Discussion about this post

User's avatar
j2c2's avatar

On the EU ETS criticism: Since the entry into force of the EU ETS in 2005 and up to 2017, GHG emissions fell 17% in the EU, 24% in activities where the EU ETS is active (energy and industry) and only 10% in the rest.

Expand full comment
Stephen Greenleaf's avatar

Professor Tooze: Thank you for your usual insightful analysis. I have one point of contention, or perhaps correction, that I want to raise. You refer to a "carbon tax." And you pronounce a carbon tax DOA in Congress. Perhaps. But if it is to be resuscitated, as I hope it can be, it must be identified for what it is--a "fee" or "price" and a "dividend" or "rebate" and for what it isn't: a "tax." A tax, in normal parlance (and I know economists may disagree), is a mandatory payment to the government to fund government operations and programs. Under the Energy Innovation & Dividend Act, the leading template for carbon pricing, the money collected (tax, if you insist) will be paid out regularly to Americans in equal shares. This equality of distribution will prove a net gain for most individuals and families (about 2/3 of us), while the wealthier will suffer a net deficit. Given the difference in carbon footprints between low- and middle-income individuals and the wealthier among us, this seems equitable and wise. After all, rocket ships to the edge of space are going to add up! Thus, it strikes me (with some polling data to back up my contention) that if "marketed" properly, this scheme could be adopted, even in the U.S.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts