New York Cap and Trade and Other News
New York like New Jersey is becoming dependent on carbon revenue to take care of their New York budget crisis. Secondly, the state pulled $90 million from the carbon fund to pay for schools. The new trend, instead of relying on state taxes for state issues, the state is using the new redistributed use of carbon tax to put in a carbon fund for projects plus state tax revenue. The 10 states on the RGGI/Cap and Trade program made $729 million, $265 million went to New York.
This is what the New York Carbon Tax Center is saying about carbon taxes.
How high should carbon taxes go? How fast should they climb?
While carbon taxes will need to be very high to create the required price incentives, they will need to be phased in to give individuals and businesses the opportunity to adjust. There is no magic formula or right number, but a tax that grows at an annual rate equivalent to 5-10% of the "baseline" cost of fossil fuels probably offers a viable combination of meaningful incentive and opportunity for adaptation. The $37 per ton of carbon "starter tax" mentioned earlier, equating to around 10 cents a gallon of gasoline, fits the lower end of that range. At least as important as the tax level is the commitment to keep raising the tax, so that energy-critical decisions, from car-buying (Hummer or Prius?) to home-buying (exurb or transit-oriented community?) to factory locating (highway interchange or rail line?), are made with carbon-appropriate price signals.
No Tax Increases? How? (Interesting Read)
A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the public, with, perhaps, a very small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.
Two primary return approaches are being discussed. One would rebate the revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) equal “dividends” to all U.S. residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. Just such a program has operated in Alaska for three decades, providing residents with annual dividends from the state’s North Slope oil revenues.
In the other method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This “tax-shift” approach, while less direct than the dividend method, would also ensure that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral and could offer other benefits. For example, reducing payroll taxes could stimulate employment.
Each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the costs of various goods and services.
Revenue-neutrality not only protects the poor (see next section), it’s also politically savvy since it blunts the “No New Taxes” demand that has held sway in American politics for over a generation. Returning the carbon tax revenues to the public would also make it easier to raise the tax level over time, a point made nicely by McGill University professor Christopher Ragan in a 2008 Montreal Gazette op-ed.
I am amazed that I do not see more individuals and businesses in these states saying "enough is enough".
Articles Of The Week
State Climate Regulations After The Midterm Elections
http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2010/11/10/state-climate-regulation-after-the-midterm-elections/
States Of Emergency
This article came out just before the Nov 2nd election..Worth a read)
http://www.wearechange.org/?tag=rggi
Climate Change Pushed Through EPA via policy Decision
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/19/cap-and-trade-returns/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_campaign=ff5f020aec-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Climate Law In The Court Room
http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/climate_courts/
New York Cap and Trade
Carbon Tax non-profit company
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/
Hidden New York Tax
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20101203/OPINION01/312039992/-1/opinion
RGGI In New York
http://www.nyserda.org/RGGI/default.asp
RGGI Stakeholder Meeting
http://www.rggi.org/stakeholder_meeting
States Diverting Money For Climate Iniative
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/nyregion/29greenhouse.html?src=twrhp
RGGI CO2 Allowance Auction Price Sinks To All Time Low
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/10/41875/
Indeck's Lawsuit Against RGGI Implementation
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.warming/?p=845
How Cap and Trade Fixed New York State Budget
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=494460
No comments:
Post a Comment