A pedagogy on carbon tax

Carbon tax on the way back to Welfare Economics

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en Castellano

>> Click here to translate this page to French

Designing a tax for everything that contaminates incites people to preserve environment, the atmosphere in particular, which is in serious danger. The idea is to penalize polluting energy in transport, housing and personal consumption. Every time we consume less fuel but this is not enough to achieve the goals set at the last conference on climate change: hence the idea to programme a compulsory tax (to be paid per tonne of fossil fuel issued). This in order that the world decrease to half the emissions of greenhouse gas (2050) and limit Earth warming to 2 degrees – which causes climate change.

Global warming due to greenhouse gases from the combustion of carbon dioxide is 49,000 million tons of CO2 emissions. Enough is enough, this must be punishable. Its effects could lead to an overall increase of 3% of the temperature within approximately 100 years. The cost of global warming is estimated at 5,500,000 million (Nicholas Stern) [1]. While the concept of a tax on CO2 emissions comes from Arthur Pigou (Economics of Welfare) [2] who, in 1920, first established the polluter pays principle.

Now …

• Should we tax the product itself or the energy consumed?
• What about taxing imported products?
• How do we avoid the risks of inequality?
• What can we do with the tax revenue?

The solutions adopted by each country are different.
France, with about 50,000 million of environmental taxation laid up, shows a certain delay. The structure of French environmental taxation is so unwise by voluntarism emphasis that it will not generate benefits in the sense of net contribution or revenue – but only more taxes on water, on garbage, on the consumption of hydrocarbons (TIPP) which are not reversed in any improvements (infrastructure, citizen responsibilization); on the contrary, it is the umpteenth patch covering the phenomenal public deficit hole. The pedagogy turns into a demagogic fatalistic verbiage as to mislead the common man – because it ignores the virtues of consensus that in all the surrounding countries is originated in the parliamentary debate, which is where popular sovereignty revives up and where such taxation should be decided, not in the halls of the presidential palace – a very usual symptom in the French Republic whose skin politicians refuse to change. These rates represent 3% of GDP … thrown away. Unless considering France as the cleanest country in Europe thanks to its huge nuclear program, which on the contrary converts this country in less safe by the obvious potential for nuclear incidents due to its atomic central park and may involve in quantity of radioactive wastes concerned – the highest per capita in the world. The rhetoric continues, forward flight, too. The only positive point is that hydroelectricity accounts for 93% of energy resources … with the aggravated disadvantage that the driving force’s the nuclear cell. Who do we kidding? If the decrease in CO2 emissions must involve the breakneck growth of the nuclear beast, then where do we go? Stripped from one mouth to feed another.

Moreover, the tax on CO2 emissions in a country is not really quantifiable to impact CO2 emissions at the global level. Global policies are needed to internalize environmental costs and act on the behaviour of firms and households. That is the healthier principle. France is wrong in the way of carrying it out: confusion over the extent rate itself (cheerfully going from 20 to 32 for up to 100 euros / TN emitted by 2030, then left who can say where?) over the exemptions, over its operation. The increased cost of living is set: estimated at 10% the additional costs of household heating in French homes by 2010, from 5 to 10 cts. for a liter of fuel at the pump now. Another consequence is that the tax, as is, will ruin the remaining local industry (current bleeding is the largest ever seen in France) and as usual,  only a few (large) groups will afford to face such additional costs in the midst of an industrial desert. Who will invest in a country that overtaxes 100 euros each emitted CO2 TN? As for the wicked 35h law, nor study or reflection has been implemented and no effort tryed to coordinate with other European countries. The devil is in the details, French say …

The topic of compensation is often talked about, but what about inequality between consumers? What to do with the € 8,000 million that the government is supposed to enter through the concept (e.g. fatten the coffers of the ministry of finance)?

Swedish pedagogy against French demagogy
Other countries as Sweden have also established a carbon tax, even more substantial, but with a very different modus operandi: e.g. Swedish tax implies a graduated scale for companies that invest more in technological innovation to improve production processes in CO2 emission – now that is pedagogy. It’s bad times in terms of economic crisis situation but action is credible in Sweden and demagogic in France where nobody knows whether the tax will be redistributed or yet another ‘neutral’ tax – that is, outside of Pigouvian incitement, which has the favour of Prime Minister Fillon.
Because the environment policy can not be summarized to raise the level of taxation or implementing new taxes, unless you’re old tricks again and increase unemployment and public debt. Two years back here it was the bonus / malus tax on car CO2 emissions (an onerous  marketing device that ruined much of the automotive industry, with a fall of 40% of French production, forcing car manufacturers to abandon the profitable manufacture of sedans to engage in small cars’ on which the profit margin is zero or nearly zero), last year was the tax on diapers for newborns turn, this year it is the time of a tax on CO2 emissions … a joke (or better yet, a shortsighted policy).
The temptation to tax the super profits of the oil industry (Ségolène Royal) would only have negative repercussions in the pocket of the consumers. Better a tax that changes that behaviour and not simply going to fatten the coffers of the state and its lifestyle. Report and well communicate with citizen, having a little patience not changing everything at a stroke or by decree.
Taxation reforms are essential throughout our countries. We talk about tax incentive and not subsidies e.g. car industries so that they manufacture a kind of cars that they would have made anyway. Let’s face green taxes; it is just and necessary, but mostly to help us getting out from the unending virtual crisis of rampant capitalism, far from the real economy. No green custom duties at European borders, a trend advocated by some, in their eagerness, to lead us into a new protectionism; but rather concentrating on comprehensive policies, at least in Europe, better globally. It is useless to establish national policies not coordinated with the rest of countries, giving way to protectionist policies more or less latent: have a look on the global trade drop of 12%, if you want to add more crisis to crisis just add the perversion of protectionism to all the difficulties we face today. The environment is a global public good. To be honest we do not know how to deal with externalities steadily i.e. when China or Brazil pollute, they do not so in their respective territories only but in the entire world. Enforcing tariffs however is theoretically a nice building, but in practice it is just about regression. Also do not forget that China’s censure is unfair: the PRC is making genuine efforts to drastically reduce pollution in its industries – and it still does not occur in most of developed countries.

One of the biggest questions is to identify what the US attitude will be. So far the US had no concern on the Kyoto Protocol; the position is changing but it all depends on the type of changes that comes about there. Scenarios abroad are in my opinion: the role of the G20, the Doha WTO round re-launch and the climate meeting in Copenhagen. All three turn around the same concern: the need for global economic governance to meet challenges.

Pedagogy missing in the US and UK.
The increasing size of speculative capital flows, mainly in US and UK, is the pending business. I mean speculative capitals and hot money outflows are bigger now than a year ago – in the worst moment of financial-mortgage crisis. Hot money is tossed into the emerging economies as the first symptom relief crops up. Thus, the central bank of China is increasingly doomed to buy huge reserves to support a sick dollar (thus some $ 70,000 million per month, are beyond the circuit of productive investments in order to prevent the US currency to collapse again), deflecting precisely investment in productive economy. That is, in essence, we have not yet altered the global imbalances, and even we are somewhat higher than before the crisis. The issue of executive bonuses and allowances is less significant than the required dismantling of the opacity in the banking investment -something impossible in the most key European financial center, the City of London, since the future PM Cameron opposes to it. This, in US terms, is yet unimaginable. So far the best indicators of the City and NY – queues at the best restaurants – behave well as table reservations vary from 2 to 3 months … bonuses, windfalls, luxury cars, stratospheric contracts are just around the corner again. To pin a button: flows exchanged in the derivatives markets reached a record of vertigo – almost 10 times world’s GDP. So how can David control Goliath?

To be continued …

.

[1]  The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a report on the impact of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Written by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the UK government, the report was published in October 2006. The report represents a milestone by becoming the first government report commissioned by an economist rather than a climatologist.

[2] Arthur Pigou is considered the founder of welfare economics and the main precursor of the environmental movement to make the distinction between social and private marginal expenses and advocate for state intervention through subsidies and taxes to correct market failures and internalize externalities. Welfare Economics is his most emblematic book.