Time for a carbon tax

Home > Opinion > Columns

print dictionary print

Time for a carbon tax


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Over the last few decades, oil prices have fluctuated widely, posing a challenge to producers and consumers alike. For policy makers, however, these fluctuations present an opportunity to advance the key global objectives - reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals adopted last September and climate agreement reached in Paris in December - of mitigating climate change and building a more sustainable economy.

Recent oil price fluctuations resemble the classic cobweb model of microeconomic theory. High prices spur increased investment in oil. But, given long lags between exploration and exploitation, by the time the new output capacity actually comes on stream, substitution has already taken place, and demand often no longer justifies the available supply. At that point, prices fall, and exploration and investment decline as well. When new shortages develop, prices begin rising again, and the cycle repeats.

The cycle will continue, though other factors - such as the steadily declining costs of renewable energy and the shift toward less energy-intensive production processes - mean that it will probably spin within a lower range. In any case, a price increase is inevitable.

Today’s very low prices create a golden opportunity to implement a variable carbon tax. The idea is simple: The tax would decrease gradually as oil prices rise, and then increase again when prices eventually come back down.

If the adjustments are asymmetric - larger increases when prices fall, and smaller decreases when prices rise - this system would gradually raise the overall carbon tax, even as it follows a countercyclical pattern. Such an incremental increase is what most models for controlling climate change call for.

Consider this scenario. Imagine that in December 2014, policy makers introduced a tax of $100 per metric ton of carbon. For American consumers, the immediate impact of this new tax - assuming its costs were passed fully onto consumers - would have been a $0.24 increase in the average national price of a gallon of gasoline, from $2.23 to $2.47, still far below the highs of 2007 and 2008.

If, since then, each $5 increase in the oil price brought a $30 per ton decrease in the carbon tax, and each $5 decline brought a $45-per-ton increase, the result would be a $0.91 difference between the standard market price and the actual tax-inclusive consumer price last month. That increase would have raised the carbon price substantially, providing governments with revenue - reaching $375 per ton of carbon today - to apply to meeting fiscal priorities, all while cushioning the fall in gasoline prices caused by the steep decline in the price of crude. While $375 per ton is a very high price, reflecting the particularly low price of oil today, even a lower carbon price - in the range of $150-250 per ton - would be sufficient to meet international climate goals over the next decade.

With this approach, policy makers could use the market to help propel their economies away from dependence on fossil fuels, redistributing producer surplus (profits) from oil producers to the treasuries of importing countries, without placing too large or sudden a burden on consumers. In fact, by stabilizing user costs, it would offer significant gains.

The key to this strategy’s political feasibility is to launch it while prices are very low. Once it is in place, it will become a politically uncontroversial part of pricing for gasoline (and other products) - one that produces far-reaching benefits. Some of the revenue could be returned to the public in the form of tax cuts or research support.

Despite the obvious benefits of a variable carbon tax, no country has capitalized on today’s low oil prices to raise carbon prices in this or a similar form, though U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for a tax on oil suggests he recognizes the opening low prices represent. This should change. The opportunity to implement a policy that is simultaneously sensible, flexible, gentle and effective in advancing national and global goals does not arise very often. The time for a variable stabilizing carbon tax is now.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.


*Kemal Dervis, former minister of economic affairs of Turkey and former administrator for the United Nations Development Program, is a vice president of the Brookings Institution. Karim Foda is
a research analyst at the Brookings Institution.


by Karim Foda, Kemal Dervis


More in Columns

More good than harm

For balanced information intake

Intelligent disobedience

Room for alignment

A cautionary tale

Log in to Twitter or Facebook account to connect
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
help-image Social comment?
lock icon

To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.

Standards Board Policy (0/250자)

What’s Popular Now