have had it with their ‘betters’ telling them they have to pay more and more and more to ‘save the world’. Trust the message is not lost on Democratic politicians in the U.S.
5
Taxes consume close to 46% of France's GDP, compared to 27% in the US. Is there need of further evidence for rise of the gilets jaunes?
10
@jackinnj I think you do not realize the problem. It doesn't come from the fact that our GDP is based on taxes. The real problem is that taxes are hitting more and more the poorest and less the richest which kind of makes no sense.
3
@jackinnj Please tell us, in addition, what is the French National Debt? Seems like the 27% tax in the US represents a pattern of deficit financing of tax cuts. If we were to stop borrowing and paid the taxes to balance what would the US tax rate be then?
1
Perhaps the carbon tax was a tipping point for people fed up with higher taxes. These taxes are just an excuse for broke governments to fleece their citizens.
Call them ‘deposit’ like 5c cans that are supposed to be returned to the store (you are doing that right?!) or the smoking tax that does anything but make people quit.
Global warming, “weather” real or not is another great excuse to fleece the population and use the proceeds for other ends.
4
The flaws and mispricings of our capitalist economic system is the cause of the environmental degredation. None of the fixes need to be considered taxes. Instead they are economic adjustments to correct the erosion of community property, like the natural world.
Yes fuel should be more expensive to account for it's environmental cost. But people so poor they can't afford more cost will require some assistance.
Taxes elsewhere can be reduced and assistance programs for the poor can be increased.
It's really relatively easy to fix the pricing irregularities in our system. We just don't have the will. And of course, one of our political party believes unfettered and unregulated markets are a god ordained right. They are not.
6
The issue here has nothing to do with climate. If you’re instituting a tax for climate reasons it should be revenue neutral. Macron used climate as an excuse for a tax increase to cut the budget deficit. That’s a bit of immoral trickery.
15
Before we get into high dudgeon about the gilets jaunes protesting the increase in the fuel tax, it's worth reading carefully the paragraph about comparative taxes: France already taxes gas and diesel at over $3/gallon. The Federal gas tax in the US is $0.18. Individual states have much different rates, but the average nationwide, for Federal and state combined, is about $0.45. All my fellow US residents out there, are you ready to pay another $2.50 per gallon for your gas? Accordingly to the Union for Concerned Scientists, in 2015, the average American produced 15.53 metric tons of CO2; the average French person produced 4.37 metric tons. If the US had had the same level as France (or even Germany) of the past 50 years, global temperature rise would be much, much lower than it has been. By all means let us find ways to cut such emissions everywhere (and yes, I bike to work), but let us also be mindful that our low gas tax policies, not the high tax policies of EU states, have contributed mightily to the problem. High fuel taxes, whether in France or the US, adversely affect those living in rural areas, far from public transportation and dealing with greater distances. That's where this revolt began in France. An Enarche like Macron knows nothing and cares little about that France. Read the recent NYT article about the deeper problem of economic precarity. When people are already up to their chin in the economic pond, all it takes is a slight wave for them to drown.
11
Yes, I would be willing to pay more for gasoline. It would not be a one shot 200% increase, but a gradual and steady increase over a decade. People would have plenty of time to prepare for the change and Americans may fall back into love with small cars. Rural areas need to seek solutions to their lack of public transportation on a local basis.
1
The application of a carbon tax to reduce fossil fuel usage and cushioning the blow of those taxes are mutually exclusive concepts. The left just can never come to terms with that reality.
1
The rich pay more, the poor, less. Problem solved.
@Amber And exactly how does that work? If you provide offsets to compensate the poor for the carbon tax, you have effectively nullified the penalty to suppress their fossil fuel usage. As for the rich, any amount of taxation that you apply will only be a minor annoyance and they will continue to fly their private jets and heat their huge estates. It would be far more sensible to abandon outright carbon taxation and just tax the rich to subsidy deployment of green technologies.
2
It’s not a left/right issue dude. The policy response may be seen in left/right terms, but if climate change is happening due to CO2 emissions, a case for which there is enough evidence to take action (if nothing else as a form of risk management), then repricing CO2 to include the risk weighted costs to society is an economically efficient approach to internalize these costs. If anything, it’s a relatively fiscally conservative approach vs. top down regulation (though not as fiscally conservative as a market-based cap and trade scheme).
And there is no mutual exclusion between higher carbon taxes offset by lower taxes elsewhere- you’re simply taxing the “bad” (to reduce the “bad”, in this case CO2) and lowering taxes on something that is “good”, such as income (to increase the “good”). So if the pastry chef has to pay $15 more per month because of a carbon tax, simply cut his payroll taxes by $15 to offset it. That’s hardly a “leftist” policy at all - in fact is quite a bit more fiscally responsible that what we’ve seen from Paul Ryan & co (and FWIW, I’m a fiscal conservative who also recognizes that market actors externalize some costs onto the rest of society).
1
Ireland had a similar debacle recently with the introduction of water-charges for the first time. Why do these initiatives generate such opposion?
It is because most people view taxes as: "The government takes MY money."
If it is truly driven by the need to conserve water or to reduce climate damage, these initiatives must be transparently cost-neutral, and ideally the people must get more back.
How might that work?
1. The government estimates a reasonable current usage (I know it's not easy, but we have AI and algorithms and I'm sure facebook or google could do it if public tax authorities insist on working with 19th century methods).
2. The government gives you the extra money the tax should cost you, e.g. in some form of vouchers.
3. you have the option to use those vouchers to pay for gas (or water) just like before.
4. But hey, look, the government is also provides lots of new alternative transport options, which you can also buy with your vouchers, but which cost less than driving.
The carbon tax is the right idea, but it showed a lack of true commitment to invest in climate-change protection.
4
People might accept these taxes if the money was invested in public transportation that is affordable and effecient. At least there would be a tangible payoff for those who live in the areas where the car is the only practical solution.
6
I find that the people most interested in carbon taxes are the ones most able to either pay the taxes and/or avoid them via electric cars, living in proximity to their employers or convenient public transit. There's more than a little affluent elitism and not a lot of personal sacrifice involved for them.
Worse, there is often a smugness and hostility towards people who haven't been fortunate enough to get the elite education that enabled the lucrative corporate career that bought the home in exclusive urban enclave close to the train station.
The other larger problem for carbon taxes is nobody quite believes this tax revenue will go towards either the environment or relieving the burdens of people impacted by them. Like social security, these taxes will get used as a way to reduce taxes elsewhere, most likely for corporations and the rich. It won't build the needed mass transit or do much of anything for the environment per se.
At the end of the day, what's being preached is "energy austerity" by people who don't feel the impact. It's no different than the economic austerity preached by those who also wouldn't feel the impact.
15
Mr Vincent Picard calls himself a "militant ecologis", yet he has to drive work everyday? Really? Couldn't he ride his bicycle instead? Had the authors checked on google maps they'd have found out that Woincourt is 13 minutes away from the nearest train station, not 35 mn...
5
Carpooling anyone?
6
"The cost of a gallon of gas in France is about $6 or more — with taxes accounting for about 60 percent of that — compared with about $3 on average in the United States, where high fuel taxes have been a nonstarter."
OK Liberals.. pay head to those numbers-- You want "Universal Coverage" for all Americans .. including "undocumented immigrant workers" .. Well that's what we would need to do in order to pay for it..
And the people fortunate enough to drive electric cars-- California is going to start taxing them in the next 5 years to make up for the lost revenue..
Everyone wants liberal Utopia.. but nobody wants to pay for it..
7
@Aaron
"Everybody wants to make it,
Nobody wants to try."
Black Oak Arkansas
Social justice is key to our survival.
3
The answer is obvious and it's a tribute to the intellectual weight and solidarity of most NYT commenters that most of them expressed it:
Fix it, and make someone other than me pay for the fix.
7
@Byron Kelly
The only lesson here about carbon taxes is :
If you're going to call it a carbon tax, it had better be a carbon tax and NOT just a tax hike on powerless people to pay for tax cuts to powerful people.
Just Say No to #GreenWashing
4
I pay enough in taxes, thank you very much.
3
More than enough here in NY. Much too much!
1
It's all about Paris.
In June 2017, Trump announced he was pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement.
This month, the yellow vesters protested in Paris about one of the side effects of said agreement.
With all the money invested and brains brought to bear on the subject, couldn't they have figured out that this was going to happen and provided for it?
1
Lying politicians making demands on citizens to deal with amorphous ''climate change'' theory will always get judged by every-day people who never buy all this mythology about the sky falling.
Had Al Gore snuck into the presidency and started downgrading Americans' freedoms, he would have blazed Macron's smoky trail long ago.
3
This carbon tax is a win win. Fossil fuel companies must pay a tax and then it is rebated to consumers monthly. Yes, fossil fuel companies will increase their prices but consumers will get a rebate and most likely, consumers will be ahead of the game.
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/07/24/bipartisan-carbon-tax-is-good-news-in-a-month-of-political-ugliness/#c778a255dd4f
4
Our word "doom" comes from the Old Norse "domr" which means judgment. Sounds about right. We are doomed because we are being judged. Not by some airy-fairy god in the sky, nor some nitty gritty god of the earth. Rather, we are doomed by the laws of physics. I suggest you do what I do.
1) Live simply so others may simply live.
2) Build alternatives that will be in place when Civilization collapses.
2
It is odd that an investment banker, Macron, who believes in free markets for the wealthy by cutting their taxes to unleash investments in France, resorts to a regressive tax on the average citizen to bailout his budget. But he is not alone in his western neoliberal thinking that has unleashed a vicious populist blowback because these economic principles have been shown to create massive income inequalities.
Fuel in France is subject to two taxes that are sixty percent of the gas price. The first one is the domestic consumption tax on energy products (TICPE), which comprises the carbon tax and a value-added tax (VAT).
What are the taxes used for is what many are asking and there is little transparency in finding the answers. What is known is that the TICPE helps finance the general budget of the state and less than a quarter of the fuel tax revenue is targeted to environmental transition.
People may have modest or low incomes, but they are not of low intelligence. Macron’s biggest character defect is his elitist arrogance that is always on display and that fuels the protests. He has been mute since his out-of-touch, sixty minutes “Changeons Ensemble" speech on 27 November in response to the first protest march in Paris. It is the wisest decision he has made to date.
5
@Donna Willis, MD, MPH
Even if you hate all rich people (and doctors are often considered “rich”) there is a point at which they won’t invest and your economy for all will suffer with too high taxation. France has very high taxes which also leads to high tax evasion. So that may have been Macron’s aim in part.
I for one have grown weary of lazily formulated NY Times articles concerning climate change that begin with the declaration that "scientists and economists agree" on what's good for us. Now we're supposed to sheepishly accept highly regressive taxes on which the vaunted wise apparently--ALL of THEM--agree.
Maybe all the experts should go ahead and charge themselves a dollar a gallon tax every time they fill up and send the money to the IRS, therewith to help offset the cost to taxpayers of tax incentives for wind turbines...
11
@Eugene just in rural areas like Michigan
The rioting is about a lot of pent up frustrations. Need evidence? Police have been recorded removing their helmets en masse in solidarity with the protesters. And the protest had spread to the Netherlands. And the Brits and Germans are watching.
2
Well, the yellow vests haven't done their math.
A gas tax that both helps the air and cushions the country's citizens from cradle to grave is a fair trade-off. In the United States, our relatively low taxes get the average middle-class American absolutely nothing. Certainly not medical care, with insurance premiums that make the French gas tax look like small change.
And with that vicious animal squatting in the White House, our air will just get worse.
(If what Americans want is more gadgets and ever-larger TVs, to watch increasingly vulgar shows, then I suppose we're doing okay.)
5
The solution is actually quite simple; the difficulty lies in making it happen. We need only make certain that all workers are receiving adequate pay such that the increased tax does not take food off their table.
The haves have taken so much from the have-nots there is nothing left to give. The protests against migrants has the same root cause. If workers are being paid adequately they will not fear another worker getting a piece of the pie. But when the pie is already too small to feed everyone the perceived threat of yet another hungry person is more than the already starving can tolerate.
Greed and the resulting wealth inequality is destroying our planet and social constructs that keep us civilized.
7
“But the French government’s tax increase, written into law before President Emmanuel Macron was elected, proved a tipping point for hard-pressed families already laboring under some of Europe’s highest overall tax burdens.”
2
Parsing the whys and wherefores of individuals' motivations, or political fine points in these protests is beside the point. David and Goliath narratives aside, there is little to celebrate here.
This was the tip of the iceberg, with clear threat of worse to come. These protests were relatively orderly, about the inconvenience of paying more, rather than about food scarcity, large scale economic upheaval, or socio/political backlash from mass displacement.
Consider: a few million Syrian refugees in Europe has threatened to erase memory of the World Wars. Imagine the effect many multiples of climate change driven refugees.
Macron may have lost this battle, and made political miscalculations, but he is also to be commended for taking one small step in illuminating the political terrain of implementing the types of painful measures that will be required to address climate change at a national or global scale. He is bold in comparison to other world leaders. He will probably pay the price for it, as will we.
4
Let's not put lipstick on the yellow vest, it is about "I want everything but I don't want to pay anything." Period. This is not about climate change, one way or another.
5
@Bos
The only lesson here is If you're going to call it a carbon tax, it had better be a carbon tax and NOT just a tax hike on powerless people to pay for tax cuts to powerful people.
Just Say No to #GreenWashing
4
In order to reduce carbon emissions we need to offer a solution that does not hurt the financial well-being of those with the least financial resources. A gasoline tax is not one of those. Most carbon emissions come from commercial plants burning coal-not the gas that a French farmer burns in his or her car! The Paris accord was and continues to be s sham. It allows China, India, Poland and other countries to continue to increase carbon emissions while punishing developed countries. Not only is that wrong, it doesn’t work. Look at who is burning coal to get the real culprit!!
6
What if we DID NOT cushion the blow on the LEAST vulnerable? The tax brackets of the 50s look very interesting to me.
6
Nothing significant will ever happen to combat climate change - now.. There isn't the political or public will to make the sacrifices necessary to do it. Everybody wants somebody else to do it first. Everybody's got an argument as to who's most to blame. Big Oil will keep building drilling rigs and pipelines as long as it's profitable. And the public will not allow governments to make any major changes that will effect their First World living standards.
Scientists are already saying it's too late. And yet we dither. Human beings are their own worst enemies.
8
I live in rural France and have been affected by the Gilets Jaunes and their protest - but I sympathize with them. The Macron government is still in "Neo-liberal" mode and catering to the wealthy people who are the ones he knows and hears from. Austerity is clearly not working for France or other EU countries and I fear that continuing neo-liberal policies will only make room for Marine LePen and politicians like her.
6
I just had a quick look at the proposed tax. 30 cents on $7.06 per gallon over the next years? If you are rioting simply because of this relatively minor increase and not because the tax might be used to fuel government coffers instead of tackling the issue at hand, you should reconsider your position.
As I said in my previous comment, assuming you do not have special needs to haul masses of equipment on a daily basis and you can't afford a new EV or hybrid, exchange your ICEV for a used EV or hybrid. There should be plenty of these available at reasonable prices that will do the job of a short or even longer commutes to work or public transport. Not using your brain to look for available solutions within your price range/real world needs and instead fuming at the mouth when faced with the realities of transitioning away from fossil fuels is not acceptable any longer.
3
People aren’t rioting because of 30cents increase on $7 over 3 years - no. People are irate that they get any tax increases while the wealthy have their taxes lowered. Keep up.
4
@Nonni Then it is a case of badly structured as I have mentioned in another forum, not really anything specifically to do with climate change action as seems to be portrayed on many, many outlets. Either way, it's not like it would be any concern to someone who purchases an efficient vehicle. For instance, it's likely that fossil fuels for heating purposes in my area will have their tax increased but I couldn't care less since I switched to electric heating with renewable energy this year for the purposes of removing as much fossil fuels from my consumption as possible. Thus if they did what they should in the first place, anything to do with fossil fuels and taxes should be of almost no concern at all.
In the end - the only solution is to end growth and abundance.
3
Better to tax carbon than our kids, who will pay a very heavy price if we continue to pass the buck. As others have said, carbon taxes can be made fair and just with corresponding cuts to payroll and income taxes, especially on low to moderate incomes. Reward work, penalize planet-killing pollution.
5
Instead of instituting a carbon tax all at once they could have done it in installments over time.
2
How's about taxing ELF and TOTAL, the French fossil fuel giants, a bit more on their profits. And, conduct global negotiations to make CEOs personally and criminally liable for making sure their firms pay all the taxes their firms owe. No more sneaky-pete accounting.
3
I'm sorry Mr. Picard but this is not really an excuse. Exchange your vehicle for a second hand EV or hybrid (if the distance is too great or charging not readily available/practical) range and you'll be able to afford any foreseeable tax raises. I highly doubt that a second hand Prius (some cost less than $10000) is not available or cheap enough when you consider the added finances of selling your existent ICE. Unless you're having to haul masses of equipment and trailers to the train station every day, there is simply no excuse.
Lets not pretend like there aren't any effective or sufficient solutions around for such raises. That's just pure laziness.
1
@David Jones
It's no big deal if you have the money to buy a car. Maybe the government can give low income workers help in paying to upgrade to a hybrid or electric cars
2
@Rod Viquez I agree, there should be a program that provides subsidies for those wishing to switch if the fuel tax has an abnormally large influence on their income. Also, I think the tax should be percent based relative to income if that can be achieved somehow. Throwing in a fixed blanket tax will undoubtedly always mean that the poor will pay proportionately more than the wealthy. Maybe this can be done with some sort of rebate after declaration of income.
To be honest though, I see a few used Prius vehicles that are available for under $7000, am I to believe that these hundreds of thousands of people rioting cannot afford to buy something worth 7k after selling their ICEV? Surely that is manageable even for the poorest in France with a GDP per capita $38000. Or is it a case of wanting to keep that giant SUV? My guess it's more the latter but maybe I'm wrong.
France is one of the most non polluting non CO2 producing countries in contrast to the US. The majority of their power comes from nuclear. Even without the tax increase the price of gas is high. If the US just copied France in terms of electrical power generation and fuel taxes the world would be a lot better off. If the US just copied French tax policy our oligarchs would pay a whole lot more. The French need to decrease outlays to those that do not produce, such as their masses of African immigrants living unemployed in the suburbs, and dramatically raise the retirement age so that older Frenchmen and women are encouraged to work longer.
4
I started my oil patch career in 1973 in California and spent more than 43 years working around the globe.
Even in those days, California had all kinds of anti oil movement including one named GOO (Get Oil Out) - centered around Santa Barbara - the site of an infamous spill - though nothing compared to some others of recent times.
What used to amuse us - even in those days - many protesters including folks we knew - drive miles upon miles - but with just the driver - no car pooling.
Something similar here - almost 50 years later.
I wish these tree huggers would appreciate that most folks are not "destroying" earth on purpose - by using hydrocarbons. They are using it because nothing else comes anywhere near so efficient.
The NYT is carrying a story nearby from Luxenbourg on mass transit ,- made free. But the story quotes a similar experience in Estonia which made mass transit free.
Sure, ridership went up - but it was the pedestrians who quit walking - not the drivers.
Until - these tree huggers quit offering solutions that their way or highway - carbon tax is going to be resisted in all societies - especially in Europe - with falling living standards.
3
@Neil Sorry, but you need to stop categorizing those who understand and accept the overwhelming evidence of climate science as 'tree huggers'.
Of course people who harvest and use hydrocarbons aren't destroying the earth on purpose, but as a society when we know better, we have to do better.
Transitioning off carbon is going to be difficult, but I agree with you, it can't be done in a ham-fisted way.
Honestly, if the world just got off of coal completely - particularly the US, China and India (the world's biggest polluters) we'd be on track to meet targets.
1
@Neil As someone who lives in Europe, I could not care less how high fossil fuel taxes are, neither in terms of transport nor in terms of heating. My use of these fuels is more or less negligible and as a result, so is their cost to me.
Sufficient alternatives exist in many areas and for many situations if people decide to take a look at what is possible and acceptable. Judging by my experience, those that use fossil fuels and energy extravagantly in general, do this out of ignorance and because they have not taken the time to look at what options are actually available to them.
Just because you damage something out of ignorance does not mean that you are not responsible for said damage.
Only 100 companies produce 71% of the world's green house gas emissions. Yes, we individuals should strive to make changes on our personal lives to reduce our carbon footprint. But let's not act that most of the pollution is produced by these conglomerates who weren't affected by Macron's policies. Fighting against global warming is hard, not because of the opposition of the alienated, but rather because no politician seems to want to go against corporate interests
4
@Ramiro Torres That may be so but if you look closely at your own consumption and related emissions I think you will be quite surprised assuming that you have not done this already. For one, heating with fossil fuels leads to substantial emissions from the energy necessary to generate the likely 10000kWh (about 2000kg for natural gas) or more depending on your location and can literally be multiplied by millions. The implementation of a high efficiency heat pump could reduce that to 10000kwh/4 = 2500kWh. While I wouldn't suggest doing this in Wyoming or similar states with extremely dirty electricity generation, in some states and countries it's well worth it in general and if you have the option to choose renewable energy even in certificate form, this would contribute to cleaning up the grid mix. We should keep the pressure on politicians to guide polluting corporations towards cleaner practices but ignoring our own contributions to the issue is not an option.
The answer is easy: curb executive pay and stakeholder output and raise corporation tax. Then make them pay more money to the common workers, both blue collar and white collar, and the money for higher taxes will be there without leaving people out of pocket to "invest" in the general economy by buying themselves stuff. France proves that if the money is not there, it cannot be spent.
2
Here's an idea - it's fairly radical and will generate a large amount of controversy. I am a morally strong man and will take the heat for saying it, so here it is.
"Those that pollute should be held responsible for their pollution and the costs to clean it up, with no exceptions to reason why pollution was created."
Sadly corporations will just pass any cost onto the public, so we will pay for via taxes (maybe?) or increased prices (prices will go up even if raw material costs are negative)
2
It seems to me that the demonstrations which took place in France last week, over relatively MINOR tax increases, was an entirely "French Affair", almost a caricature of how the world views France in general. "To the barricades" seems to be a classic French way of dealing with policies that it's duly elected government enact but that do not sit well with one part of French society or another. It's quite correct that there should be protests over issues that are perceived as unfair - that is the basis of democracy - but the events that I viewed unfold were ANTI-DEMOCRATIC in their violence. The issues facing France and indeed most of the developed world often require very hard choices and sacrifices. My view of Emmanuel Macron is that he is far from an autocratic ruler and while the power that the French President is bestowed with vast scope based on the country's Constitution, far from abusing them, he and the elected government attempted to carry out changes that they decided were necessary for whatever reasons they presented. Simply put, resorting to VIOLENT protests over a matter such as a small tax increase, no less, is entirely irrational behavior and by giving into the demands of a violent mob, a terrible precedent is now set.
4
"ANTI DEMOCRATIC" would seem to apply to a President in office despite losing the popular vote.
"VIOLENT" would describe US bombing wars in a dozen dozen countries killing civilians and starving children.
And Americans just roll over and take it.
The French can take care of their own country very well thank you very much.
1
@Andy: you may not realize this as a French citizen in Paris, but in the USA….we do not elect the President by a popular vote.
Not in 240 years!
Every President in US history was elected by the SAME EXACT Electoral College as Trump.
1
That excise taxes are regressive is nothing new. Historically, they have led to bread riots in French history (or Tea Parties in the American tradition), which is pretty much what the gilets jaunes represent.
But there is a simple solution: make them revenue neutral by redistributing the proceeds on a per capita basis, as is done in British Columbia. Thus turns them into a progressive fiscal measure, while maintaining their environmental effects, which subsidies to eg electric vehicles do not achieve.
9
@gs
Do you really expect jaded Europeans to trust the political class with their money?
1
This is not really a problem related to the fuel tax but to the character of Mr. Macron as a leader and his understanding of leader. But I suppose he is flexible enough to learn a lesson.
6
@Aki Agreed that "this is not really a problem related to the fuel tax", in the sense that the fuel-tax rises were more a straw-breaking-the-camel's-back phenomenon than a revolt against sorting-out global warming.
France's economy is 56% government expenditure; and their taxation rate, at 46% of GDP, is already the highest of any of the so-called developed nations. This is because successive generations of politicians have distributed gratuities to various special interests in order to keep them quiet in reaction to one or other policy change - but done nothing to solve the chronic imbalance between government expenditures and tax revenues.
It has always been easier to increase taxes, to try to plug the increasing debt gap, than it is to set about a root-and-branch reform of a sclerotic national economy living on credit. To give him his due, Macron has been trying to break this circle; but his 'imperial' style, and inability to focus everyone's attention on, and justify, the longer-term need to fix France's economic structure, have now been exposed; and it will take a herculean effort to get everyone's attention re-focused on the fundamental problem of reforming France's economy - of which the environmental considerations are but one aspect.
2
The current price of gas where I live, after about 7% drop at the beginning of the month, is 6.2 dollar per us gallon. I find it ridiculous when reading Americans discussing climate change, carbon footprint and global warming while flooding their streets with monstrous SUVs and heavy pickups. The price of gas is a major factor, apart from government regulation, in affecting the size of cars that people are buying and, as a result, of carbon emissions. I still remember the oil embargo of OPEC in the early seventies when US car makers got caught up without being able to supply the huge demand for smaller cars. That's when they started losing market share for Japanese and European car makers, a shock from which they never really recovered. As a frequent visitor to the US it always amazes me to see the small percentage of american brands in the streets. By comparison, Honda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota are everywhere. I know that many are made / assembled in the US, but still.
Before discussing the French, consider a 50 cent tax on gasoline in the US and observe the change in carbon emission. As for taxing the rich, I am all for it but this will have no effect on global warming.
19
If you want coal country on your side, build America’s next lithium cell factories in West Virginia, the Pennsylvania hills and Southern Illinois. Incentivize Tesla to build its next plant in Ohio. Spend billions on new energy projects in areas most likely to be hit with petroleum industry job losses. Pour infrastructure dollars into the Gulf states to replace oil jobs. If you want people on the right side of these issues take care of them, don’t just tax them and tell him that it’s just tough. This is the kind of thinking that separates politicians from bureaucrats. There is a difference.
40
@AndyW This is the kind of thinking that will move the needle. Can I add to this - since there's already a trade dispute on with China - penalize them for their use of coal as well.
6
Why tax the user when the oil companies have record profits and amazing corporate tax cuts? Tax high enough and maybe corporate will invest in green energy.
19
@Babs
Or better, ban the combustion engine.
Automakers are responsible for the mess the climate is in and automakers are the ones who have to change.
We ban things that are serious risks to others: murder, arson, robbery etc., all carry punitive disincentives.
We don't say robbery victims should be taxed to dissuade them from being robbed, we ban robbery.
6
@Susan Kraemer
Simply said to ban vital transportation that keeps food in your grocers and medicines at your disposal. Rather than trying to cram the .04% anthropogenic carbon vexation down our wallets, prove it beyond doubt first before you go trashing the very energy consuming inventions and progress that enabled you to live as more than just an animal.
How about they tax the rich for this, then the rich will get tired of it and invest in renewable energy to try to green the economy so they don’t have to continue paying it.
9
In my experience, all upper class environmentalists are sufficiently comfortable that they can "afford" to "trade-off" more economic goods for more environmentalism. And they do not understand that people less well-off would prefer more wealth and building their home on higher ground to evade the waters of the melting Arctic.
Until everyone has what you have, do not ask others to "get by with less" for the sake of an environment you already pillaged. They want their turn.
14
@Craig Mason
I am not an "upper class environmentalist." But, I do read the science. The problem is not just rising seas, but changes in weather patterns, drought, disease, population displacement (not everyone on the planet has a accessible "higher ground" to move to or the economic means to do so), strained response resources with increased disasters occurring simultaneously, decreases in ecosystems and both plant and animal populations, including those feeding us. We will all suffer the inevitable costs to some degree however high the ground.
I would rather have a habitable planet in the end than worry about how fair my material situation is compared to someone else's.
6
@KM
These protestors are not concerned about there relative wealth. They fear not having enough for their next meal. If they"starve-to-death" what difference will a habitable planet make to them? for you and I who have enough a habitable planet is an option. However for these people, tomorrows's meal is their primary concern.
1
@sjpbpp
I am not sure the protests would have taken place were the increase not preceded by tax cuts for the wealthy.
The anger and frustration are understandable. However, the enormous energy and coordination that has gone into protesting a planned gas tax increase could instead have been - or be - aimed at pressing for public transportation expansion and appropriate allocation of the 8 billion-euro anti-poverty initiative unveiled in September.
With all due respect to your thoughtful comment, I have, in a different time and place, been one of "these people." I have lived far from work and public transportation during a time in which every tiny financial bump meant incessantly re-strategizing how to feed, clothe and shelter my child. I know what it is to wonder how to afford fuel for the car you feel lucky to have in order to get to the job needed to pay for any of it. I do not make my statement without empathy for the protesters.
The fact remains that without a habitable planet, none of it will matter. There are better strategies to battle unfair economic policy than squelching one policy that makes sense for everyone.
I find it hard to believe that a militant ecologist hasn't changed his way of life 20 or thirty years ago so that he doesn't have to use the fossile fuel system that is killing the planet. Is this militant lip-service ecology ,or what? I agree that the problems which the governments are facing are difficult. Changing human behaviour in the consumer society isn't going to be easy while the life-goal held up to us (in nonstop advertising ) is to become a pampered human being.
7
It's absurd for a relatively tiny nation like France to think its own carbon emissions amount to anything.
And the French people quickly realized this.
For President Macron seemed to care more for his international image as a climate change fighter than as a patriot who loved and addressed his own people's needs first.
And no one who wants to be president of the world will ever do well as president of a nation.
Especially the French nation!
6
This is the second article today (see Stephen's op-ed) that tries to paint the French situation in a false light. I'm guessing the purpose for doing so, is to try to convince Americans that it's foolish or foolhardy to try to curb fossil fuel in the US too.
There's a world of difference between France and the US - so the the one shouldn't be used as a standard for the other. Among some of the differences: France's share of global fossil fuel emissions is at 1%, whilst the US is at 15%. The French pay just under $7.00/gal (not just over $6 as erroneously reported) whilst Americans pay less than 1/2 that. The US is 2nd in vehicles per capita, whilst France is 33rd (2017 stats). The French believe that climate change is anthropogenic, whilst many Americans don't believe in climate change at all.
The reason the French are so upset, despite being fervently in favour of curbing climate change, is that this is the second fuel tax since Macron came to power (14% increase from Oct. 2017 to Oct. 2018). Furthermore, only 20% of these increases are destined toward transitioning towards cleaner fuel sources. The rest are used to enrich government coffers.
You are right about one thing - average citizens won't shoulder the costs and suffer while 'big business' continues saying, "all that matters to us is profitability". If we have to tighten our belts for the sake of humanity - so does big business.
Shame on you for misrepresenting the French issue.
46
Carbon taxes are fine so long as you don't spend the receipts.
1
The use tax is a decent concept to help people to using less fuel, but unfortunately, it is inherently regressive. Poor people can less afford the increase than wealthy people. But the idea is good. Somehow, we have to lower use of fossil fuels, particularly coal. At least France is willing to try solutions. Not every possible solution will work in every situation, but at least they're trying as opposed to our lame Koch fueled dinosaurs in the GOP and chief reptile, D. Trump.
2
It's very depressing reading these comments. I have been following the gilets jaunts in the French press, but the Times has had several reports from France about it. Nevertheless, people express their ignorance about a spontaneous, grass-roots, non-ideological working-class movement, probably because, like the French elite, they can't conceive of working-class people actually being capable of thinking for themselves.
10
The militant ecologists are painfully out of touch and do more harm than good. All they know it is taxes. Big corporations have creative ways to offset these taxes, ordinary people do not.
2
The very people who complain about climate change are also in favor of what causes it, over population, and tell us every day that the industrialized West should accept millions from Third World Countries on a yearly basis to avoid any replacement shortage of their population. Throughout history, the populations of Europe has had big ups and downs, but now it is treated as a big Ponzi scheme that has to go only up.
7
@alexgri. Thanks for pointing this out. The fact is that whatever sacrifices are made to reduce per capita emissions, those efforts will ultimately fail if we don’t address the biggest issue of all: population growth.
5
@Overpop - Don't congratulate him too much for pointing out that we should just let people die where they are because its a fact of life.
In the meantime, your government has defunded birth control aid in Africa and elsewhere. How about population reduction in a way that doesn't involve terrible suffering?
@alexgri
I believe you are misinformed.
I am a liberal democrat and I'm very concerned about this climate crisis that is creating climate change refugees and endangering people and animals. We are accelerating the rate of extinction of earth's species (including ourselves.) I have been concerned about over population for appx 40 years. Don't you realize it is the evangelicals (and possibly Catholics) who strongly object to any attempt to curb over population? No birth control, no abortion in every country. Democrats absolutely do not believe that.
Why is the United States so concerned about climate change, have the United States left the convention a long time ago?
Just an excuse for stirring up unrest, how do US envoys do well?
1
Macron entered office with an aggressive and authoritarian attitude toward new legislation in response to what he considered to be weak predecessors like Hollande.
This battle plan drew a violent reaction from the population and a failure of Macrons legislative package and popularity.
This debacle is a result of Macrons inexperience as a politician.
Macron needs to redesign his entire approach to governmental reform starting with his attitude toward the French citizens!
6
I think no-one knows exactly what the future will bring with climate change, but the description I find most persuasive is this one, from MIT.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
I wish everyone would read it.
With climate change there are the science deniers who do not accept that it is happening, and there are the reality deniers who belive it is a problem but do not accept its magnitude. Simply put, this is a challenge which mankind may not be up to meeting.
2
@gbc1
Thank you for the link. I did read it.
I am worried that mankind cannot get it together to reverse the global trend of climate change and how it affects us all ... all species on this one and only home we have, the earth.
Do you think the deniers have a plan to start a colony on Mars? I suspect not. Their greed is paramount, they do not realize the extinction of species we are facing also applies to them and their families.
@Gail Jackson
I don"t know what to think, Gail. If one accepts the description in the MIT article, climate change is to the earth and life as we know it as a diagnosis of a terrible cancer is to the patient receiving it, say John McCain and his glioblastoma. McCain fought it, and remained optimistic, said he did not fear death, but if he had decided not to do that and just accepted his fate, would that be wrong?
In a way talking about the extinction of the species is an avoidance mechanism, the real fear is not extinction because at that point everyone is gone, it's over, the real fear is the horrific events that lead to extinction, that cause it, mankind will experience those.
When this sinks in the world population will start to fall, people will stop having children, markets will crash, value will disappear. It will be a panic, it will lead to a WWII level response which, amid falling world population in regions unable to adapt, may produce a solution.
Reality meets Cultural Marxism: "He acknowledges that the tax might encourage the conservation considered critical for a healthy planet. But with the nearest train station 35 minutes away, he has to drive to work every day."
Ground airlines--thousands of tons of carbon at 35,000 feet--and see how many American bourgeois "Climate Change" advocates join the ranks of the brightly-jacketed mobs of discontent.
Reality does that to even the holyest of intentions--even America's left.
10
Carbon taxes, carbon fees, whatever you may wish to label them - these items will show up in prices ultimately paid by everyday consumers and they will do piddly all to fix anything. Unless the developing worlds stops developing, the West can twist every last penny out of wealthy and consumers and it will have minimal impact on the outcomes predicted by the science used to justify fees taxes et al.
Rather than playing games with carbon taxes, leaders should be investing into projects and technologies that are compatible with whatever the future may bring. There's far more to be gained from doing so than there is from levying punitive taxes and fees and if the modeling guesses prove wrong, well then just fine because efficiency has been invested into and societal benefits are produced as a result..
Our ruling class is made up of people who have only ever lived in cities. They don’t have any idea of how people in rural areas live. They would like everyone to live in micro-apartments in the city and use public transit (while they all live in the suburbs and drive their fancy SUVs around, of course).
5
They should encourage people to work from home more often. This may not be for everyone or every kind of job. But for those jobs that can be done remotely - should be allowed to be done if people choose too. Better for congested cities. Better for environment. Better for families.
@Shipra Only certain service industries can do this. Not Doctors, Nurses (I am a Nurse Practitioner) , Pastry chefs, firemen, etc...
9
Agree. I think I mentioned this is not for every kind of job. But instead of going all or nothing. Even if some people do it we will have less pollution. Every little bit counts.
2
It's elementary that this class of tax is regressive. It hurts lower income people disproportionally -- a larger part of their income is spent on transportation cost, including fuel. They pay a higher percentage of their income for taxes like these.
Just like the US, France under Macron put through a tax cut for the people at the top of the pyramid. What did they really expect to happen?
To influence behavior with regressive taxes look at history: so many mistakes, so many unintended consequences. Incentivize behaviors you want perhaps. Punishing people (with taxes) who have not had any real benefit from the post-2008 recovery, at least not even close to that experienced by those at the top, isn't going to turn us around on carbon usage -- the marginal return is miniscule when there are many more targets with bigger payoffs.
11
The sad truth is that because environmental and human health damages are not included in our energy prices, globally we likely pay about half for energy what truthful, lifecycle costs would dictate (see study by Intl Renewable Energy Agency study in 2016 - globally we spend about $5 trillion on energy every year, and cause up to $5.9 trillion in damages from it).
Economies broadly, and people/enterprises specifically will need a decade or more to make successful, economically healthy transitions to a low-carbon future characterized by prices that tell the truth. So the sooner we begin, the better esp with solar/wind very cost competitive.
The whole system studies of how to do this well are out there (thanks WRI and Tom Steyer et.al.) - we just need citizens and leadership to take them seriously. We are about 25 years behind already (a US carbon tax was nearly passed in 1993 and foolishly defeated).
2
If the goal is to get people to use less gasoline, how do tax rebates (like the ones offered in Canada) solve the problem? Yes, the price of gasoline is higher, but those increased costs are offset by the rebates. Won't people still drive the same cars the same amount? What incentive would they have to change? Such a plan is a political win only - it looks like it's tough on fossil fuel, but doesn't actually change fossil fuel consumption.
If countries (like Canada) wish to engage in redistributive taxes, perhaps rebates that follow from that could come in the form of substantial vouchers to buy electric vehicles. At least the potential to power those vehicles could come from alternate energies (solar, wind, etc.). It's not an immediate or perfect solution, but it's something worth considering.
5
This just proves that even if the middle class supports policies to prevent climate change, they will not tolerate disruption of their standard of living. This dooms most plans to combat climate change. Bottom line, we will have to drive less, drive smaller cars, consume less, and make dramatic shifts in food production. In an economy base on consumption, this will not go well recession or depression is inevitable. The science of reduction is unclear. We know man made emissions are changing the climate, but we don’t know how much, how fast, and with how much certainty. The models are imperfect. Greatly reducing the standard of living of Americans requires great certainty. Protesters in France revolting over a relatively small tax increase shows the difficult process ahead. Even rebating to lower income households will only make the problem worse as consumption won’t decline and the tax will have little benefit. The only way this works is to frame climate change in terms of World War 2. People were willing to plant victory gardens and rationing to support the war effort. Absent this form of national focus, we cannot hope to mitigate climate change and must simply adapt to it.
5
@Steve This comment is wrong in its absolutism - recession or depression are not "inevitable." And protests by people upset about lots of issues, of which the petrol taxes are just one, doesn't prove anything about climate change strategies. That said, yes the transition has to be carefully managed and low-carbon systems, whether for transportation or electricity, have to be ready to implement rather than just hoped for. And there's no reason carbon taxes can't be revenue neutral similar to that in British Columbia - which is what most sustainability advocates have been suggesting for decades.
@Steve Some factual discrepancies here. Scientist may not have an exact time table for disruptions, but they are honing in on some real upcoming challenges. The last big climate report is talking about serious changes happening as soon as 2040. It's not written in stone that fighting climate change and its effects will greatly reduce the standard of living. Economic developments of "green" technology will be a huge boon. Though it could be very painful, if we are forced to do this on a crash basis, because by then it will be almost too late. But I agree, its difficult to think of what a "sustainable" economy would look like. I've been wondering about this for a while. We talk about sustainable environments, but what would such an economy look like?
Lots of people you might call "climate change deniers" are not, in fact. What they are is "climate change reversal is possible deniers". Human beings excel at "do as I say, not as I do".
Americans and other first-worlders are not going to give up their consumptive lifestyles so that future generations can live with a safer climate. Neither are upwardly mobile third-worlders.
The whole idea that human beings are willing to tax themselves into consuming less is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
4
The writers of this piece on France's ongoing protest against rising fuel taxes are as tone deaf as Macron and the other global elitist trying to cram their climate change hooey down all of our throats.
Don't get me wrong - I believe the climate is changing. Yet, there is no way - I repeat, no way - to know how much climate change is man-made and how much isn't. Therefore, we could spend billions - trillions - reducing carbon emissions and it may all be for naught.
Further, we continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that every developing nation, led by China and India, are striving for 1st world lifestyles. As a result, any efforts made by France (and Germany, US, UK, etc.) will be totally nullified by the rest of the world's growth and demand for carbon based energy.
Renewable fuels will remain a chimera - and a very expensive one - for the foreseeable decades.
We need to collectively rely on our own resourcefulness in creating a more resilient economy and society. More and better mass transit options, smarter development (and not on waterfronts), hardened infrastructure, adaptive crops and farming techniques, etc.
America - as always - will rise to this challenge. I highly doubt the rest of the world will. Luckily, in our splendid isolation, we have two oceans to keep at bay the surging horde that is already overwhelming Europe. Eventually, Mexico and Canada will be incorporated in to a greater USA spanning all of North America.
MAGA Now, MAGA Forever!!!
15
@Common Sense
Your quote
"Yet, there is no way - I repeat, no way - to know how much climate change is man-made and how much isn't."
is completely, 100 percent unsupportable. I challenge you to say WHY we these things are unknowable, especially when current climate models do an exquisite job of predicting historical warming.
What is difficult to know at present is the sensitivity of some the possible feedbacks (methane emissions from tundra, large injections of fresh meltwater into oceans, etc.) and how they will play out in the more extreme warming scenarios.
16
We actually the scientific community is vastly (like 99%) convinced that the climate change is a man-made development in this instance, though there are other factors as well. So let's be clear, its man made and we will have to solve it.
I think you make some really good points. However, I'm not sure America will rise to the challenge at all. Not in the present political "climate" where the GOP are quite happy to stick their heads in the sand. I really don't believe that under 40% percent of Americans get to decide that the future for the all the rest. I say Make America Green Again.
9
@Common Sense
"Yet, there is no way - I repeat, no way - to know how much climate change is man-made and how much isn't."
You've taken a page from the man who's brought us MAGA - say something as forcefully as you can, and it must be true. Emotion and uninformed belief are not arguments for climate policy - facts and science are. So I will believe the nearly unanimous majority of climate scientists who assert that our climate is changing rapidly because of man-made causes. You may write MAGA with as many exclamation points as you like, but the facts are not on your side.
8
I've been interviewing for a job with a non-profit formed as a result of financial regs (Oxley Sarbanes?). The office is located 30 miles out of DC, nowhere near Metro, and they don't allow routine telecommuting. Head scratcher, apparently they haven't heard about climate change.
1
@Anne Hajduk. Well, if you want the job, first you should read up on SOX, and second buy a car. It's not unusual to research your potential employer, nor is it unusual to place an office in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with climate change.
2
During the 1970s, people were killed at gas station riots in the United States. Can only imagine what’s going to happen in Los Angeles when they outlaw private automobiles and require everybody to ride public transportation. The uprising will be even larger if the wealthy and government officials are exempted.
4
Scientists know nothing about economics. And economists know nothing about science. And both together know less about carbon taxes.
7
The elephant in the room is over population with high expectations. Save the world have less humans to wreck it.
17
Marx meets climate change.
Without true leadership towards smaller living from the elites, it is not possible to expect the little people to pay up and watch private jets circle overhead.
8
The IPPC has been predicting a climate disaster for over 30 years now. Yet for most of the world's people life is getting better. Life expediencies have increased and global poverty has fallen. Much of this improvement in economies and lives has been fueled by fossil fuels.
Since the founding of the IPCC the world has shown it can prosper and grow despite the climate change the IPCC tells us is happening. No country has shown that it can prosper and grow without fossil fuels.
4
@Peter B
James Hanson is a climate scientist. Now 71, he was just 40 years old when he published a paper in Science, a prestigious scientific journal.
That was in 1981. What Hanson wrote about was his calculations — a climate model — that predicted the warming of our atmosphere driven by the greenhouse gases that come from burning fossil fuels. He predicted that the warming could create drought-prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, rising sea levels, and the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage through the Arctic Ocean. All of these things are now coming to pass.
Hanson knew what he was doing. 37 years later, there is no alternative explanation for the warming we are seeing that is supported by both scientific theory and observational evidence.
10
@Peter B
You have identified a critical point - access to vast energy resources has resulted in great affluence. And it is not clear that continued increases in our well-being can occur without these energy resources (i.e., fossil fuels).
But now that it has become clear that fossil fuel consumption will also be our collective undoing, how should we respond? Will individuals voluntarily give up the affluence they enjoy today in order to avoid great misery tomorrow? And what about those who already are experiencing a decline in their standard of living? What do the have-nots owe to humanity?
The fact that ignoring climate change has enabled the world to prosper in no way suggests that refusal to confront this challenge will have a good outcome. And the ability of scientists to foresee calamity decades in advance does not mean that its failure to materialize early implies they were wrong.
We are burning the furniture. The correct narrative for this is not "look at all this wood!"
6
@Peter B You don't think the increasing frequency and amplitude of both wild fires in several places in the globe, and Cyclones and Hurricanes. More of them, bigger ones. Longer cycles of draught interspersed with deluges of rain are not indications of climate disaster? What will it take before people realize what is at stake.
Sadly what seems to be forgotten in polarized discussions of climate change is the economic benefits just waiting to be reaped from re-tooling the economy away from fossil fuels. Worst of all the pollutants is coal. Your from Canada? I remember what Montreal looked like in the early 70s from the coal tar coating the downtown buildings. Climate disasters are increasing, haven't you noticed?
The only lesson here is that if govts want to implement carbon taxes -and they all should -they should not be cutting taxes on the wealthiest at the same time. In fact, the cost of paying for the move to a green economy should be coming out of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Tax incentives and supports for things like electric cars and solar panels should be standard. All countries should be rapidly phasing out carbon-fueled cars. This particular set of strikes would not have happened if the protestors were driving electric cars. As a global community, we have simply run out of time to dither any longer. Do it now or watch the future (literally) go up in smoke.
15
@Shaun Narine
"This particular set of strikes would not have happened if the protestors were driving electric cars."
This strikes me as the 21st C version of "Let them eat cake."
How are lower/middle class French workers with stagnating incomes, heavy taxes, and high fuel prices supposed to buy pricey electric cars (which have limited range and require more electricity for charging)?
Where would a French government get the money to provide heavily subsidized electric cars? Higher taxes!
1
@Shaun Narine All that electricity has to come from somewhere — quite often, ultimately a coal-burning electrical-generator. The solution isn't the substitution of one non-renewable source for another; it's less driving in fewer cars.
1
This isn't that tough. The government should rebate 100% the revenues from the tax to all but the wealthiest. This would lead to a net increase in the purchasing power of the 99%. It is true that some poor and struggling rural residents who drive long distances would still probably wind up worse off. But the solution there is government subsidies to purchase hybrid and all-electric vehicles.
1
'Yellow vest' lesson for climate change?!
Aside from the "yuge" environment mismanagement,... another item POTUS (along w/ too many other politicians) is not addressing,... is widespread management screwups within the finance system.
Specifically pointing this out because to adapt to climate change, organized society is going to require various large scale infrastructure projects (which will have to be financed),... unfortunately the way money is managed, odds are the economy is eventually going to crash "bigly!"
www.TinyURL.com/InvestorWarning
At the U.N. climate conference in Poland, David Attenborough mention the 'Climate crisis could collapse civilisation'
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672893695/david-attenborough-warns-of-collapse-of-civilizations-at-u-n-climate-meeting
Sadly the most likely civilisation collapse scenario involves an economic/finance failure which prevents building large scale infrastructure needed for people to adapt to climate change,... said another way climate change combined w/ a failure of the finance system is is akin to one, two punch combo that causes a KO for humanity
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-climate-risk-classification-created-account-potential-existential-threats
1
Read this from MIT: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
Climate change will completely disrupt the economic order. The realization of the magnitude of the problem will collapse financial markets, the birth rate will drop. These little tweaks now often discussed, carbon taxes, etc, are nothing, the action required will be more on the scale of conscription of workers, commandeering of factories,displacement and relocation of millions of people, death and destruction worldwide.
1
@gbc1
yup way, way, way behind on responding to the situation at hand
in my neck of the woods, IMHO large scale power infrastructure isn’t the only problem,... w/ in the past 1200 years the south western USA has had two long term droughts that went on a century (or two) AND this was before mankind managed to build up CO2 levels in the 400+ PPM which this planet has not seen in 800,000 years
FYI prior the planet had pretty regular cycles w/ "normal" CO2 levels that were more or less range bound between 180 PPM to 280 PPM
w/ CO2 levels at 400+ PPM its kinda a guessing game how bad droughts in this western region of the USA will become,... so we need BIG BIG BIG infrastructure to hedge against really long droughts periods, AND that requires BIG BIG BIG BUCK$ to build!!!
bottom line that should scare anyone who was alarmed by the hick-up in the global economy back in 2007/08,… all the ingredients are in place to make the last economic crash look pretty small compared to what all the trends tell me is something that is going to be REALLY BIG (due to various feed back loops which will amplify the economic pain) AND this is going to make adapting to climate change much, much, much more difficult
The Boston Tea Party was about much more than taxes on tea, paper...
These riots are about far more than new taxes on fuel.
When does France’s 6th Republic commence?
2
I think it’s simple. Raise taxes on the wealthy. Why should the working poor suffer, while those more comfortable worry about how much carbon we’re burning on our flight to the Caribbean.
Sharing the load equally to protect the planet, means we all, have to take a real hit.
10
Surprising how most European countries already had high taxes on the wealthy with little to show. The taxes fall on the middle class. See VAT etc. there is not a single Country where high taxes on the wealthy provide significant revenue. Whether tax havens or outright fraud occur, the wealthy are not a piggy bank because it is easy to classify income in various ways. Wealth fluctuates. We keep viewing this in terms of income, but most wealthy have assets that can change value daily. This is why a wealth tax would be difficult to enact with any certainty. Simple statements like tax the wealthy play well on television, but in reality provide little increase in revenue. Look how Democrats everywhere revolted against the reduction in state, local, and mortgage interest deductions even though they only really raised taxes on the wealthy.
3
Mr. Macron is an idiot. He should never have given a tax break to the wealthy but he's a Neoliberal ideologue who is also a millionaire. Tax the fossil fuel companies, like Total, the French oil giant and the car companies, like Renault who stupidly decided to bet on diesel rather than EV's and then tax the very wealthy and use that money to help anyone who is struggling to make a transition. Macron is a lightweight, he has no business being President.
6
I can't believe that this article to three people to write. It was quite long, and their points could have been made in 100 words or less. Basically, they stated that a carbon tax would be a burden on the poor in a dozen different ways.
Not very clear what the "lesson" promised in the headline was. I guess it was more subsidies and less taxes. That would make everyone happy, at least for the time being.
Expanding public transit sounds good, but that is costly, and would take years for the environmental studies, alone. If the project ever got funded, the NYT would be first with the headline when the project ran over budget.
1
Not another word about carbon taxes until every last SUV and monster truck is off our roads.
20
Do you have children? Have you taken a trip with grandparents and kids? I’m sorry to say, but SUV and minivan are the only option. Increased gas taxes are appropriate. Let those who can afford it pay. Otherwise, multiple sedans have to be driven the same distance. Not sure that saves any fuel. Two at 30 mpg versus one at 24?
@Larry
It is carbon taxes that will take the SUVs and monster trucks off our roads. That is the point.
1
I see this all the time in my fair Pacific city. My fellow liberals always seem to be happy raising taxes - even when they are regressive. And when they do raise taxes, all too often it is used to enhance a bureaucracy rather then returning the money directly back to the poor and middle class people who are affected most adversely. Furthermore, they have not developed trust in how money is spent because of previous actions (See point one and two). So when taxes fall on people who have less room for error in their day to day lives, and who have far less flexibility than the technoelite and CEO classes, you can thus end up with yellow shirts.
3
We need to race for our lives toward carbon neutrality in a way that is economically just... not on the backs of the poor,
6
Tax the companies that caused climate change and remove everyone from office who takes money from the gas industry.
5
Much of this populist rage, which might focus in a positive way, is instead grounded out via Fox and others...blame the immigrant, blame the regulator, blame the poor.
Does France have a Fox and Breitbart ?
1
@Casey This protest movement has not, does not, have any anti-immigrant bias. Many immigrants are among the most active members.
Well, we could tax the rich instead of punishing the working class.
5
Carbon taxes on consumers have been shown to be not remotely effective enough or fast enough to impact this crisis.
Mandates on producers work fast. Examples: banning the chemicals that caused acid rain, and caused the ozone hole. Successful.
Mandates on electric utilities forced them to start buying solar and wind - or be fined. Successful. Now, raise the mandate to 100% renewable, like HI, CO and CA utilities.
We do not have time to pander to "The Invisible Hand of the Market " worshippers, by gentle nudges to do the right thing - a merely more efficient car with a gas tax. We all need to switch off CO2 ASAP.
Just mandate EVs only. Simply place a complete global ban on manufacturing cars with gas combustion engines by 2030 - to give auto industry 12 years to switch assembly lines and supply chains.
We don't miss horse-drawn carriages, Walkmans, Fax machines. We don't care what makes cars go. Just stop making us choose among ones that destroy climate.
17
You should visit a battery factory in China or maybe a solar manufacturing plant. Perhaps you are unaware of the number and type of heavy metals that must be mined, processed, and transported to create batteries. What about disposal? Battery recycling is complex and dirty. And yet, people scream for more EV based on these technologies. These only appear green when discussing only carbon lifecycle. Once you factor in the environment, many EVs make no sense. I have a Prius. There are multiple warnings about the toxicity of the battery pack. I think hydrogen from nuclear plants is far more sustainable than the requirements for battery production.
1
@Steve
Hydrogen for fuel cells also run an electric motor, not a combustion engine, and that is another option.
As long as the hydrogen is made with nuclear power or split using renewable power, instead of from natural gas, then it is an emissions-free alternative
https://www.solarpaces.org/csp-efficient-solar-split-h2o-hydrogen/
We do have choices for the alternatives to fossil fuels. But we must ban the use of greenhouse gas-emitting fuels, so no more combustion engine in vehicles.
Or you could just say Trump is right and the glibalists ate wrong when it comes to the best way to fight "climate change," i.e., growing a wealthy economy wherein consumers and business can afford to increase their use of more expensive "green" energy.
1
How about offsetting a higher carbon consumption tax with a lower income tax?
1
@Greg
Then how would France pay for its "free" healthcare?
1
@Greg Doesn't work in France, out of 38 millions houses, only 16 millions are paying the income tax. The remaining 22 millions are exempt from the income taxes, but they contribute to the welfare system through the high sales taxes (to make it simple 20% on everything but food with a limited 5.5% rate and gas with a 60% rate}.
The middle class would be the only one to take advantage of the lower income taxes, when proportionally the working is suffering the most from the higher consumption taxes especially on gas.
2
If you think these protests are spontaneous, you have missed the entire point of operations research and the use of browser tracking and narrow-cast advertising to mold public opinion.
.
These protests may look spontaneous, but they are driven by the most sophisticated public opinion campaigns money can buy.
4
Like I’ve posted recently on this subject, I’m doing what I can to lessen my carbon footprint by using public transportation, eliminating meat in my diet, buying local every chance I get, shopping thrift stores instead of new and foreign made, eschewing plastics, and installing solar panels (immediate 2/3 reduction in our power bill!) but like heck am I going to give up life-affirming yet carbon intensive activities like international plane travel while the wealthy of this planet keep getting a free pass. My 1-2 round trips every year or so don’t mean anything when billionaires and the Kardashian class are flagrantly consuming, jet-setting repeatedly, and hiring accountants to evade taxes.
Until the wealthy step up and pay the same proportion of their income (passive such as investment income as well as active) in taxes and carbon reduction as the working classes are being charged, we’re on the road to climate catastrophe. As HW Bush’s eulogies have reminded us, “to whom much is given, much is expected”. Start at the top. Make the global wealthy visibly pay fairly for carbon reduction and the rest of us will be far more amenable to sharing the pain.
18
Transportation, primarily cars, is the major contributor of carbon emissions and it's almost impossible to change people's driving habits as the U.S. has been trying to do now for 30 years via denser growth strategies (to get people to use transit) and HOV lanes (to get commuters to carpool) and it hasn't worked! The total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the U.S. is not less than it was 30 years ago and, in fact, it generally mimics the economy further proving that trying to change driving habits, either with incentives or disincentives, has no effect. What's the answer: electric vehicles & trucks. If the federal government invested even one-tenth in R&D for electric vehicle technology as we do making weapons we would be there by now. Electric vehicles & trucks will solve the non-point source pollution problem and power plants producing electricity using natural gas and renewable energy (until natural gas can be phased out) will solve the point source pollution problem. It's not a lack of engineering and/or ingenuity in this Country to be able to move down this path to a carbon-free society it's more of a lack of political will in Congress.
2
How about considering “… and dividend”?
This article appears to completely ignore any explicit consideration, at least, of the solution of coupling any carbon fee with a dividend that returns all or at least a substantial portion of revenues gained from the fee to citizens equally – the same amount for each citizen; the result, according to “carbon fee and dividend” studies, being that most citizens – save for those, mostly wealthy, with the largest carbon footprints – end up receiving more in dividends than their increased expenses from the fee.
This solution, I believe, is a part of Canada’s new carbon fee system.
(And, in the case of “substantial portion,” most or all of the remaining portion could be used to eliminate the burden on the small percentage of large carbon footprint citizens in lower income brackets – for example, those with much higher than normal transportation costs due to their work – and even provide them with an overall financial benefit as well.)
3
The US version of this is timed perfectly for an unfortunate domino effect: the Green New Deal gets built out and refined over the next two years as Trump is (most likely, slowly) forced out of office, creating an ever growing resentment from his base - who make up in large part the domestic version of the yellow coats. Then in 2020 when the Democrats win the presidency and probably the senate as well (who knows how many in the GOP will have to exit after all this) - the dems will enact the Green New Deal into law quickly, enraging a freshly bruised population who just saw their hero dramatically ousted (and with him, their hopes for the way of life he promised them), To add insult to injury this new bill will enact higher taxes and “fundamentally change their way of life” (Fox News in 2020 ...probably).
Fuse that with the anger about Trump and all the holdover resentment that got Trump elected in the first place and you could potentially see a conflict that could make good on the rhetoric of fear mongering media (on both sides) of a new civil war ... probably not that far, but far worse than we’ve seen in awhile.
Here's a thought!
Maybe the wisdom of the people has it right. Either because it's too late to prevent the catastrophic changes or the catastrophic nature of those changes has been exaggerated, the people have chosen not to enact the intensely disruptive reinvention of our economies and cultures.
We are talking about democracies! Wealthy people, highly educated people, even scientists do NOT get an extra vote.
Sorry.
3
The tax is very modest. The real reason for the violent reaction is the sad state of the French economy in general. I wonder why it's so bad?
"... for hard-pressed families already laboring under some of Europe’s highest tax burdens..."
But on the bright side, I'll bet the pastry chef Picard in Woincourt (5,463 miles one-way) appreciates the advice from the professor in Berkeley to go buy an electric car.
4
Sorry for my bad english.
I'm a bit ashamed by what it's said in this article.
At the beginning of the action (4 weeks ago), the major request of the "Gilets Jaunes" was the withdraw of the fuel tax.
During 2 weeks, loads of meeting and discussions on roundabouts has led the "Gilets Jaunes" to ask for 42 demands.
Aware of the important of the energy transition (unlike Mr. Chevalier said), they want it but they think that it will be impossible to do it with our current political system.
2
It's not just the yellow vests either.
A number of initiatives have been trying to reduce deforestation to limit the emissions of CO2. And of course the people who are hurt the most by those initiatives are those with the lowest education and income. What should a person do for work if they lack an education and all they know how to do is cut trees, expand their farms, or make charcoal?
And look at India, they're building new coal power plants because there are large portions of their population who lack access to electricity. Reducing carbon emissions means switching to more expensive nuclear or hydro, or using less reliable wind and solar.
Efforts to reduce carbon emissions without addressing the desires of these poorer populations are going to land with a thud everywhere.
That's why I think we're doomed.
1
There isn't going to be any carbon taxes. Not now,not here, not ever. That is the clear and unmistakable message of the French Yellow vest protests. The riots were caused not just by a huge hike in fuel costs, but due to a draconian increase in fuel taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to meet the Paris Climate Accord. Yet to fight climate change as many Democrats want that's exactly what we would have to do here. Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this under any circumstances. Gas in France is about $6 a gallon. Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a Democratic President imposed a $3 climate change gas tax? All this in an attempt to lower the temperature of the planet by 2 degrees over the next 100 years to see if it will alter the weather. This, even as every bit of evidence has concluded that China’s international coal plant construction alone makes that absurd goal a total impossibility. Pure insanity. France has one of the lowest carbon footprint for its electricity grid thanks to their nuclear power - so why go so hard on gasoline? Because the inmates are running the asylum, that's why. Inconvenient truth. When a government tries to enact a green tax to support carbon reduction when income inequality is increasing, people will react to their immediate situations without considering the future.
4
One sub-Question is:How else are you going to discern between the people who drive for a living (and need to buy their own FUEl), And the people who derive profits from the products that those people who drive for a living - deliver.?
I live in Switzerland, a country that has been waging a war against cars, excessive energy consumption and waste for years now. Still, driving around most Swiss cities at almost any time of the day and night is an absolute nightmare. The traffic is just insane - every day there are permanent jams of miles and miles and vehicles.
And why is that, one would ask? Doesn't Switzerland have one of the best public transport systems in the world? The answer is: yes it does, but it is also incredibly expensive. On a cost-per-mile basis, going on a weekend out to the mountains with your family by train will cost you three times more than it does than going by car. And the same calculation is also true for a lot of commuters. Plus, the trains are almost always full - not much spare capacity there.
And what is the usual response of many Swiss "think tanks"? Increase taxes on commuters! Increase taxes on fuel! Make it hard and painful for people to commute by car!
This is the worst possible approach to solving climate change. As the French are learning, you're not going to win hearts and minds by making people's life poorer and more miserable, and punishing them just as they are trying to live their lives and make ends meet.
Countries should instead focus on making public transport CHEAPER - subsidize it if you must - and make it BETTER. Only this way people will feel incentivized to use it, and to save CO2 without feeling like they're being betrayed and cheated.
7
"millions of dollars in damage"
Really? Things are so bad, they've abandoned the euro?
Transportation, primarily cars, is the major contributor of carbon emissions and it's almost impossible to change people's driving habits as the U.S. has been trying to do now for 30 years via denser growth strategies (to get people to use transit) and HOV lanes (to get commuters to carpool) and it hasn't worked! The total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the U.S. is not less than it was 30 years ago and, in fact, it generally mimics the economy further proving that changing commuter habits doesn't work. What's the answer: electric vehicles & trucks worldwide. If the federal government invested even one-tenth in R&D for electric vehicle technology as we do making weapons we would be there by now. Electric vehicles & trucks will solve the non-point source pollution problem and power plants producing electricity using natural gas and renewable energy (until natural gas can be phased out) will solve the point source pollution problem. It's not a lack of engineering and/or ingenuity in this Country to be able to move down this path to a carbon-free society it's more of a lack of political will in Congress.
2
The cap “was not designed for countries undergoing structural reforms.” Translated: we didn't expect people to riot and die because of our progressive taxes.
Unless climate change experts start developing new, innovative ways to reduce carbon (forget the taxes on fuel), nobody will acquiesce to these policies. So get to work and leave the middle class alone. This "tax it more" policy is getting really antiquated. Don't you think?
4
Not a relevant comparison:
“The cost of a gallon of gas in France is about $6 or more — taxes accounting for about 60 percent of that — compared with about $3 on average in the United States, where high fuel taxes have been a nonstarter.”
Comparing gas prices in France only with those in the U.S. makes no more sense than comparing prices in France with those in South Korea or Chile. Better to compare them with prices in nearby countries: Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, etc.
1
Human beings are destroying the planet and nothing, save technological solutions, will stop that. We are by nature or by nurture that has evolved over centuries, selfish and greedy animals. Politicians that understand that and exploit it will generally prevail in democratic countries, and no solutions that are based on significant changes in human activities will be implemented. The likelihood that we can invent our way out of these problems is slight. The ability of bold leadership to address the destructive tendencies of humans ( all of which have for the most part been reinforced in our philosophy and religions) is no where in sight and even if such leaders were able to gain power it is doubtful that they could, at this point, avoid what seems to be inevitable.
4
It is Goldman Sachs loving people like Mr Macron who go for regressive policies when it comes to climate change. One seldom sees a first world white moderate go after even the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to the largest polluters, when it is easier to tell people to drive less and buy LED bulbs which are feel good drops in the bucket at best.
The reality is that when it comes to Climate change, politicians are like most of the what is written at the NYT, protecting corporations over the majority of people today or in the future. The times will be remembered like Macron, and similar to northern compromises before the civil war against slavery but not its abolition. Limit small time emissions while greed keeps the large polluters going.
This is what centrists look like. This is their world where they are not serious if it dents short term profits. If it taxes the elite who take and take and pollute and ruin with utter amorality.
3
Disproving anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in 200 words:
Water can absorb large quantities of heat before its temperature rises; in scientific terms water has a “high specific heat” – highest of all naturally occurring liquids. Earthlings are most fortunate given that over two-thirds of the earth’s surface is covered with water which with its high specific heat moderates global temperatures/climate.
CO2 is acknowledged a weak greenhouse gas – its atmospheric concentration currently at only about .04% by volume versus about .028% in 1850, the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
In science, correlation is not evidence of causation: a crowing rooster doesn’t make the sunrise. Ergo, the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and rising global temperatures is not proof of causation.
Most ironically, the fact that there appears to be such a correlation is in fact proof that it’s not due primarily to rise in CO2 concentration.
Reason: The high specific heat of water would easily absorb the fractional increases of solar radiation absorbed by the upper atmosphere’s miniscule increase in CO2 concentration. Such a rise would be manifested over many centuries – never without time-delay and in-phase with industrialization, oft depicted in various charts.
I hear the Nobel committee knocking – please excuse me.
I have to laugh. The issue is not to cushion the blow on the low wage and poor. The issue is that people reject the idea of carbon taxes and of taxes on the rural working class to benefit the emotional smugness of the rich urban elite.
5
Ah yes, the counter to Bret Stephens' Op Ed piece advising that essentially all this, as George Bush said about the Kyoto Agreement, is "mush". No, no, not really, rings the shrill, worried cries of the "climate change" believers and sycophants; No, no, not really! All that needs to be done is realize the shortcomings (that none of us were interested in seeing before), make a few cosmetic adjustments (hoping to continue to pull the wool over the skeptics' eyes), and proceed as before. Right? Right? (Sound of distant explosions, getting closer)...
When governments tax, spend your money on “government stuff”, this leads to outcries. The Tea Party - before Trump - said that we pay too much in tax, and too much is wasted, given to special interests.
If President Macron had passed either a Carbon Fee and Dividend (CF&D) as proposed by the US Congress, in the recently introduced HR7173 - a bipartisan bill - “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act”...or, legislation similar to that enacted in Canada this year; the folks who understand the need to reduce their carbon footprint, would be applauding him rather than protesting!
In CF&D (details at CitizensClimateLobby.org) all the fees collected from consuming Carbon are returned in their entirety to all citizens. The power of the free market place will be every French citizen/consumers hands. By buying less Carbon containing products, they will have even more to spend on other necessities. The monies from Carbon fees would not be frittered away by government, the government would not be spending your money! You will be making those choices. The Dividend is not spent by the government, but by you.
Energy from renewable sources is the least expensive, Carbon Fee & Dividend will promote in the US the creation 220,000 new jobs as we accelerate decarbonization of the Economy! Burning Natural Gas in the US costs about 2.5 cents a KWh, the gas and coal industries are tax incentivized, subsidizing the true cost. The Sun - wind, solar and hydro is “free”!
1
It is impossible to overestimate the impact of the automobile on increasing freedom and opportunity of those in rural areas. For people to accept a painful trimming of that freedom for the common good, they need to first see a REAL painful trimming of the energy consumption by the elites demanding the change.
I got lectured about the need for a carbon tax by an international banker who had just bought a 44 foot motoyacht. That is Macron. That won’t do. We need them to LEAD in the sense of the origin of the word, to go first.
First they need to stop these taxpayer funded trips to climate conferences and meet on the web.
First they need to give up the private jets. Before any tax on ground transport fuel, we need to see a substantial reduction on business and government travel, especially outside commercial airline travel.
First they need to give up the second and third homes. Before we see any taxation that substantially affects the utility bills of ordinary homeowners, we need to the rich selling because they can’t afford the heat in their 2500 sq foot vacation “cabin” in Utah.
First they need to make genuine changes instead of feel-good gestures. No more politician “bus tours” in which the politician flys to meet the bus. No more rock star caravans of a half dozen giant buses with lectures about cutting toilet paper use.
People may follow if they are led, not driven. The only way to lead is by example.
5
The Yellow Vests stand for the major international public response that while "we are in favor of doing something about climate change it can't us, in this way, at this time." What hope does the world really have?
1
In a free market system the least disruptive way to effect change is fairly price carbon and let people choose how they wish to spend their money. The French experience is entirely predictable because a gas tax regressively affects those who can afford it least and are the most numerous in society. Much better would be a carbon tax that is collected at the source of carbon extraction, is collected on behalf of the citizens and then returned in equal measure to the population with no diversion for other governmental programs. The wealthy always use more carbon and will pay more of the carbon tax, those with less will receive a rebate sufficient to cover much of their extra costs. Those who find ways to save on carbon use come out ahead. Those who facilitate savings with energy efficient products have a market for their ideas. A bill that would achieve his has been proposed in congress with bipartison support. HR 7173. See
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
1
Without increasing the price on carbon, we are going to see climate devastation on a scale that few can really imagine. Rather than give up, political leaders, should institute pricing that rises gradually and that uses the proceeds for a combination of cleaner alternatives and for redistribution of part of the proceeds to those most in need.
1
The issue with carbon taxes, in my mind, is it doesn't "sell." The carbon taxes levied in Canada, where they haven't already been repealed, are not working. A "voluntary," punitive tax which ends up in general revenue with no clear benefit is never going to work. The Vancouver area, has earned a reputation for being anti-car, pro bicycle and pro mass transit. It is marginally successful, but not keeping pace with urban growth.
A subsidy, to lower the cost of alternatives, without artificially inflating the local markets over global markets will work. "Green" options right now, appear to many as for middle-class or higher income earners. Real choices don't exist for low income earners, and with competing interest for your dollars, like unaffordable rent/housing, a carbon tax sounds like an out-of-touch initiative founded by deaf politicians. Raising the costs of fuel, isn't addressing the incentives for purchasing the lower priced cars in the first place. Many people can justify a gas guzzler if there are enough incentives, because very few people take into account operating costs/servicing costs are a part of the purchase. They go for the deal, rightly or wrongly. If incentives make these alternatives slightly less expensive than conventional, the economy benefits long-term from less harm on the environment, and a natural shift away from gasoline/diesel powered vehicles. The demand will remain after the deal expires, which is the point.
2
We like to believe that where we are all headed in respect to climate change can be imagined as a series of photogenic catatrophes: the end of the polar ice caps, "super storms," the inundation of beach front properties, etc etc. But those images distract from the hard realities delineated by this piece: wealth is the drawbridge that separates the castle from the plain. While we might argue endlessly about using taxation to shuffle around the responsibilities for mitigating climate change, it is more than likely the case that, no matter the use of tax dollars, wealth will gradually migrate inward and upward in order to insulate the those who already have a firm grip on the levers of power and wealth management from the extremes of climatological unpleasantness our planet is apparently descending into.
So the distinguishing feature of the future toward which we're heading won't be unfortunate polar bears, but instead a social and political landscape radically reshaped by distinctions between those who have the wealth and the means to absorb the impacts of climate change (through relocation, resource ownership and management, and the monopolization of political power) and those who don't. What's happening in France are the first moves in that transformation.
8
It is astonishing to me that with all the intelligent people in
Macron's cabinet they couldn't come up with a more
balanced plan, nor see that the plan did they choose to impose was going to hurt far more those who have justifiably taken
to the streets.
The uniformity of pain, imposed through a gas tax alone without reimbursements as an
incentive to lower carbon emissions, is neither necessary nor
well thought out, and deserved to be rejected.
The word "impose" is also apt since there seemed very little, if any, broad consultation with the population prior to the announcement of the plan. This is very much in the
style of french governance and helps explain why the country
cannot reform its economy and workplace.
Top down governance does not work
with the different parts of the society to work out a broadly
acceptable plan, unlike how Germany achieved its restructuring
in the 90s. But the french do not seem able to govern in any
other way. The government consults but does not engage in genuine negotiations with affected parties. So very regressive ideas cannot be as easily vetoed early on.
This bodes very badly for the next election in 2022 since the current debacle in governing will contribute to a splintering of the electorate even more than it already is.
4
Carbon footprint is correlated with wealth and consumption. The solutions aren’t that hard.
3
@PeterC Wealthy people can easily afford to switch to expensive electric vehicles and install solar panels. The government would likely exempt air travel.
1
There is no doubt that a gas tax is regressive. In another decade it won’t matter anyway- on ecosystems will stretch beyond their capacity. We’re trading short term pain for long term uninhabitable regions of our planet, famine, floods, hurricanes and likely a war for resources
3
The gas tax is a regressive tax, and French workers, who hardly can afford cars as it is, were right to protest this wrong-headed policy. France and the rest of the world needs to shift to electric and hybrid vehicles rather than just tax gasoline. If they want a tax, it should be based on fuel efficiency with an exemption for low-wage earners. And perhaps they need a cap-and-trade carbon tax on major industries. But to exercise such an elitist policy is to demonstrate just how out of touch President Emmanuel Macron is, and why he may soon be a one-term president. There are many ways to attack global warming, but a simple gas tax was a simplistic policy that deserved to be opposed.
8
Finally, thank you, Mss Rubin and Sengupta. This analysis is absolutely right. You can't solve complex problems like climate change with a wave of the hand and "impose a fuel tax as a negative incentive." It puts the burden not only on those who can least afford it, but it's just a punitive tax on being poor if the only fuel consumption you are engaging in is to get to work.
Creating a progressive economic plan for fuel reduction is doable, one set of steps is proposed by Daniel Kammen, but there are a lot of others, it just requires that we really want to solve climate change and not wave a hand and tell them to eat cake.
Let's stop with all the simplistic plans, the boostering that the whole solution can be done as a positive for profits and jobs, the solutions that pretend our public transportation is good enough our economy is equitable enough to do it.
People who understand that all of humanity is in the balance and facing extinction will want to help. But not if the wealthy offer ivory tower solutions that do nothing but grind the poor and pretend to solve problems.
5
@ondelette citizensclimatelobby.org has information on HR 7173 that proposes a fairly simple carbon tax that returns 98% as a per capita dividend. It seems a very good solution that should get bipartisan support!
There is no environmental movement without a strong middle class. In a world of increasing income and wealth disparity- and massive concentration of wealth- it's not surprising the lower and middle classes will push back against higher taxes to combat climate change. Witness the defeat of ballot initiative 1631 in WA state, which would have levied the nation's first carbon tax. Many of Seattle's wealthy elite were backing this, but they failed to account for the real burden excise taxes are placing on the middle and lower classes here (WA does not have an income tax, and has the nation's most regressive tax system). Better solve the economic problem first if you expect us to swallow carbon taxes.
5
If people didn't want the price of change to be high, they should have backed conservation measures to wean society off of fossils when it was easier to do. For example, someone who bought a conventional vehicle when they could have chosen one light on gas, or electric, frankly has no business complaining about gas prices. Today there are actually many more choices for transportation and you simply have to find the ones that work for you in this era. The longer this emissions problem goes on, the more expensive the costs will be -- such as, for example, shrinking economies and the millions of lost jobs that go along with that. The solution is not to deface public monuments and national treasures, but to stop trudging along the path of the status quo (which isn't working for a lot of people anyway) and demand policies to address the climate. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
2
"Much more of the fuel tax proceeds, Mr. Kammen said, could have been used to lower the prices of electric vehicles, including taxis, to help make it more affordable for people to commute from areas with no public transportation links. Or it could have been used to develop more charging stations or subsidize big batteries to enable taxis to do long trips."
There's your answer. Push to go all electric as soon as possible. No gas, no tax.
1
Honestly, it's already too late.
Even a total shutdown of human CO2 emissions right now would not affect the warming, which will accelerate as arctic and sub-arctic permafrosts melt and generate astounding volumes of the 27x more potent Methane gas. Already, millions of sub-arctic lakes are bubbling away, venting methane.
Hothouse earth, soon.
(Not to mention the 10,000 other ways we are destroying the environment)
9
@William
I don't believe you are correct. This flies in the face of the most recent ICC reports and the 4th National Climate Assessment. Do you have a reference for this assertion?
2
@Edward Beshore
...
I’m not a climate expert, but I am an engineer and computer scientist for 50 years. All the 100s of charts I’ve seen predict a sudden compounding effect, an exponential increase in temperatures as Canadian and Siberian methane deposits and many others suddenly tip over into greenhouse gas release in the next few years. Man has poisoned the entire ecosystem in 10,000 different major ways, and solving even 1,000 of these soon will not be enough. Without mass modification of the atmosphere to reflect heat (silver foil or other chemicals) I just don’t see how we avoid Hothouse Earth. https://amp.livescience.com/63267-hothouse-earth-dangerously-close.html
1
I see a big problem here. Sadly, it goes against a simple (I'd say "simple-minded") solution of the type that govts prefer.
Tunnel vision - yes climate change IS a v.i.problem, but so is economic inequality. A car not up to date re fuel consumption has a tiny percentage of the negative impact that even the "best" yacht does. But the tax the middle class driver sees does NOT alter his/her behavior - s/he cannot afford to buy a better car - much less, relocate. The yacht owner barely notices the added "tax."
Regressive taxes are usually a bad idea - now, more than ever!
11
The Globalist agenda of setting a global price on carbon died in the Great Economic Collapse of 2008.
Because the people of the Western world got stuck with the bill for bailing out the banking system of the Western world, there is no stomach or little appetite for shouldering the excessive demands of an out of touch elite. This statement especially rings true for those who live in countries like Ireland, Greece and Portugal where it will take decades for these bills to be paid out in full.
If the European elite wish to foster good will, it is time for them to step up with some sort of policy that impacts their world. A financial transactional tax would be a great starting point. The funds could be directed into a climate fund that then can be used to subsidize research or projects intended to lower emissions.
If something like this is not initiated and the burden continues to be unfairly shouldered by the common people, it would not surprise me to see further resistance in the streets and eventually the ballot box to any request that the people need to sacrifice even more.
16
The human brain was designed for one thing and one thing only: to live another day and reproduce. Therefore the things that allow us to live another day (food water money shelter) are given much more importance than problems that will culminate in a hundred years.
Our psychology toward these short-term issues is so strong, and our ability to adapt in an abstract way to long-term issues is so weak, it may mean the extinction of the species. We need to find a compromise between the two, and pretty quickly do it. France is doing us all a favor by being the experiment from which we will learn.
40
@Gustav
What France was doing would have made no difference to climate change, it was trivial, token, inconsequential, and the fact the effort has been suspended is of no concern. There was nothing of value to be learned from it, other than it shows how far away the general population is from willingness to make the sacrifices that would be necessary to make a difference to the problem.
What is required (and why there is every reason to think it will not happen) is described here, from MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
1
A “ Surplus Carbon Tax” might be acceptable. Otherwise the impact is vastly unequal. A calculation of a basic carbon production “ allowance” that corresponds to a basic standard of living. Rebate that portion of the tax to every lawful resident without regard to income. Then one is taxing only the surplus luxury level of consumption. My rural relatives would spend more on fuel, but less on food so it ought to balance out. A tax targeting motor fuel is regressive.
5
Everybody who can (and who can't?) should carpool. And that would save on the tax too.
I see too many single occupant vehicles, the vast majority I'd estimate.
6
My take on the carbon taxes is that in actuality, it will increase income and wealth inequality instead of shrinking it. The wealthy will avoid the tax almost entirely and the poor and middle class will be stuck with the bill. There will be overhead to administer so it won’t be revenue neutral. The reductions in emissions will be lower than expected causing the tax to ramp which will further burden the poor.
7
@John "...decarbonisation of the global energy system can grow the global economy and create up to 28 million jobs in the sector by 2050.” said Adnan Z. Amin, director-general of IRENA. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/05/08/clean-energy-sector-employs-more-than-10-million-for-the-first-time/#5be6321eb500
The Dept of Energy reported that in 2016, 3.38 million Americans were employed in the clean energy sector, 10 percent more than the 2.99 million employed in fossil fuels.
We are going to be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. We are not going to get China and India to stop building coal fired power plants. China and Chinese companies are building a new one every 10 days. While the west is reducing our use of fossil fuels the developing world is not. Taxing our citizens to try to use less fossil fuel will lead to a weaker economy and create dissent as witnessed by France. Research on alternatives will not speed up by taxing the people. Whoever solves the problem of plentiful clean power will be amply rewarded. Time to put on our big boy pants and realize we are not going to solve this problem in the time frame the forecasts are predicting for us to be too far gone. We must start looking at mitigation and figure out if we can benefit from global warming.To do any less would be a dereliction of duty if the forecasts are right.
29
"You have to continue to live."
The imperatives of this simple insight will need to be addressed if carbon emissions are to be successfully managed. You cannot directly tax carbon use without compensating for the tax's adverse impacts on ordinary people. Proceeds from any form of carbon tax should go first and foremost to compensate for its disruption. No coal? Then retrain the miners and rebuild their communities, investing in clean energy replacement industries. You can't "save the planet" by forcing workers in obsolescent industries to commit economic suicide. For most death from climate change is a vague abstraction; death from starvation is immediate.
Targeted carbon levies such as the fuel taxes being debated in France have the short-term advantage of being relatively simple to enact. A comprehensive program is more complicated analytically and challenging politically. But, long-term, there is no other way to do it.
11
The people most vulnerable to the changes needed to prevent a catastrophe can only be protected by subsidies. In short, governments need to reach into their deep pockets and give tax breaks to the poor. This may seem counter-intuitive [tax breaks are for the rich] but it has the benefit of saving the planet. Plus, in a generation or so, we'll all be richer, powering our grids with fuel that falls from the sky.
6
The author states: "There is little doubt among scientists and economists that putting a price on carbon — and a high one at that — is essential in the effort to reduce fossil fuel dependence."
How is a scientist, regardless of how highly educated or accomplished in her or his field of scientific expertise, qualified to opine on tax policy (carbon or otherwise)? Methinks the author is attempting to support the author's desired tax policy conclusion with the cloak of scientific consensus.
Why would the author feel the need to make this stretch if the economic policy conclusion was so obvious?
31
Many of the climate integrated assessment models that are used to explore policy options are created and critiqued by scientists and economists working together. No one is working outside their area of expertise unquestioned.
1
Carbon taxes in a free country are a none starter. Few want to pay a lot of money for almost no benefit. Just as in France at some point the people will revolt, so just learn not to do foolish things like a carbon tax or even cap and trade that works well for normal pollution, but poorly with a substance that is a chemical that always occurs when you burn carbon based chemicals.
6
@vulcanalex Economic models do seem to show that a carbon tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.
1
@vulcanalex Ah the freedom argument ... There is no country in the world that is free in absolute terms. Check your constitution, carefully. You are "free" as long as your actions do not take away rights and freedom of other people around you. Carbon tax, which by the way is supported by many free market/libertarian economists, makes sense because putting carbon in the atmosphere takes away rights and freedom from others. It's takes other people's right to breathe non-toxic air, and perhaps the most basic right of all: the right to live in peace and security. And that's not a hyperbole, if you've read ANY report on the effects of climate change.
11
The recently introduced Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018 H.R. 7173 solves many of these issues. It is revenue neutral with all proceeds returning to American households, it has border adjustments so as not to disadvantage American manufacturers, and it has bi-partisan support. Detailed analysis on behalf of the Citizens Climate Lobby shows that it is the quickest means to meaningful carbon reduction and most low and moderate income Americans will receive more in carbon dividends than they pay in the added carbon fees.
48
@Tom Wilson No tax can be revenue neutral, there is always a cost of collection and accounting, not to mention some pay more that they get back. Forget a carbon tax.
6
@vulcanalex So if administrative costs are 1% of the revenue it's not acceptable? How small do administrative costs have to be to be acceptable to you? Do you think the people would care if they were only getting an equal share of 99% of the revenue?
4
@vulcanalex The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would have the federal government collect money from the corporations that sell oil, coal and natural gas, and then distribute the revenue they collect in equal shares to all people with a social security number (half shares for kids). The amount collected would increase gradually. A person who has a high income would receive the same amount as someone struggling to make ends meet.
8
“Gasoline tax”? I thought it be a diesel tax?
Although a gasoline tax seems more amenable to taxing the 1% because the 99% are going to be the ones using diesel, not the pricey gasoline That goes into chauffeur driven, Aston Martin-James Bond type cars (diesel , Since it’s More efficient refinement wise and consumption wise - is cheaper - Is more common worldwide than in the US)
@Nasty Kornstalk from Pay attention, there is an increase on both products. And your percentages of who uses what is out of whack (right now 80% of cars in France run on diesel which is common across Europe) but I get the impression that you are one of those people who never let facts get in the way of whatever it is you want to spew forth on. Diesel has its benefits but it is also a much dirtier fuel. The ultimate solution, if it can be done truly economically for all, will be electric cars but they are a long way off from making it the best option for all drivers.
There are many options for carbon tax design that can alleviate social pressure and make pricing more politically acceptable, which it would have been nice to see discussed. I can see below many have commented to this effect.
Also, the conversion rate from dollars to euro seems to be off by a factor of about 10?
What people are waiting for is options. A technological fix with government incentives is far preferable to a punitive methodology. A public/private partnership to bring new technologies to the market and an incentive for adoption is far less likely to cause resistance. The more people adopt the new technology, the cheaper it becomes and the scale increases exponentially. The poor can then buy into the technology as a used purchase as the cycle for clean vehicles is established. This will take a few years but emissions would be steadily going down as more and more people adopt the new tech. None of the current plans eliminates the use of gas any faster than this anyhow.
3
Try tax and dividend where each household gets a rebate based on an equal share of the carbon tax revenue generated. Inefficient households pay more than they get back or break even. Energy efficient house holds get back more than they paid.
11
@Dave This plan causes issues. First off, unlike what most people seem to believe, the wealthy will move to the new efficient tech the fastest and will pay less of the tax. The poor will most likely use their dividend to cover the tax and make minimum changes. As the wealthy and middle class upgrade and avoid taxation, the plan for incentives will either run out of money due to the cost to administer the program or will have to be supplemented as spending or debt.
1
@John
Not quite true. Turns out that the poor are more carbon "virtuous" and for the vast majority of Americans. They use less energy per capita that us rich folks and so they would actually end up with a small surplus after increased fuel prices. See citizensclimatelobby.org for details.
One good idea I have heard would let lower income users use their share of the dividend as loan security to by more fuel efficient appliances, cars etc. Average family of 4 would get a dividend of $3400/year in year 10 of plan, which can but some serious clean tech.
6
It's NOT that wealthy nations can't make these changes to address climate change ... It's that they cannot make the changes so violently while at the same time offering no help for people to make the transition.
It must be done incrementally and with a plan in place where people feel empowered to make changes -- where they feel they are part of a society in which EVERYONE is sacrificing and making changes. As always, most policy hurts poor and lower classes. The yellow vest protests were a result of a policy that was felt like a forced punishment that disproportionately affected poor and rural citizens who are already struggling.
When the wealthy start paying their fair share then equilibrium will become a peace-maker. Make the rich pay a larger share of taxes to pay for public infrastructure. Tax luxury goods that only wealthy buy. Put in place plans for public transport and local sustainability (meducal care, shopping, food) so driving is not a necessity. We can address climate change not by punishing poor people, but by making the wealthy pay a fair share of their existence.
1
This article ignores an important climate solution that's already gaining steam. Last week the bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend act was introduced in the House. The legislation's solution is to put a fee on carbon and dividend all the money back in equal shares to each adult (and a half share per child). Rigorous analyses show that this approach is effective, benefits poor and middle income people (70% of the population), creates jobs, and boosts the economy. It will eventually be politically feasible because it is market-driven and not a threat to conservative (or liberal) principles. The Yellow Vests are upset because the French gas tax is regressive and so hurts working class people. The carbon-fee-and-dividend strategy will help the very same people who are being harmed by the gas tax in France.
109
@Mike - the Citizens Climate Lobby is working on the carbon tax and dividend bill, and it seems to me a great solution. No net new taxes and all refunded to individuals as a flat rate dividend. The same amount for each individual, so those who have reduced their carbon usage (and paid less in carbon tax) will be rewarded. Win-win!
19
@SJane I can’t wait to see how this plan works. Will the administration of the program be funded by other government spending? Unless this happens then there will be administrative overhead and the no new net tax pledge will be false. Then funding issues will gradually balloon as wealthy to middle class people adopt new tech and pay less or no tax.
2
@John I'm sure the bill isn't perfect, but it specifies administrative costs to be no greater than 2%. Funding will be carbon fees collected minus those costs, or 98% back to people. It's true that higher income people can more easily afford to buy new stuff that's carbon-efficient, but they use more carbon on a per capita basis so that's a good thing. Remember that the dividend goes to each person equally, so poor and lower middle-income people will always get more back on a proportionate basis than upper middle-class and wealthy people. The rich would have to reduce their carbon consumption by a very unlikely percentage for them to benefit more than less rich people.
7
The answer is pretty straightforward. The total impact of a carbon tax depends on how the government spends the revenue.
One solution would be to simply rebate the revenue directly to the people in the form of per-capita payments. If you are poor and therefore probably consume less than the average amount of carbon, the net effect of the carbon tax would be to actually improve your financial position. So while the tax by itself is regressive, it would be strong progressive when its revenue is used like this.
Another good option would be to use the revenue to reduce other taxes that adversely affect lower income household (e.g. taxes on labor).
A really bad (regressive) idea would to be implement a "cap and trade" system in which a large portion of the initial permits are given to industry. This is effectively the same thing as a payment system for polluting industries and their typically wealthy share holders.
7
@Joseph Income redistribution is one of the most hated things about any climate change actions. Never would be too soon for doing that.
2
@vulcanalex
With HR 7173 the rich man and the poor man get the same sized check. No "redistribution".
6
The lesson is that people throughout the world will not pay for these measures.
9
@R. R. - we all will, eventually, with increased damages, but the cost will be higher.
6
@R. R. This its not true, Under the provisions ion the The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, there is a border adjustment fee that would impose a similar fee on all imported items from countries that do not have similar measures thus improving the price advantage of American-made goods and materials thus stimulating our economy over those who fail to put a price on carbon.
7
The US should enact a floating gas tax that keeps gas at $4.00/gallon. This might stop Americans with no memory that from buying ever bigger, unnecessary, enormous vehicles with relatively bad efficiency. I would say that most of the time I see behemoths like the Suburban, Escalade, Or Navigator on the road they have exactly one passenger. Everyone seems to have forgotten that gas prices go up sometimes. This gas tax money should be used to help subsidize startups with promising low carbon electricity production. The money should be used to expand the use of solar and wind. France is not wrong but these complaints are largely not about gas tax per se, but about income inequality. That is an entirely different topic.
79
@BiffNYC I greatly support higher fuel taxes to repair and improve roads and highways. We need the improvements, and this is the traditional way to fairly pay for them.
3
If you have a tax like that, oil companies raise price to 3.99 and then blame the government. Back to the chalkboard.
2
I agree with you.
How about a way for groups that carpool regularly to get a discount on gas? Like 10%. The gov't can rebate the gas stations or give them a tax break equivalent to this. Of course, some amount of staffing would be needed to create and monitor such a program.
And how about special parking spaces for car/ vanpools? In CA, some parking lots have spaces reserved for electric cars but despite driving a hybrid myself, I do not like them. The spaces are pretty much subsidized by lots of poor and middle class taxpayers who never can use them because they cannot afford even an entry level e-car. (Entry Tesla is around $40k ) But carpooling anyone could do.
2
The French already have a very low per capita gasoline consumption rate, 0.44 liters per person per day, compared to 4.4 liters per person in the US, 3.6 in Canada, 1.22 in Japan, and 0.8 in the UK (according to US EIA statistics).
So the existing taxes in France are already working in encouraging conservation, additional taxes are obviously punitive towards the working class. Macron should balance his budget - and that is why he is doing this, under the guise of carbon reduction - via other means, focusing on economic growth.
18