Source: cnn.com
CNN editor's Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Facebook and email. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.
We should make bad stuff more expensive.
And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.
"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.
It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.
Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy.
It's thought to be the first time a proposal like this has gone before U.S. voters.
Washington's Initiative-732 would make a bad thing -- pollution -- more expensive by putting a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide created by cars, power plants and the like.
More importantly, doing so would throw economic muscle behind clean energy, shorter commutes, cleaner air and smarter cities. It would use the market, not regulations, to choose winners and losers in the clean tech race. It would help Washington state, in the apt words of the initiative's promoters, fulfill its moral responsibility to leave a livable planet for future generations. And it plans do so without wrecking the economy or growing government.
That's because Bauman's carbon-tax proposal aims to be "revenue neutral," meaning all of the money the state collects from the tax on carbon will be returned to the people and businesses as tax breaks. So this shouldn't be seen as an additional tax. It's a different tax -- a pollution tax.
It helps account for the very real social costs of burning carbon.
The fee is levied on each ton of CO2-equivalent gases that are emitted. So the tax would show up at the gas pump and also on electric bills for businesses and homes. To avoid the tax, businesses and people gradually would shift to cleaner-energy sources that don't pollute.
Because of the accompanying tax breaks, many families would save money.
The concept has broad support from intellectuals on the right and left. Economists, environmentalists, climate scientists -- even oil execs at Exxon Mobil -- back the theory. |
