Comments 10

碳税正当时

Feb 15, 2016 Kemal Derviş , Karim Foda

发自华盛顿特区——在过去的几十年间，油价的大幅波动——高的时候140美元/桶，低的时候不过10美元——对生产者和消费者都构成了挑战。然而对政策制定者来说，这些波动提供了一个机会——这在去年9月通过的可持续发展目标以及12月在巴黎达成的气候协议上有所体现——去实现延缓气候变化和建设更可持续的经济的全球核心政策目标。

近期石油价格的波动类似于微观经济理论中的经典蛛网模型。高油价会刺激石油投资。但是由于勘探和开采之间的间隔较长，在新产能实际投产的时候其他产品的替代效应已经发生，而需求往往也无法证明现有供给量的合理性。在这个节点上油价开始回落，对此的勘探和投资，包括石油替代品的产量也随之下降。一旦重新出现短缺，价格开始再度上涨，如此循环往复。

这一周期依然会持续存在，虽然其他因素——例如可再生能源成本的不断下降以及向低能源密集度生产流程的转变——意味着它可能会较窄范围内运行。在任何情况下，价格上涨都是必然的。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Kemal Derviş

Writing for PS since 2003
86 Commentaries

Kemal Derviş, former Minister of Economic Affairs of Turkey and former Administrator for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), is Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Karim Foda

Writing for PS since 2016
2 Commentaries

Karim Foda is a research analyst at the Brookings Institution.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 in all 10 Comments on this article

Manu Oquendo Feb 25, 2016

What a waste of talent. The servants begging for punishment rather than remedy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Feb 23, 2016

the plebs is having it too good. Heaven forbid, riffraff could even take a driving vacation instead of staycation. What is the world coming to? Time for the carbon tax, indeed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hugo Penteado Feb 18, 2016

It is time to review a flawed economic theory that assumes Earth is the subsystem of our economies. A big mistake. All economists advocates this idea because his field copied Mechanical laws as main assumptions and conservation principles. In this Wonderland, economist does not include any variable to account for the contribution of any ecological services and tangible natural resources and even the whole Nature are considered until today completely irrelevant to the economic process.

Carbon Tax without a urgen paradigm shift is the same that discuss the sex of the angels. While this endless discussion without no change continues, we are facing a astonishing huge and fast life extinction that will very likely reach us.

Let´s try to recognize the errors of economics.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
René Costa Feb 17, 2016

Time for a Carbon Tax in the USA is long overdue. Indeed, this country is lagging behind almost 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces that are already using carbon pricing mechanism or are planning to implement them (re: http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon). There are two main types of carbon pricing: emissions trading Systems (ETS) and carbon taxes. Kemal and Karin refer to the second approach. I would go myself with the first one, because it fixes a specific annual cap for total emissions and creates a market for emissions trading, i.e., the ton CO2 price is market determined. In addition, it is simple, flexible and business friendly. I do acknowledge, however, that the originality of Kemal and Karim proposal is the direct impact it has on the Country or state budget, and that the level of the carbon tax would vary according to oil prices (a new type of derivative!). The basic assumption (as the past crisis are showing) is that oil prices followed a pattern of increases and decreases that generally follow the economic cycles. In conclusion, the two approaches are more complementary than better one to the other. Therefore, it is difficult to say what could be the best approach for the USA, but one thing is certain, the US government should move fast.
René Costa
Head
WBG 1818 Society
Global Finance Chapter
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Feb 16, 2016

If the word "tax" is so scary, try "regulation."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 16, 2016

So when demand rises the proposal is to tax less. I dont think so
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Feb 16, 2016

Hi Kemal and Karim,

It is the best idea in the world, and as you rightly point out, the best time to implement a (variable) carbon tax is now.

However, I have my doubts that any government, anywhere in the world, is up to this task. Maybe the Nordic countries could get this done pronto, but that's it.

Were Ike Eisenhower still in office it would be done by the weekend.

Political gridlock and a 'Can't Do' attitude, is why we are slowly losing traction compared to the trajectory the Western nations were once on.

And it is why we are far underperforming vis-à-vis our competitor nations.

Western leaders need to embrace visionary ideas and leaders must lead and not be made to apologize for bringing new policies forward -- and just get on with it!

There is far too much chatter about bombing missions and other things that are far less important than policies that help us to economically excel. And energy is one of those sectors with plenty of room to excel.

President Obama has moved America a quantum leap forward in regards to renewable energy and clean air, but now those technologies are maturing, their unit cost has fallen dramatically, and the opportunities to lower electricity costs and pay financial dividends is here.

But so much more could be done. There are some places where renewable energy is not yet economic. Fine. But the entire south and all three of America's coasts are full of solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal resources.

If carbon tax revenue funds these projects, it won't impact our oil and gas use at all. However, the demand for coal will taper, eventually to zero.

Coal's saving graces however, are that it is not up to us to tell other countries whether to burn coal, or not. We can export (for cash) every ton of coal that we don't burn here. Also, Coal-to-Liquid fuels are among the cleanest fuels on the planet when processed via the Fischer-Tropsch method.

For simplicity's sake, I would be happy with a flat carbon tax of $30./tonne of CO2 -- as is the standard in many European countries, some Canadian provinces, and other nations around the world.

A simple $30./tonne carbon tax is an easy sell, especially now in a time of low oil prices.

A more complicated carbon tax (although many, many, times better!) may prove too hard to sell.

Which is another way of saying, if we can't even enact a simple $30./tonne carbon tax, how will we ever enact a more complicated carbon tax?

(I admit your proposal is perfect, just a harder sell)

As for allowing carbon tax revenue to be used for anything other than adding renewable energy capacity, energy efficiency improvements or other clean air standards improvements... it is dangerously naive to think that the clean energy industry will see much in the way of funding, as governments will always default to using the carbon tax revenue to solve their deficit problems.

I think your idea is, by far, the best carbon tax solution, I just don't think the political might is there to make it happen.

I hope I'm wrong!

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hemant Sharma Feb 16, 2016

Speaking of the indian market, even when the oil price changes internationally, there is marginal change in gasoline. less than 10 cents usually. So does it mean this tax would not be a good idea for India?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernard Fudim Feb 15, 2016

The world has a carbon economy and taxing it will make it more expensive, but will not create the rapid major changes that climate protector enthusiasts would like to achieve. That carbon economy employs many people with specialized skills and provides individual products that are subsidized by the broad scope of its size. The price of all carbon derivatives such as plastics, rubber tires, organic chemistry, which are to some extent subsidized by the largest applications, which involve the oxidization of carbon molecules. This is a huge carbon industry interdependent upon each other by the cost of removing carbon from the earth and processing it by heat to separate the constituent parts. Such an economy has an inertia and purpose beyond the propulsion of cars and production of electricity. Trying to change just one aspect without considering the entire economy and substructure of employment is too parochial a consideration.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tamer Kirac Feb 15, 2016

It must be remembered that goal of a carbon tax is to decarbonize the economy. As it is, carbon taxes hit the poor harder, both in the developed as well in the developing nations. Simply put, the poor spend significantly higher proportion of their income on energy.

The authors' would be encouraged as well, to also focus on how the carbon tax revenues could be used to solve that problem.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/JSpBzBM/zh;

碳税正当时

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Iran’s 40 Years of Strife

Africa’s Digital Generation Gap

The AI Road to Serfdom?

What’s Left of the Populist Left?

Brexit’s Lost World

Showdown in Munich

India’s Trifecta of Failure

This Time Really Is Different

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register