Nov 21, 2018

Blending taxes and cap-and-trade could improve carbon pricing

The coal-fired Brandon Shores Power Plant in Baltimore, Maryland. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Although Washington state’s proposed carbon tax failed at the ballot box, carbon pricing remains one of the best policy solutions to mitigate the effects of climate changes as the window to keep global warming below 1.5°C continues to narrow.

The big picture: There are stark trade-offs to both a carbon tax, under which companies pay for each ton they emit, and a cap-and-trade system, which requires them to buy permits for emissions. However, a hybrid model could be the sweet spot between practical politics and effective policy.

Details: Both would reduce carbon emissions, but with distinct disadvantages:

  • A carbon tax, often favored by conservatives because it is easier for businesses to plan for, nevertheless carries heavy political risk. Opponents outspent supporters two-to-one in Washington state, reflecting the inherent difficulty of passing new taxes and the added force of lobbying by the fossil fuel industry.
  • A cap-and-trade approach, generally preferred by national environmental groups, presents high cost uncertainty for politicians: Too few permits could lead to high prices and economic disruptions. Policymakers typically err on the side of leniency, creating an oversupply of permits at insufficient prices and prompting industry to criticize any adjustments as unfair changes to market rules.

A hybrid approach, on the other hand, could reduce emissions through declining caps while ruling out price extremes via ceilings and floors on permit prices.

  • Should permit prices reach the ceiling, the government would bring down prices by auctioning off more permits. Meanwhile, a price floor ensures stable prices even if faster-than-expected emission reductions produce a surplus of permits.
  • A price floor of $40 per ton, as proposed by Republicans James Baker and George Shultz, would be a good starting point. (The World Bank recommends a carbon price of $40-$80 per ton by 2020).

While carbon pricing is a powerful tool, it leaves behind substantial cost effective reductions that are unresponsive to pricing carbon. Using the revenue it generates to underwrite the transition to clean energy can address this gap — though policymakers have sometimes taken a “revenue neutral” approach, returning revenue to people or businesses either through tax cuts or a check.

Why it matters: Scientists are confident that carbon pricing is an essential, efficient way to slow climate change. Demographic trends favor it as well, with millennials supporting climate action at much higher rates than older generations.

Chris Busch is the director of research at Energy Innovation.

Go deeper

The race to catch Nike's Vaporfly shoe before the 2020 Olympics

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Four months ago, on the very same weekend, Eliud Kipchoge became the first human to run a marathon in under two hours, and fellow Kenyan Brigid Kosgei shattered the women's marathon record.

Why it matters: Kipchoge and Kosgei were both wearing Nike's controversial Vaporfly sneakers, which many believed would be banned because of the performance boost provided by a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole that acted as a spring and saved the runner energy.

Go deeperArrow37 mins ago - Sports

Reassessing the global impact of the coronavirus

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Economists are rethinking projections about the broader economic consequences of the coronavirus outbreak after a surge of diagnoses and deaths outside Asia and an announcement from a top CDC official that Americans should be prepared for the virus to spread here.

What's happening: The coronavirus quickly went from an also-ran concern to the most talked-about issue at the National Association for Business Economics policy conference in Washington, D.C.

Tech can't remember what to do in a down market

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios

Wall Street's two-day-old coronavirus crash is a wakeup alarm for Silicon Valley.

The big picture: Tech has been booming for so long the industry barely remembers what a down market feels like — and most companies are ill-prepared for one.