Putting a Price on Carbon

Beyond the public’s view, major players in the climate change debate are reassessing their options.  In fact, as the prospects of Congress approving a cap-and-trade system fade, discussion is shifting to “Plan B.”

One reason is that the version of cap-and-trade which just barely passed the House of Representatives a few months ago, the Waxman-Markey bill, made so many concessions to polluting interests that its support among environmentalists has eroded badly.   Here’s one indicator of just how weak the bill is:  When it passed the House, bond ratings for coal companies improved – a remarkable development given that coal-generated electricity is the single largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.   In the Senate, progressives are said to be determined to oppose any legislation that ends up as weak as Waxman-Markey.   And the moderates and conservatives who make up a majority of the Senate remain wary of climate-change engineering in a cap-and-trade form, since it would both raise energy prices for average Americans and make those prices more volatile for business.   The upshot is that the prospects of corralling 60 votes for the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill in the Senate have faded to nearly zero.  

In truth, the support for a cap-and-trade system always has been limited largely to a handful of sources. There are two large environmental groups – the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – wedded to the notion of dressing up a regulatory cap on emissions with market-based trading in the emissions permits, and the Wall Street institutions eager to get a piece of all that trading and the speculation and derivatives it would throw off.  In addition, a few large energy companies with major business lines in trading energy futures have been active supporters, as have some other companies confident they can exact the kinds of special exemptions for themselves that ultimately hobbled Waxman-Markey.   Even that limited base has been shrinking:  Wall Street support has become a big negative in the current political context, and there are reports that in the wake of Waxman-Markey, NRDC is now internally divided over the basic strategy.

With the fate of cap-and-trade in the Senate pretty much sealed – in effect, cap-and-trade’s third successive rejection by the Senate -- the debate behind the scenes is moving to the alternatives.   The two leading options are direct EPA regulation of GHG emissions or a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  The courts recently held that EPA already has the authority to regulate GHG emissions, and the eclipse of cap-and-trade will shine a new spotlight on this approach.  The alternative is one which a good share of the environmental community, most economists, and climate-change leaders like Al Gore have all supported:  Apply a tax to energy based on its carbon content, and recycle the revenues as cuts in payroll or other taxes.  Given how economically costly direct regulation can be – and the uncertainties about what such regulation would look like under the next conservative president, compared to our present liberal one -- its prospect could quickly expand support for a carbon tax program.  That approach also has the virtue of a successful record:  While Europe’s cap-and-trade system has yet to reduce European GHG emissions, Sweden’s 15-year experiment with carbon-based taxes cut the country’s emissions sharply even as its economy grew 50 percent larger. 

For its supporters, a carbon tax is simple, transparent, and produces a steady price for carbon which businesses can use to plan large investments in developing and adopting more climate-friendly fuels and technologies.  To its opponents, it’s just another tax.  That objection should be at least partly neutralized by recycling the revenues through other tax cuts – if the debate remains reasonable.  In the end, environmental and business leaders, and ultimately the White House, will have to defend a carbon-based tax against the forces of politics as usual, which in this time seem dominated by the power of entrenched interests and the partisan politics of just-say-no-to-everything.  If we can’t manage that, we may well lose the best chance in a generation to take serious action to defend he climate our children and grandchildren will inherit. 

Over the weekend, Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham penned a joint op-ed in the New York Times that has made those of us who care about action on climate change pretty happy. The prospects of Republican support extending beyond the Snow-Collins duo to John McCain's best friend in the Senate this early in the process is exciting, to say the least. And the compromise that Graham wants isn't too far-fetched.

There is, however, one piece of the op-ed that has made many who understand that combating climate change is a multilateral challenge nervous:

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.

I agree that we can't sacrifice jobs to overseas competitors. Competitiveness is one of the best reasons to pass climate legislation that spurs innovation and deployment of a whole generation of low-carbon technologies domestically. That said, climate change is a pressing global challenge that inherently requires unprecedented levels of global cooperation, but the proposed punitive trade policies are expressly unilateral mechanisms. This is a policy mismatch that will not help us solve this challenge. 

If we want the developing world – from which the vast majority of emissions growth is expected in the coming decades – to be on board with creating a solution to climate change and to buy our climate-friendly goods, slapping a tariff on them right away is not the way to make friends and influence people. And it's not as if the United States has been leading on climate issues – Imagine the American response if Europeans had imposed these tariffs. I don't want to begin to imagine the retaliation that other nations may decide upon; what do we do if China and India – who already have high barriers to climate friendly technologies – decide that they're not quite high enough, especially for American goods?

Additionally, it's crucial to note that climate legislation already allots (as opposed to auctions) permits to energy intensive industries. Tariffs amount to a double correction. Here's leading international economist Jagdish Bhagwati at a recent NDN-New Policy Institute event speaking about the tariffs and the WTO compliance of a cap and trade regime:

Some important people are wary of or opposed to these tariffs: The head Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, thinks they're a bad idea:

"This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this," said Pachauri, who spoke with the AP after he addressed the National Press Club. "Please don't use this weapon. I'm afraid that those that have been pushing these provisions probably don’t realize that all of this can cause a major negative reaction," Pachauri added. "The United States has always stood for a free market system. … Legislation to move away from that principle is clearly counterproductive."

As does President Obama: 

At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there. There were a number of provisions that were already in place, prior to this last provision you talked about, to provide transitional assistance to heavy manufacturers. A lot of the offsets were outdated to those industries. I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary, given all the other stuff that was done and had been negotiated on behalf of energy-intensive industries.

So certainly it is a legitimate concern on the part of American businesses that they are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis their global competitors. Now, keep in mind, European industries are looking at an even more ambitious approach than we are. And they obviously have confidence that they can compete internationally under a regime that controls carbons. I think the Chinese are starting to move in the direction of recognizing that the future requires them to take a clean energy approach. In fact, in some ways they're already ahead of us -- on fuel efficiency standards, for example, they've moved beyond where we've moved on this.

There are going to be a series of negotiations around this and I am very mindful of wanting to make sure that there's a level playing field internationally. I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach.

I'm excited that the chances for getting climate change legislation through the Senate have grown, I just don't want to see them destroy the chances for multilateral climate action. Both are important for American competitiveness, jobs, and the creation of a low-carbon economy.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration released a long awaited, definitive government report on the impact of climate change on the United States by region, economic sector and social outcome.  In what might be called an American version of the Stern report, prepared by 13 government agencies, it confirms the large existing body of scientific work on the reality of climate change and then specifically charts the impact on the United States today and far into the future.

Significantly, it argues that climate change has already impacted the US through heavy downpours, rising temperatures and sea levels, thawing permafrost, earlier snowmelt and alterations in river flows.  And change will accelerate in years to come.  Indeed, the report underscores that much of the impact of climate change will be via water.  In some areas, increased precipitation will stress water management resources, leading to flooding.  In others, it will lead to drought.  Changing water paterns will impact agriculture, coastal regions and public health.

If this report cannot drive home the point that the cost of climate change is far greater than the cost of a cap and market regime to address it, nothing may.  The real threat of climate change is that its mechanism for wreaking havoc is so broad: rain, rising rivers, drought and other changes in our overall habitat can seem too diffuse to pin on one cause.  This report shows that there is a cause, however, and it is greenhouse gases.

As the House prepares to debate the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) next week it would do well recognize that the problems of climate change do indeed transcend regional or parochial boundaries and only the political courage to see the big picture, will enable America and the world to take the steps needed to solve this complex problem.

As I have been writing, the time has never been better to pass a climate change bill and if action does not take place this year, the prospects for passage are likely to decline.  Recognizing the threat of a bill passing, opponents have pulled out all the stops, while supporters are making a full court press to gain passage.  With a critical vote in the House coming as early next week, the stakes could not be higher.

Against this backdrop, yesterday, Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection released a new ad as part of its Repower America campaign to help rally support for the bill.

The ad shows a farmer talking about the need to do something about dependence on foreign oil.  He has a point.  It was President Nixon who first began to rail about dependence on foreign oil.  In the 40 years since, the problem has only grown worse.  And, of course, we now have to contend as well with the even more serious threat of global climate change. 

Here's the ad:

One of the things that has struck me more than anything else in directing the NDN Green Project over the last year and a half is how events have so often outstripped policy.  Last year when oil prices were spiking, contributing to the economic crisis that erupted in the fall and probably adding to uncertainty in the auto market that caused sales to collapse when the financial crisis struck, Congress debated a host of measures to check commodity index speculation, change drilling policy and accelerate the rollout of alternative fuels.  None came to fruition in anything close to a timely manner.  Indeed, with the exception of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that moved on a fast truck only because of the dire shape of the economy, Congress has rarely been able to act in time. 

Acting In Time happens to be the theme of a series of conferences, papers and thinking emerging from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.  Dean David Elwood who served in the Clinton Administration coined the term to describe the difficulty of acting in time given the rapid pace of change in the 21st Century and the all too 20th Century pace of government.  Acting in Time on Energy Policy is also the title of a new book published by Brookings Press released today that distills the work of Harvard scholars on energy policy and tries to answer the question of how can the pace of policy action be accelerated to match that of the 21st Century.

The book contains a variety of presicent articles by experts on their respective topics, all with deep practical knowledge and experience in developing policy that works.  Thus, William Hogan, a key architect of those approaches to deregulation that have worked, discusses electricity policy reform, Daniel Shrag discusses the critical issue of carbon capture and sequestration, John Holdren, the President's new science adivsor, together with Laura Anadon discusses how to accelerate innovation in the energy field where the US has fall far behind other countries, Henry Lee writes about oil security, Max Braverman about the question of acting in time in general and Kelly Gallagher, the editor of the volume, discusses the critical issues of how to Act in Time on climate change.

The latter question is especially vital and time sensitive.  Scientists indicate that there is a large direct cost in terms of emissions and higher temperatures to delaying action even one or two years.  However, the political cost may be even higher.  As I have written, conditions have never been more auspicious for action on climate change than they are this year with a new Democratic president in office who has made energy policy a priority, strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and Copenhagen looming as a deadline.  If Congress fails to act this year, the prospect for action will dim.  As Holdren, Gallagher and others argue, trying to create the perfect legislative fix must not stand in the way of acting in a timely manner.

This week The House Energy and Commerce Committee also began markup of climate change legislation introduced by Chairman Henry Waxman, Chairman Ed Markey and others.  The back and forth at the hearings has been forceful, indicating the seriousness of what is at stake and also indicating that there is a better than even chance that the House will do its part to move this historic legislation. 

As Congress and stakeholders debate the issue, they will do well to remember what Ellwood has identified as the importance of Acting in Time on an issue that effects the health of the planet.

There are far too many examples of failing to act.   On the other hand, every now and then Congress gets together and does something historic.  Right now, the stars could not be more in alignment.

The decision of the Obama Administration to embrace stronger fuel economy standards by 2016 is drawing praise from environmentalists but fire from auto analysts who say it will add to Detroit's woes.  The decision to accelerate fuel economy comes on top of a variety of policy proposals to address climate change, the auto industry and transportation including the cap and market bill that was the subject of House hearings yesterday, the deliberations of the Auto Task Force over GM's fate, replenishing the Highway Trust Fund and a proposal to offer clash for clunkers also in legislation working its way through Congress.  Here are my thoughts how higher fuel economy standards fit into the bigger picture.

First, fuel economy standards are among the least precise tools for addressing climate change.  The reason?  Fuel economy is the mathematical equivalent of lower gas prices insofar as its allow consumers to drive more for less.  While it is therefore good for motorists' pocket books, its impact on emissions is ambiguous.  If you believe that people drive a certain amount each day and never vary that amount--then higher fuel economy translates directly to lower emissions.  However, if you believe that people drive more when gas costs less in other words that gas usage is price elastic--then higher fuel economy leaves more money in your pocket but does little to reduce emissions.  Last year's falloff in driving when oil prices spiked (as well as numerous studies) suggests that gas use is price elastic. As a result, the primary impact of higher fuel economy is likely to be what economists call an improvement in consumer welfare but not a large reduction in gas emissions. 

Second, higher fuel economy--by lowering the cost of driving a mile--also runs counter to the idea of making carbon more expensive--the idea behind carbon tax proposals and the cap and market legislation debated yesterday.

Third, fuel economy standards like gas prices are likely to impact the quantity of gasoline consumed.  In fact that is the goal.  To the degree they lead to less gas consumption, they lead to fewer gas taxes collected.  Since the Highway Trust Fund which finances not only roads but a large share of mass transit in America relies on gas taxes, higher fuel economy standards may reduce money available for transportation.  Later this year, Congress will try to fix the finances of the Highway Trust Fund.  But we should be mindful that improving fuel economy cuts in the opposite direction of two other policy ideas: making carbon more expensive and replenishing infrastructure funds.

Finally, there is the cost to the auto industry of making cars more fuel efficient.  The Auto Task Force has adopted fuel economy as an unofficial goal and suggested Chrysler and GM need to improve fuel economy as a condition of survival.  However, there is no link between fuel efficiency and profitability and, if anything, the correlation is negative.  Large cars remain a requirement for families and Americans simply like them.  Indeed, a Chevy Suburban with five in it is far more fuel efficient than a Prius with one person in it.  Cash constrained Americans--the lower three fifths of our beleaguered consumers--also prefer to pay less up front even if they have to pay more for fuel later on.  This is a question of their internal discount rate and cost of capital--which in the case of the poor is very high.  Even the New York Times discussing the looming GM bankruptcy yesterday got its logic mixed up on this yesterday when it described the fact that 11 of 20 of GM's best selling cards are gas guzzlers as a problem.  The company's problem is not its money making cars but its money losers.

As I have written before the crisis of the auto industry is due to one thing and one only, the virtual halving of sales volume due to the financial crisis that makes it impossible for anyone, Toyota, Honda, GM or Chrysler, to make money in the United States.  Fuel economy is a largely separate issue.

All this is a long way of saying that the higher fuel economy standards are no magic bullet to the problem of emissions and the real requirement of all the policy suggestions currently floating around is that they work together in alignment.

Here are proposals that are aligned.

The cash for clunkers idea now before Congress that Jack Hidary and others have advocated makes sense because it replaces old, smoky cars with new clean ones and also will generate demand for cars at a time when sales are down.

Pricing carbon through cap and market makes sense because it will attach the costs of emissions directly to their source, carbon. 

Good old gas taxes which are a form of carbon tax make sense as well, since they connect the tax to the carbon.  In contrast, the Vehicle Mileage Tax that some have proposed, even apart from its Orwellian implications for our freedom, would remove any incentive to buy an electric car or plug-in hybrid or, indeed, own a fuel efficient vehicle.

Incentives for electric cars and plug-in hybrids make sense because they move us off gasoline entirely.  Indeed, higher gas mileage is only likely to lead to major reductions in emissions if it hastens a switch to electric vehicles.

All these goals require a healthy auto industry.  If the Auto Task Force can keep GM out of bankruptcy, this would be a good thing, as a drawn out GM bankruptcy could hobble America's clean energy future.

In short, when dealing with issues this complex, it is vital that we get them right and that different policy proposals work together.  While higher fuel economy standards are, on balance, good, they need to be viewed as part of an overall plan to create a clean, healthy and robust American transportation sector.

New York City -- Later today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is expected to release the Chairman's Mark of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the energy and cap and trade bill, for markup next week. The new text will reflect a deal made Tuesday on the key issue of giving out versus auctioning of allowances for greenhouse gas emissions. With those agreements -- which give out 35% of the credits to local utilities and 15% to trade-intensive industries -- the bill clears a major hurdle and is now more likely to pass the House than not. The question is what does the compromise on auctioning credits mean? In my view, it is secondary to the greater goal of moving a bill forward. Accordingly, the deal reached by Chairman Henry Waxman and Congressman Ed Markey with other Members should be hailed as a victory by everyone who cares about the climate.

The auctioning issue is not unimportant. When permits are given out, polluting is free and there are no immediate financial incentives to reduce emissions. On the other hand, forcing polluters to buy permits at auction places an immediate price on carbon, similar to a carbon tax, that creates an incentive to reduce emissions from the get go.

Like a carbon tax, auctioning permits also raises immediate revenue that can be used to invest in new technologies or offset the otherwise negative impact on the economy of higher carbon prices by reducing taxes elsewhere.

The downside of auctioning permits, however, is the immediate economic impact on industry and consumers of higher prices. For this reason, most cap and trade proposals have included, at a minimum, a transition period when permits are given out. The EU scheme allowed only 5% of credits to be auctioned in its rollout phase.

When permits are handed out free, no immediate incentive is created to reduce emissions. However, as emissions approach the cap, depending on the penalties for exceeding it, the cost of the permits will begin to impact the marginal cost of energy and energy or emissions-intensive products, creating an incentive to reduce emissions. Thus as the cap is approached, the system will begin to affect behavior. In the EU, while countries have begun to auction off more credits, the system still largely works on grandfathered credits and hinges on the cost of buying credits once the cap is reached.

The key point here is that auctioning is not an absolute requirement.

Far more important in the scheme of things is that failure to pass climate legislation this year would postpone action on climate change, perhaps indefinitely. There could be no more propitious time than now in this unique year in modern political history with a new Democratic president in his first year in the White House -- who has made clean energy a key priority -- and large Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House. Add to that the timetable created by Copenhagen. Next year things could be quite different, meaning the time to act is now.

Throughout American history, Congress has generally only passed major legislation either when conditions were especially propitious as they are now or in the midst of a major crisis. Since climate change is so gradual, we may not see a crisis that can be directly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions until it is too late to act.

Finally, some make the argument that no plan is better than a weak or flawed plan on the theory that Congress will only take this up once.

I disagree. In general, Congress is more likely to adjust something that exists than create something new and experience shows that regulations, once established tend to tighten, not the reverse.

Accordingly, today's bill is an important step forward in addressing the challenge of climate change.