Legislation on Clean Energy-Becker

In late June the House of Representatives approved The American Clean Energy and Security Act. If the Senate approves a similar version, this would constitute the most important American legislation on overall control of carbon-emitting gases. The main provision of the bill is a cap and trade system, to begin in 2012, which would provide allowances for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The goal of the bill is to reduce the carbon emitted by American industries to 17 % below 2005 levels by the year 2020, and to reach more than 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Some environmentalists have criticized the 2020 energy-reduction goal as too little and too late. However, I believe that the optimal greenhouse gas policy is to go slow initially until greater evidence on the severity of global warming becomes more apparent. The main threat to the world from global warming is an as yet unknown probability of quite severe warming that would cause considerable harm-the world could adjust at relatively little cost to a moderate degree of global warming. The additional evidence accrued during the next decade will provide more information about the likelihood of the severe warming that would merit more drastic steps. If such steps become warranted, then the rate of carbon reduction and carbon storage should be speeded up beyond that envisioned in the House bill. On the other hand, if milder versions look likely, the 2050 goal of a more than 80% reduction in carbon emissions could be relaxed. Another reason for going slowly at first is to determine how much will be done on global warming not by EuropThese and other developing countries, along with the US, will be the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions during the next decade. If the BRICs cannot be bribed or threatened into taking steps to reduce their carbon emissions, the US might rethink how much it wants to do. Rethinking American policy would be especially urgent if the more the US did, the greater the migration of industries from America to developing countries. While accumulating information during the coming decade on the severity of the global warming problem, the US should greatly invest in trying to achieve breakthrough technologies in advanced carbon control and storage. The aim would be to acquire technological knowledge that could be quickly implemented without enormous cost if the evidence warranted imposing major carbon controls and storage in a short period of time. The House bill allocates about $1 billion annually to the Carbon Storage Research Corp for further research. This is probably not enough, given the possible need to act quickly and decisively to combat global warming. Under the House bill during the first decade or so, almost all carbon allowances will be given away, mainly to companies, rather than sold to the highest bidders. Over time the fraction sold would continue to increase until the vast majority of allowances would be sold. Many economists have criticized this giving away of allowances during the next couple of decades as a missed opportunity to raise revenue for the federal government through the sale of allowances. In light of the pending massive federal deficits during the next several years, auctions might seem the best approach. However, the political reality is that significant cap and trade legislation might not gain enough political support if the government sold energy emission allowances rather than giving the majority to the industries most affected. For energy-intensive industries are well organized politically, and they would strongly oppose a carbon tax-which is what an auction of emission allowances amounts to- since such a tax would reduce profits in these industries. On the other hand, energy-intensive industries might support, or only weakly oppose, a cap and trade system where most allowances were given to them since that system could increase their profits, or only reduce them by a little. Economists typically assume that when a new tax, like a carbon tax, is introduced, government spending is held fixed, so that other taxes can be reduced. That assumption is often useful for analysis, but may not be realistic politically. The revenue from a new tax may be mainly used to increase government spending rather than to reduce other taxes. The case for selling emissions through auctions rather than giving them away is a lot weaker if the government wasted much of the additional revenue, or if the additional spending itself distorts behavior by households and firms. Empirically, the most common response to "new" tax sources, like a carbon tax, is a combination of reduced other taxes and greater government spending (see Becker, Gary S., and Casey B. Mulligan, "Deadweight Costs and the Size of Government." Journal of Law and Economics, October 2003). This typical response makes the case for selling cap and trade allowances considerably weaker than if government spending were held fixed after new tax revenues were collected.

Comments

[Anonymous]

I find it truly alarming how much this posting and its attached comments distort the scientific consensus on the human influence on climate change. While there is debate on the degree of the problem, most scientists agree that the problem is very serious and urgent. The potential scale of the problem undermines the case for a wait and see approach. All of the world should focus on creating efficient and sustainable living for the future. The free market should serve this interest. Cap and trade isn't the best solution. I agree with this. The best solution would be to pour more research money into solar and wind and create new jobs for the energy sector. Infrastructure cannot be outsourced. It must be done locally. New infrastructure would allow for new competition in the energy sector, which is supposed to be good for the economy, and would simultaneously address the concerns regarding outsourcing. Hopefully, the taxes off any cap and trade policy would eventually go toward this type of purpose, so the spending doesn't come out of deficit financing, but I doubt that this will happen, given the power of the special interests here.

[Anonymous]

thanks for your

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Everyone acknowledges warming, but there is not consensus on the issue of Man-Made Global Warming. The scientific community is currently moving away from the CO2 theories, as the Temp. CO2 relationship cannot be explained. It is becoming more obvious something else is driving our temperature. The most likely culprit is solar activity. Cap N Tax, cash for clunkers or windmill farms aren't going to do a thing about solar activity.

[Anonymous]

I'm on record in publications favoring first a carbon tax and than using the proceeds of that tax for R & D for carbon free energy technologies. Not only would such avoid global warming risk, but would also certainly reduce costs associated with traditional pollutants, and should save the billions we effectively spend for energy security, and maybe even provide energy at lower cost.

I have for some time been very pessimistic that should GHG induced global warming be proven to be a problem, that our political system can effectively address such a long run issue.

[Anonymous]

"I have for some time been very pessimistic that should GHG induced global warming be proven to be a problem, that our political system can effectively address such a long run issue."

---

Why don't you first PROVE that GHG and CO2 are in fact the problem causing the warming...??? WHAT A CONCEPT...!

The predominant theory on warming is moving towards solar activity, and away from CO2. This is not the opinion of a "denier", it is the opinion of a "realist".

We can work on solutions once we understand the problem. All Cap and Tax does is grow government and penalize the US economy. It will destroy more private sector jobs than it creates government jobs.

It is silly to reject scientific opinions based on credible evidence that counter the CO2 theories, almost fascist-like.

Can the so-called "consensus" bandwagon explain this man's opinions. He doesn't reject warming, he just attributes it to solar activity. His predictions are more credible than the IPCC's to date.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/#

[Anonymous]

a great post,thanks for shareing-----
ed hardy
tiffany uk

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

I should have done this before. It is not something that hints at global warming, but the real threats around the world.

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!

[Anonymous]

It is the coolest site, keep so!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

It is the coolest site, keep so!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

the post just a special one

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Great site. Good info.