CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


CO2 Emissions put price on carbon pollution for the economy

Published on May 26th, 2011 | by Zachary Shahan

1

Huge News: Putting a High & Rising Price on CO2 Could Balance the Budget (New Plans Proposed)

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 26th, 2011 by Zachary Shahan 

put price on carbon pollution for the economy

Yes, it’s more complicated than that — this was a hard story to come up with a title for — but this is the gist of a new proposed plan (or several new plans) for balancing the nation’s budget that would ALSO, by chance, cut CO2 emissions considerably, thus slowing or stopping human-caused global warming and saving us trillions of dollars in damage and healthcare costs in the process. Here’s a little more:

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation funded six groups from across the political spectrum to put forward plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges.  All the plans are here.   The Center for American Progress plan, “Budgeting for Growth and Prosperity” brings the deficit below 2% of GDP within 6 years and fully balances by 2030.

The CAP budget does so while boosting clean energy research and deployment funding roughly $10 billion a year — and instituting a high and rising CO2 price.  The plan achieves the CO2 reduction targets from the 2009 House climate and clean energy jobs bill (Waxman-Markey):  A 42% cut (from 2005 levels) by 2030, and 83% cut by 2050.

The CAP plan does not specify whether the carbon price would be instituted as a tax or some sort of trading mechanism.  Lower income groups are protected from the impact of higher energy prices through rebates and tax reform.  The plan creates a single 15% tax bracket for 80% of Americans.  Some of the additional clean energy funding can also go towards efficiency measures that will help lower people’s bills.

Actually, 5 out of the 6 plans proposed recommend putting a price on carbon (some even recommend a higher price than the Center for American Progress)!

Really, it is no surprise at all to us on CleanTechnica that putting a price on CO2 could help balance the country’s budget, but that so many groups from across the political spectrum are proposing this in their plans is surprising given the state of the political environment in the U.S. these days and the demonization of cap and trade or of a carbon tax.

Read more about these plans over on Climate Progress: Bombshell: High and rising price for carbon pollution emerges as credible deficit reduction strategy

Related Stories:

  1. Best Counterargument to Price on Carbon Hurting Jobs?
  2. Obama Tells Senators to Use Cap and Trade to Make Polluters Pay Carbon Cost
  3. US Economic Recovery Endangered by Paralyzed Senate

Photo via louisa_catlover

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Anonymous

    The road to the future could be smoothed by a long term program based on BUDGET BALANCING, CARBON PRICING and FINANCIAL TRANSITION tools. These tools must be used to address defined National goals which have yet to be clarified by our national political and technical leadership.

    The USA has been hampered by inadequately planned/managed tax, infrastructure, commerce, education, and social policies. All need active evaluation (say once every 5 years, looking forward to the next 15 to 25 years), a balancing of the projected program needs and revenues, and identification of needs for policy change.

    Policy planning and change were made by many other nations following the petroleum supply “wake-up calls” of the 1970s. These proactive nations have not been dragged into making costly international security expenditures, as has the USA. Nor have they excessively suffered from adverse balance of payments with others linked to funding the world terrorism battles. Congress has allowed continued reliance on obsolete/unsustainable policies which are being driven by political contributions and stealth funding by interests from the advocacy, defense, education, energy, finance, insurance, pharmaceutical, science, and transportation sectors. Each sector has drawn battle lines which often conflict with the interest of “We the People”. 

    A well-structured plan for BUDGET BALANCING, CARBON PRICING and FINANCIAL TRANSITION could address today’s problems; and promote orderly phase-in of economically beneficial, environmentally benign, CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES and CLEAN ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES (whatever they may be, based on predictable investment economics, NOT unpredictable subsidies granted by politicians, or casino-like roulette of the commodity market).

    The starting point must be that REVENUE from any CARBON PRICING plan must be specifically allocated, $ for $, for DEFICIT REDUCTION and any other Congressionally-declared PUBLIC PURPOSE. Hopefully, Congress will plug tax loopholes which favor entrenched economic sectors and promote research to meet 21st Century needs.

    CARBON PRICING could take the shape of a consumption tax, levied at the point of delivery (plant storage facility or fuel pump), adjusted for fuel type, and progressively increased to achieve the policy goals of Congress and the President.
    REVENUE COLLECTION should be essentially the same as currently done, without any new bureaucracy. Over the past 12 years gasoline prices have increased over $2.00/gallon, lining the pockets of OPEC and the speculators. It is time for Congress to subdue the consumption beast for a PUBLIC PURPOSE. See   www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/summogas.html  for retail gasoline prices of that era.

    FINANCIAL TRANSITION could be softened by beginning with a low, and progressively increasing consumption tax rate, say 20 cents/gallon and $??/ton coal in 2011, then upping the rate 10 cents/gallon, etc. each year for, say 10 years. This is approximately half the increase we have experienced during the last 12 years. Once the changed consumption and revenue patterns are understood, a well-lead Congress could review the program and make necessary changes to ensure that DEFICIT REDUCTION and other Congressionally-declared PUBLIC PURPOSE are being achieved.

    If the USA adopted visionary energy policy in the 1980s based on known long-term supply and prudent National interest, things could have been different in 2011. Think about the alternative picture of the USA with a world-revered treasury; and a post-Vietnam, recovered shining image. Also think about today’s foregone possibilities for achieving clean energy. Congress can still set the stage for 15 – 25 years of real progress, instead of perpetual partisan bickering while we taxpayers pay their undeserved salaries.

    If the bag of 2011 burdens was lightened by a sustainable economy and modern energy policy, it would be so much easier to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and honor social commitments.  Action is needed now because 2021 will arrive sooner than we may like. 

Back to Top ↑