Two separate carbon dioxide tax proposals were introduced in the Vermont House of Representatives during the 2015–16 sessions. While both these proposals failed, proponents of the carbon dioxide tax are expected to make a big push in 2017.
The purpose of the carbon tax is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by levying a tax based on the amount of emissions produced. The first proposal, promoted by Energy Independent Vermont, would have established a $10 fee per ton of carbon dioxide emitted on fossil-fuel distributors – with the tax increasing by $10 per ton every year until it would have reached $100 per ton. The second would have had the same annual incremental increase, but it would have started at $50 per ton.
In the first bill, 90 percent of the revenue collected from the carbon dioxide tax would go toward a “reduction of the sales and use tax, a refundable tax credit to personal income taxpayers, a low-income taxpayer rebate, and a per employee rebate to employers.” The other 10 percent would be used to pay for “low-income weatherization” and to establish the Vermont Energy Independence Fund, which would “promote the development and deployment of cost-effective and environmentally sustainable clean energy resources.”
The second bill would offset 80 percent of the collected revenue with a rebate to employers for each of their full-time employees and a refundable tax credit to “personal income taxpayers of middle and low income.” The remaining 20 percent would have gone toward the Vermont Sustainable Transportation Fund, the purpose of which is to “invest in infrastructure and programs to help reduce Vermont’s dependence on fossil fuels for transportation and associated greenhouse gas emissions.”
The tax rebates and credits included in the bills are necessary because carbon dioxide taxes are inherently regressive and disproportionally harm low-income families. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found a $28 per ton carbon tax would result in energy costs being 250 percent higher for the poorest one-fifth of households than the richest one-fifth of households.
CBO reports the reason for cost discrepancy is “a carbon tax would increase the prices of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their carbon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy … Low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most, such as electricity and transportation.”
Oren Cass, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says the environmental benefits that might come from passage of a bill similar to the ones proposed in Vermont would be minimal. “The effectiveness of a carbon tax as a matter of environmental policy [depends] not only on how it would directly alter the trajectory of [local] emissions but also on its ability to affect global emissions by driving globally applicable technological innovation or by influencing the behavior of foreign governments,” wrote Cass. “On each of these dimensions, the carbon tax fails.”
At 14.57 cents per kilowatt hour, Vermont already has the ninth-highest retail electricity prices in the nation. Instead of adding a new tax, elected officials should consider rolling back regulations, subsidies, and renewable-energy mandates. Additionally, building more pipeline infrastructure to bring in greater amounts of natural gas into the state would be much more effective than a burdensome tax at lowering emissions, lowering unemployment, and spurring economic productivity.
The following documents offer additional information on carbon dioxide taxes.
Ten Principles of Energy Policy
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/ten-principles-energy-policy
In this Legislative Principles booklet, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast identifies the ten most important energy issues facing the nation and outlines the energy policy actions that will lead to the highest, most efficient production at the lowest cost to consumers.
Dissecting the Carbon Tax
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/july/dissecting-the-carbon-tax
American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Kenneth Greene tells how he was first deceived by the supposed economic benefits of carbon taxes and how his views have evolved in light of the dubious track record of other eco-taxes being raided for general spending.
Ten State Solutions to Emerging Issues
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/ten-state-solutions-emerging-issues
This Heartland Institute booklet explores solutions to the top public policy issues facing the states in 2016 and beyond in the areas of budget and taxes, education, energy and environment, health care, and constitutional reform. The solutions identified are proven reform ideas that have garnered significant support among the states and with legislators.
Five Myths of Cap-and-Trade
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/five-myths-cap-and-trade
Articles supporting cap-and-trade programs rest on a number of fallacies. In this article by Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, Myers identifies and explores five persistent myths concerning cap-and-trade, including the belief that a cap on carbon dioxide emissions guarantees emissions reduction.
The Carbon Tax Shell Game
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/carbon-tax-shell-game
Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute says the carbon tax is a shell game. The range of designs, prices, rationales, and claimed benefits varies so widely that assessing the actual validity of most proposals is nearly impossible to accomplish. In this article for National Affairs, Cass says the effect of carbon dioxide taxes on emissions has proven to be insubstantial, a fact he says is ignored by the tax’s proponents when promoting its purported benefits. Cass also says carbon dioxide taxes’ negative fiscal effects are claimed to be offset by efficiency improvements and by promising the revenues will be spent to offset the costs, but he says the same revenues are often promised to different constituencies to accomplish completely different and largely incompatible goals.
Assessing the Social Costs and Benefits of Regulating Carbon Emissions
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/assessing-social-costs-and-benefits-regulating-carbon-emissions
The government is required to quantify the costs and benefits of regulations they propose. In the context of regulations pertaining to carbon dioxide emissions, various agencies have been using differing estimates of the net social cost related to carbon dioxide. In response, an interagency working group (IWG) was created in order to establish a consistent and objective “social cost of carbon.” The range of estimates of the social cost of carbon produced by the IWG is too narrow and almost certainly biased upwards. Using better models and the most recently available evidence on climate sensitivity, this study from the Reason Foundation finds the range of the social cost of carbon should be revised downwards. The study states carbon dioxide emissions may actually have a net beneficial effect on the environment.
Less Carbon, Higher Prices: How California’s Climate Policies Affect Lower-Income Residents
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/less-carbon-higher-prices-how-californias-climate-policies-affect-lower-income-resi
This study from Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute argues California’s clean power regulations, including the state’s renewable power mandate, is a regressive tax that harms impoverished Californians more than any other group.
Three Steps to Reducing Carbon Emissions Effectively
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/three-steps-reducing-carbon-emissions-effectively
Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center says Washington State’s climate policies are the result of a destructive cycle: Exaggerated promises are adopted, and then when they fail, politicians blame opponents. This cycle creates more partisanship and encourages even larger, less workable promises. Instead of trying to force lifestyle changes, as many environmental activists have proposed, Myers says Washington State should utilize technological advancements that have the potential to improve energy efficiency.
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming
In this book published by The Heartland Institute, authors Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer say the most important fact about climate science, which they say is often overlooked, is scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. The authors say the only “consensus” among climate scientists is human activities can have an effect on local climate and the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, they say, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured, and if it is, does it represent or is likely to become a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals, say the authors.
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-physical-science
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science, published in October 2013. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and The Heartland Institute. (Also see the Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science “Summary for Policymakers”: https://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf)
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
https://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts
Released on April 9, 2014, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the impacts of climate change on plants, terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human well-being. (Also see the Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts “Summary for Policymakers”: https://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Executive-Summary.pdf)
Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the Environment & Climate News website at http://news.heartland.org/energy-and-environment, The Heartland Institute’s website at http://heartland.org, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database, at http://policybot.enginez.com/.
The Heartland Institute can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Logan Elizabeth Pike, Heartland’s state government relations manager, at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.
Tim Benson joined The Heartland Institute in September 2015 as a policy analyst in the Government Relations Department.
