Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
TAXING COW GAS.
Climate mitigation schemes like "cap-and-trade" (C&T) and "clean coal" got reams of free promotion during the presidential campaign. But once the election was over, people had a chance to actually look up what both meant and saw both were filled with more than a fair share of hot air. So the prospect of a carbon tax -- or maybe something with an easier-to-swallow name -- is gaining traction. Yesterday, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the Carbon Tax Center, the Climate Crisis Coalition, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Friends of the Earth held a Congressional briefing, moderated by Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder,on phasing in a revenue-neutral national carbon tax as a better alternative to C&T. Among the featured speakers were scientist-activist James Hansen, the original global warming whistle-blower, and former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, who reminded us multiple times that “we only get one shot at this” -- a dire warning that we’d better get it right, or else there may literally be hell to pay.
A scenario where the world’s atmosphere contains upwards of 500 parts-per-million (ppm) of C02 would, scientists say, eventually bring a flurry of abnormal wind patterns, rising sea levels, massive droughts, melting ice caps, and intense grassfires. So the policy question confronting the Obama administration is what is the best way to manage carbon emissions? Shapiro ran down a list of pros and cons that come with both C&T and carbon tax policies. The major con of C&T from an economist’s perspective, said Shapiro, is the "inevitable outcome" of energy price volatility when demand shifts. If a desired outcome of any of these policies is producing revenue necessary for investment in clean energy technology, then C&T price volatility would be bad for businesses since they need a clear and steady picture of future energy costs. With a carbon tax there is a known price signal and the process for implementing such a tax would be “absolutely” transparent and harder to manipulate than the C&T regime.
Carbon taxes admittedly have no hard cap, and hence there’s no way to know what the actual carbon reduction will be down the line, but the Kyoto-imposed C&T policy cast throughout Europe has shown no discernible reduction in CO2 emissions either, thus far. The entire conversation was based on how to curb industry and business emissions. But how do you apply these policies towards methane burping/farting on farms? It seems it’ll come down to whether we want to cap-and-trade the cows' asses, or putting a straight cap in their asses. I’m for the latter.
I asked Joe Rudek, the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior expert on intensive livestock operations, and he said that the agricultural sector normally is exempt from carbon cap and tax measures. The only way they’d be affected, said Rudek, was through the C&T system, in that they could at least generate trading credits by capturing or reducing the methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management, or changing livestock feed so that not so much wind is broken out in the country. But for a carbon tax:
"Assume the agricultural sector would not be included. They’ve never been included in these kinds of taxes to date, and why they are exempted that’s a good question, but agriculture is considered different than other industries. Maybe some time in the future they may be included, but no one has foreseen that."
Meanwhile, a straight carbon tax would actually be better for African Americans and low-income Americans, according to a recent study done by the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative. In July they released a report that found that 71 percent of African Americans live in counties with federal air pollution standard violations, as opposed to 58 percent of white Americans. It also found that 78 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired plant, as opposed to 56 percent of whites. The report calls C&T “corporate windfall,” a scheme that treats big polluters “as if they have a right to pollute, and consumers and taxpayers are obligated to bribe them to quit.” The revenue from a carbon tax, the report argues, could go back to those who are most disproportionately hit by pollution -- poor people and African Americans -- in the form of payroll tax reductions or rebates to help them with their utility bills. Speakers at the Capitol Hill briefing argued the same.
Of course the biggest omen for carbon tax proposals, all agree, is conservative opposition. James Hoggan, a speaker at the briefing and British Columbia Public Affairs advisor, suggested calling it anything but a “tax” before selling it, suggesting instead "pollution duty." I don’t think Americans are that stupid. We’ll see it for what it is no matter what it’s called, and even for those who don’t, Republicans will be sure to remind them what exactly it is. I like what Tom Friedman had to say (in his book Hot, Flat and Crowded) about how to confront conservatives who cry “Americans are taxed enough”:
"I totally agree. Right now they are being taxed by Saudi Arabia, taxed by Venezuela, taxed by Russia, taxed by Iran, and, if we stay on this track, they’ll soon be taxed by Mother Nature."
—Brentin Mock
COMMENTS (5)
Why exempt the cows? Eating choices cure most gaseousness, which is why I don't eat cabbage and beans before going out with my sweetie. Feed those cows some low-methane producing feed, or better yet, grass. Then put a meter on each ass and tax whatever they fart out. We can look to New Zealand for research on low-methane foods since it's working to curb the climate-changing impacts of its belching and farting sheep herds.
Posted by: Naomi | December 10, 2008 4:02 PM
Joe Rudek is wrong: if cows can generate offsets that can be included in a C&T system, they can serve the same effective function in a tax system also. (In a tax system the credits would reduce your tax liability rather than in a C&T system replacing some of your allowance liability.)
Also, blaming "conservative" opposition for the unpopularity of carbon taxes doesn't pass a laugh test. Carbon taxes are political anathema on both sides of the aisle, full stop.
Posted by: Daniel Hall | December 11, 2008 2:35 PM
Daniel,
Congressman Dingell of Michigan supports a carbon tax.
Len Conly
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/
"With a mighty creak of long-rusted hinges, a door is finally opening in Washington. The present Congress will apparently be asked to consider a carbon tax."
"The measure — actually, a hybrid carbon and petroleum tax — will be introduced by the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan)."
Posted by: Len Conly | December 16, 2008 2:01 PM
Why stop with cows and pigs? Why not take people on how much they fart and burp? Where does it stop? How about taxing my dogs on their burps? Come to think of it, everytime I exhale I breath out CO2, why not tax all Americans on amount of breaths they take each year?
Posted by: Troy | February 28, 2009 1:41 PM
Why stop with cows and pigs? Why not tax people on how much they fart and burp? Where does it stop? How about taxing my dogs on their burps? Come to think of it, everytime I exhale I breath out CO2, why not tax all Americans on the number of breaths they take each year?
Posted by: Troy | February 28, 2009 1:42 PM