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
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.