Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax

James HansenEminent climatologist James Hansen will urge U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to support a carbon tax, in a letter to be sent this week, Hansen said.

Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is one of the leading voices for a carbon tax to address climate change, rather than backing the more widely used cap-and-trade approach. In his plan, Hansen recommends levying a rising tax on fossil fuels and redistributing 100 percent of the proceeds to taxpayers - a "tax and dividend" approach [PDF].

Obama has preferred a cap-and-trade policy - an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions that will be lowered over time and that allows polluters to trade emission permits on a carbon market. His most recent climate change speech, delivered last month at a summit hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, further emphasized his support for cap-and-trade.

"We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050," Obama said.

Yet Hansen and other carbon tax supporters insist that the debate between the two policies is far from complete.

"Politically, [cap-and-trade] will be convenient, but it will not solve the problem," Hansen said at a Capitol Hill briefing last Tuesday. "We do need a communicator. Obama has the ability and opportunity to do it."

Hansen was the first climate scientist to state publicly that greenhouse gas emissions were causing climate change, at a hearing before the U.S. Senate 20 years ago. He has since become a leading voice on the severity of climate change, urging world leaders to discontinue support for coal and to accelerate the transition to carbon-neutral energy sources.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade 

Carbon taxes raise the price of carbon-intensive fuels and thereby encourage low-carbon lifestyles. Tax advocates say the approach could be implemented instantly and that it would avoid the interference of interest groups.

Emissions among the industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol - a treaty that embraces the cap-and-trade approach - have risen since 2000 [PDF]. Analysts cite several reasons for the rise, including the fact that Western European energy utilities effectively lobbied for free pollution permits as part of the European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).

Also, one of the tools developed under Kyoto to manage the pollution offsetting process - the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - has lacked effective oversight. The United Nations acknowledged last month that the firm that validated nearly half the world's CDM projects lacked proper qualifications.

Another concern is that cap-and-trade mechanisms have led to volatile prices. Whereas carbon taxes contribute some certainty to energy prices - a $100 tax on a ton of carbon emissions would raise coal prices an estimated 14.6 percent, for instance - the ETS carbon price fluctuates on average 17 percent each month, according to Robert Shapiro, a former U.S. under secretary of commerce for economic affairs.

"We're looking at very, very volatile energy prices," said Shapiro, who is currently the chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm. "Business leaders need to know energy prices when they decide whether to invest in more energy efficient products."

World leaders have promised to address the cap-and-trade flaws during the current climate negotiations. The policy is still preferred by some environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Cap-and-trade advantages include that its emissions cap provides a more certain level of greenhouse gas reductions, if the policy is written without major flaws and the program runs smoothly. Environmentalists are lobbying for an emissions cap lower than what was allowed as part of the ETS.

In addition, a carbon tax is not free of potential scandal. Depending on the policy, billions of dollars would be dispensed to energy efficiency and renewable energy firms, or taxpayers pockets, creating potential opportunities for fraud. Also, Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that advocates carbon taxes, notes that polluters have become skilled at finding tax loopholes over the years.

"Gaining Momentum Every Single Day"

Carbon taxes are currently in place, with frequent exemptions, in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, British Columbia, and select U.S. cities. The taxes are generally politically unpopular - national plans in New Zealand and Canada failed to win residents' support. According to a global BBC poll in 2007, about half of the 22,000 people surveyed were in favor of increased fossil fuel taxes, and 44 percent opposed the proposal.

James Hoggan, chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, said carbon tax proponents have to overcome the disinformation campaigns that regularly attack new tax proposals. "Any legislator considering a carbon tax has to prepare the ground more effectively than we have in Canada," he said at Tuesday's Capitol Hill panel. "Stop calling it a carbon tax. Call it a carbon dumping fee or something that makes it seem more like a climate change solution."

Connecticut Representative John Larson has sponsored U.S. legislation that would impose an excise tax on any taxable carbon substance sold by a manufacturer, producer, or importer. The bill currently has support of 12 fellow Democrats. "It's gaining momentum every single day," Larson said on Tuesday. "Twelve members may not seem like a lot, but [three of] these are influential members of the Ways and Means Committee."

Political Success May Need Additional Research

At a time of economic recession, further research may be necessary to galvanize support for the higher energy costs that may accompany a climate change solution, the panel's economists said.

Hansen's letter to Obama will request that the president-elect order a National Academies of Science study of the latest climate science. Such a study should determine the present and future impacts of global greenhouse gas emissions, Hansen said.

"We have the strongest scientific body in the world. He should ask them because the situation is more severe than people realize," Hansen said. "It's even worse than what is inferred from the latest [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report. A lot of information has become available in the past two years."

A report would also help silence climate change disbelievers, Hansen said. "It would give [Obama] cover. Otherwise critics say it's just a few scientists saying this, or the IPCC is politicized," he said.

The Academies are already developing several climate change-related research projects, however. In October, the Division on Earth and Life Studies began its America's Climate Choices project, which seeks to address how the United States can limit the magnitude of future climate change.

"Overall, I believe the study will meet [Hansen's] concerns," said Thomas Dietz, director of the environmental science and policy program at Michigan State University and vice chair of the project's science panel. "We will address the current state of the science around issues that matter in making decisions about climate change."

Hansen has made available a more detailed draft [PDF] of the letter he plans to send to Obama. His policy recommendations are comments of personal opinion and are not related to his government position, he said.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this is very interesting.

this is very interesting. thanks for that. we need more sites like this. i commend you on your great content and excellent topic choices. i'm spreading the good word about this site to all my friends. it's been enjoyable and educational. kudos!

Oil the second greatest

Oil the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material. Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate

oh well this is a good idea

oh well this is a good idea i am in for support . and i would like to see how obama executes it well .

I agree with what the other

I agree with what the other commentators have written.

Taking it as a given that

Taking it as a given that the climate is warming, we must show that (1) we can do something to reverse the trend, (2) that the actions required to reverse the trend wouldn’t cause dire consequences for billions of people, and (3) that a warming climate would cause net harm to mankind and our ecosystem. Bjorn Lomborg has been villainized for arguing against large scale action on global climate change, though his argument seems fundamentally sound: we can save a lot more lives and do a lot more good by focusing on other priorities first, such as AIDS and hunger. Paperless bank accounts are examples. Our moral accounting must also figure the opportunity costs of pursuing an agenda to reduce global warming. For the record, I think that reducing our local air pollution is a valuable and important goal. Have a look at our meeting rooms edinburgh as well as our Large Serviced offices for up and coming businesses

Carbon is the biggest source

Carbon is the biggest source of global warming . it has very long half life and takes lots of time to decay . Obama should go ahead and try some thing to stop global warming .

To support the idea that

To support the idea that positive change will come from harming the property rights of all Americans is fundamentally immoral. It's disturbing to hear this viewpoint acclaimed here. Environmental change is possible to legislate, but taxation is not the answer and ultimate change is brought by grassroots efforts, not lending big government more power.

We need to live on a greener

We need to live on a greener rock, however more taxes and higher costs of energy right now can totally mess up the economy. I would personally burn coal right now to survive in my home if I had access to coal due to the high cost of energy. Honestly, my house cost me $500 to $600 / month last year to heat using electricity only to a normal heat level. We burned wood this winter. Next thing they’ll tax me for burning wood and make me pay $500 per month to use electricity. Using wood as much as possible without waking 3 times each night to fill the fireplace still spiked our electric bill to around $200 per month. This is absolutely ridiculous to me as we are in an area where hydroelectric power is in the area….and some people are actually making the power company Avista tear out dams in order to create more natural runs for the salmon. I hope the salmon are warm as they migrate home as my home is freezing cold and costs me $500 to $600 cash per month to heat it using “green” electricity at only 1400 square feet at 9.x cents per Kw/hour with a 25 Kw electric forced air furnace.

Ben, I agree with your

Ben, I agree with your comments, particularly your wider point that, “this a common theme - flaw - among environmental advocates - failing to recognise that the laws of physics and biology don’t compromise, and have no pity.” It dismays me that major conservation groups such as WWF and ACF continue to support the 450 ppm / 2 degrees warming goal long after the science has been saying 2 degrees is too high for vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs. If major conservation groups don’t base their policies on the science and truly protecting the planet, rather than what is perceived to be reasonable and politically feasible, how can they expect governments to do it?

If we remember last year the

If we remember last year the nifty tax refund kept you from getting payday loans? Well, you probably won't get it this time around. The thing is that the 10% of the taxes on the first $6,000 you make that you got back last year (around $600) has been revoked, and the check you got is part of your income for last year – so you may have to worry about payday loans or tax refund loans this year. Obama has said that part of his tax refund this year will be about $500 off your total taxes, giving you about $20 per pay period more, but that may not be enough to keep from needing payday loans.

Last week brought a perfect

Last week brought a perfect storm of bad PR for the world’s seafood. Or, it might have actually been good PR from the beleaguered fish’s perspective.

Makes perfect sense. Regards

Makes perfect sense. Regards

Particularly useful article.

Particularly useful article. Thank you.

Makes perfect sense,

Makes perfect sense, especially give the current take on pollution..