SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A carbon tax plan would cut emissions by more than 20 percent by 2050 and generate as much as $1.5 trillion in revenue over 10 years, according to the study. (Reuters)
Study: 'Win-Win-Win' Carbon Tax Could Bolster Economy, Cut Pollution
Aug 28, 2012
While noting the raising taxes is never embraced by the mainstream of US politics, a new study released by researchers at MIT on the impact of a national carbon tax claims that such a scheme could be "a potentially a win-win-win solution."
Using a baseline scenario provided by the Congressional Budget Office, where a $20 per ton of carbon tax would be levied, the MIT Global Change Institute report by Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly suggests that revenue totals generated by the tax could reach $1.5 trillion over ten years.
The money, the report argues, would allow for "revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance)." Second, the report's economic analysis demonstrates the potential for a "tax interaction effect" whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax would offset other taxes or boost economic welfare. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.
This last "win"--as the authors championed in an op-ed ahead of their study's release on Monday-- would be "a win for our future health, security and prosperity."
According to Rausch and Reilly, the plan "would cut emissions by more than 20 percent by 2050, while keeping oil imports from rising. With this economically beneficial approach, the U.S. could lead the way to a global solution for carbon emissions rather than stand in the way."
And, they continue, a carbon tax would help shift the fossil fuel-driven economy away from dirty and dangerous fuels and extraction methods like tar sands and natural gas fracturing and towards cleaner and renewable sources of energy. "This shift," they say, "would happen in a way that makes economic sense: By making dirtier sources more expensive and raising revenue rather than spending it through narrow tax incentives."
Political traction for a carbon tax plans have stalled repeatedly in Congress, but Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently filed a bill which the Carbon Tax Center, an advocate of a strong carbon policy, says "would reduce greenhouse gas emissions almost twice as much as the most optimistic projections for prospective EPA regulations or the targets in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in 2009 but dropped in the Senate the following year."
"Congress will face many difficult tradeoffs in stimulating the economy and job growth while reducing the deficit," said Reilly in a statement. "But with the carbon tax there are virtually no serious tradeoffs. Our analysis shows the overall economy improves, taxes are lower and pollution emissions are reduced."
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
While noting the raising taxes is never embraced by the mainstream of US politics, a new study released by researchers at MIT on the impact of a national carbon tax claims that such a scheme could be "a potentially a win-win-win solution."
Using a baseline scenario provided by the Congressional Budget Office, where a $20 per ton of carbon tax would be levied, the MIT Global Change Institute report by Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly suggests that revenue totals generated by the tax could reach $1.5 trillion over ten years.
The money, the report argues, would allow for "revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance)." Second, the report's economic analysis demonstrates the potential for a "tax interaction effect" whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax would offset other taxes or boost economic welfare. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.
This last "win"--as the authors championed in an op-ed ahead of their study's release on Monday-- would be "a win for our future health, security and prosperity."
According to Rausch and Reilly, the plan "would cut emissions by more than 20 percent by 2050, while keeping oil imports from rising. With this economically beneficial approach, the U.S. could lead the way to a global solution for carbon emissions rather than stand in the way."
And, they continue, a carbon tax would help shift the fossil fuel-driven economy away from dirty and dangerous fuels and extraction methods like tar sands and natural gas fracturing and towards cleaner and renewable sources of energy. "This shift," they say, "would happen in a way that makes economic sense: By making dirtier sources more expensive and raising revenue rather than spending it through narrow tax incentives."
Political traction for a carbon tax plans have stalled repeatedly in Congress, but Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently filed a bill which the Carbon Tax Center, an advocate of a strong carbon policy, says "would reduce greenhouse gas emissions almost twice as much as the most optimistic projections for prospective EPA regulations or the targets in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in 2009 but dropped in the Senate the following year."
"Congress will face many difficult tradeoffs in stimulating the economy and job growth while reducing the deficit," said Reilly in a statement. "But with the carbon tax there are virtually no serious tradeoffs. Our analysis shows the overall economy improves, taxes are lower and pollution emissions are reduced."
# # #
While noting the raising taxes is never embraced by the mainstream of US politics, a new study released by researchers at MIT on the impact of a national carbon tax claims that such a scheme could be "a potentially a win-win-win solution."
Using a baseline scenario provided by the Congressional Budget Office, where a $20 per ton of carbon tax would be levied, the MIT Global Change Institute report by Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly suggests that revenue totals generated by the tax could reach $1.5 trillion over ten years.
The money, the report argues, would allow for "revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance)." Second, the report's economic analysis demonstrates the potential for a "tax interaction effect" whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax would offset other taxes or boost economic welfare. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.
This last "win"--as the authors championed in an op-ed ahead of their study's release on Monday-- would be "a win for our future health, security and prosperity."
According to Rausch and Reilly, the plan "would cut emissions by more than 20 percent by 2050, while keeping oil imports from rising. With this economically beneficial approach, the U.S. could lead the way to a global solution for carbon emissions rather than stand in the way."
And, they continue, a carbon tax would help shift the fossil fuel-driven economy away from dirty and dangerous fuels and extraction methods like tar sands and natural gas fracturing and towards cleaner and renewable sources of energy. "This shift," they say, "would happen in a way that makes economic sense: By making dirtier sources more expensive and raising revenue rather than spending it through narrow tax incentives."
Political traction for a carbon tax plans have stalled repeatedly in Congress, but Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently filed a bill which the Carbon Tax Center, an advocate of a strong carbon policy, says "would reduce greenhouse gas emissions almost twice as much as the most optimistic projections for prospective EPA regulations or the targets in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in 2009 but dropped in the Senate the following year."
"Congress will face many difficult tradeoffs in stimulating the economy and job growth while reducing the deficit," said Reilly in a statement. "But with the carbon tax there are virtually no serious tradeoffs. Our analysis shows the overall economy improves, taxes are lower and pollution emissions are reduced."
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.