{"id":275294,"date":"2023-08-24T11:48:12","date_gmt":"2023-08-24T09:48:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275294"},"modified":"2023-08-24T11:48:28","modified_gmt":"2023-08-24T09:48:28","slug":"the-unserious-case-for-co2-taxation-domestically-and-at-the-border-zycher-in-2017-for-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275294","title":{"rendered":"The Unserious Case for CO2 Taxation Domestically and at the Border (Zycher in 2017 for today)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bradley Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe border tax adjustment would be hugely complex given the international supply-chain system, leading to an increase in the attendant bureaucracy even if the regulatory bureaucracy is reduced in size.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe CLC proposal is poor conceptually and deeply unserious.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Six years ago, economist Ben Zycher, the John Searle chair at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), published an analysis that rings true today\u2013if not more true. \u201cThe Deeply-Flawed Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax<\/a>,\u201d subtitled \u201cConservatives\u201d Endorse the Broken-Windows Fallacy, Reject Evidence and Rigor,\u201d outlined the arguments that once-proud Resources for the Future would not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zycher\u2019s piece employed Economics 101 to refute a proposal from the Climate Leadership Council, the\u00a0Baker-Shultz \u2018Carbon Dividends Plan\u2019<\/a>), that attempted to fool Republicans and conservatives more generally that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a pollutant that the U.S. could tame in an international setting. It got nowhere. (Also see Zycher\u2019s later post at MasterResource,\u00a0Climate Leadership Council on Defense<\/a>).\u00a0[1]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Excerpts from Zycher\u2019s AEI March 2017 piece follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Climate Leadership Council last month proposed a gradually-increasing carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions, with the revenues to be distributed as \u201cdividends\u201d to all Americans. It proposes also border adjustment rebates and fees for exports and imports to and from foreign markets without equivalent tax policies; and a significant reduction in the existing regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but with an overall reduction in emissions below those incorporated in the current regulatory regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Virtually all of the CLC assertions in support of its proposal are incorrect or implausible. The CLC provides no evidence that climate risks are \u201ctoo big,\u201d and assumes that the proposed tax would provide \u201cinsurance\u201d without examining the future climate effects of its proposal. The argument that an emissions tax is a more efficient method of reducing emissions relative to regulations is not correct. The \u201cdividend\u201d proposal is na\u00efve in that it ignores the coalition problem in Congress, and the relative influence of concentrated and unconcentrated pressure groups. The border tax adjustment would be hugely complex given the international supply-chain system, leading to an increase in the attendant bureaucracy even if the regulatory bureaucracy is reduced in size.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to its assertions, the CLC proposal would increase the government allocation of resources, and thus the size of government. And the premise that the proposal will strengthen the economy by engendering new investment in unconventional energy is a classic manifestation of the broken-windows fallacy. Because the proposal would increase energy costs with no environmental benefits, the economy in the aggregate would be smaller. The CLC misrepresents the findings of a Treasury Department study; after accounting for employment and wage effects, the bottom 70 percent of the income distribution are unlikely to find themselves better off.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gradually-rising tax eventually would yield declining revenue, and there is no easy option for preserving the dividend payments. And the CLC refutes its own claim of policy \u201cpredictability\u201d by proposing after five years a Blue-Ribbon Panel that could recommend an increase in the tax rate. The CLC proposal is deeply unserious.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Zycher takes on and refutes the eight arguments presented for climate statism:<\/p>\n\n\n\n