Is a Carbon Tax a Good Idea? >
A U.S. Carbon Tax Wouldn't Slow Down Global Climate Change
A carbon tax in the U.S. will have no impact on emissions in the rest of the world
December 10, 2012
About Paul C. Knappenberger:
Chip Knappenberger is the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
A carbon tax will not achieve the goal of substantially mitigating global climate change.
There is one, and only one, reason for instituting a carbon tax: to attempt to mitigate the impacts of climate change induced by humankind's use of fossil fuels for the production of energy. And about the only thing that a carbon tax in the United States will not do is mitigate global climate change in any meaningful—scientifically, or otherwise—manner.
Why? Because, based on mainstream estimates, of the approximately 3°C of global warming that is being projected to occur between now and the end of the century as a result of anthropogenic carbon (dioxide) emissions, the U.S. contribution will only be about 0.2°C, or about 7 percent of the total warming. And this is assuming that no carbon tax is put in place. Carbon dioxide emissions from the rest of the world—primarily driven by rapid emissions growth in developing countries like China and India—will be responsible for the other 93 percent of temperature rise.
[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]
The best that any carbon tax in the United States could ever hope to achieve would be to reduce the amount of global warming across the 21st century from about 3.0°C down to about 2.8°C. And that tiny, inconsequential reduction would only occur if all greenhouse gas emissions from the United States were halted forever, starting tomorrow, which isn't the plan.
The emissions reductions under any sort of carbon tax will be realized slowly, reducing the magnitude of the global temperature rise that the tax would avert. For example, a carbon tax designed to smoothly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from their current level to zero by the year 2100 would result in only about 0.1°C of global temperature "savings"—an amount, on its own, not worth pursuing.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
Any perceived utility of a carbon tax does not lie in domestic reductions, but in the hope that it will spur technological innovations for cheap, reliable, nondangerous, environmentally friendly, zero-emissions energy production which would then be freely shared with, and quickly adopted by, the rest of the world. That seems wishful thinking on the time scales that matter.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#135769
Yes — Carbon tax would help solve climate change and spur economic growth
RICHARD CAPERTON, Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress.
-
#228863
Yes — Revenue from a carbon tax could fund clean energy innovation and deficit reduction
MARK MURO, Director of Policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings
-
#326056
Yes — A carbon tax will address greenhouse gas pollution and bring in revenue
CHAD STONE, Chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
-
#420259
Yes — A carbon tax could extend the payroll tax holiday while spurring clean energy innovation
CHARLES KOMANOFF, Director of the Carbon Tax Center
-
#574254
No — A carbon tax would have a negative ripple effect across the economy
CHRISTOPHER PRANDONI, Federal Affairs Manager of Americans for Tax Reform
-
#777258
No — Carbon tax would harm the economy and would not impact global warming
THOMAS PYLE, President of the Institute for Energy Research
Reader Comments (