Home Blogs Opinion A carbon tax and shift can grow Oregon economy

A carbon tax and shift can grow Oregon economy

| Print |  Email
Opinion
Tuesday, April 02, 2013

BY  DR. THOMAS POTIOWSKY, DR. JENNY LIU, AND JEFF RENRO | OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

04.02.13 Blog co2Our lives are surrounded by regulations to influence behavior, from not smoking in public places to not polluting waterways and being civil in public. Usually, a violation of these regulations is associated with a fine or a tax to discourage greater use, as in the cigarette tax.

The fines and taxes serve two purposes: 1) to discourage an unwanted behavior and 2) to generate revenue that funds the operation of public services, such as police and fire departments.

In a very broad sense, our society fines and taxes undesirable behavior and uses the funds to promote behavior we do want, such as safety on our streets and fire prevention for our homes.

When it comes to climate change, we also have a number of regulations to stop or discourage behavior that may lead to global warming. Violations of these regulations have fines associated with them. However, unlike the cigarette tax, there is no price or cost placed on emitting carbon.  Furthermore, we are missing the second part of using the funds to promote behavior we do want.

A properly designed carbon tax can get us there.

In March 2013, we released our report Carbon Tax and Shift: How to Make it Work for Oregon’s Economy which models one way of reducing carbon emissions while also assisting businesses and households by reducing distortionary income taxes and potentially generating revenue for the state.

In 2008, British Columbia instituted a revenue-neutral carbon tax of $10/ton CO2e which has risen to its current cap of $30/ton CO2e. Results of the tax are still preliminary, but evidence suggests that BC has reduced emissions more than the rest of Canada while enjoying slightly higher GDP growth than the other provinces.

The revenue has been repatriated back into the economy primarily through cuts to corporate and personal income tax rates. As a result, BC now has the lowest corporate income tax rate in the OECD. In our review of carbon pricing schemes, BC stood out for the ease with which its program was implemented as well as the environmental benefits without negatively impacted the larger economy.

We estimated the net economic and environmental impacts of bringing this system to Oregon. While our research is preliminary, we find that there is a way to decrease CO2e emissions in Oregon while having a small, positive effect on Oregon employment. Our study models several different carbon prices, but we decided to use a price of $60/ton CO2e in our full scenario estimates.

When deciding how to repatriate carbon tax revenues, there is a tradeoff between equity and efficiency. A successful program will need to distribute the burden of the tax fairly, while also preventing adverse economic effects. During our simulations, we found that corporate income tax cuts are key for economic efficiency. If all of the revenue is devoted to corporate income tax cuts, the Oregon economy has the largest employment growth but fails to produce equitable outcomes. Because low-income households spend more of their income on energy, measures must be put in place to reduce the regressiveness of the tax.

Exempting low-income households would severely weaken the carbon price signal; instead, we suggest returning funds to low-income households either quarterly or annually through a greater decrease in the income tax rate, tax credits or subsidies. In addition to being ethically justified, giving extra relief to low-income households also leads to greater economic growth.

After running dozens of scenarios, we arrive at two preferred repatriation schemes. Both devote a majority of revenues to corporate income tax cuts, and include low-income household relief to ensure equitable outcomes. They differ in the amount of revenue set aside for targeted reinvestment. In one scenario, 10% of revenues are set aside for industrial energy efficiency projects. In the other 25% of revenues are used for industrial and residential energy efficiency, as well as transportation infrastructure. The outcomes differ in the amount of jobs created, as well as the distribution of the tax burden. In all of our scenarios, we find net changes in employment that corresponds to a fraction of 1% of Oregon employment.

We still have work left to do before a carbon tax could be implemented. Impacts on industry sectors and households need to be estimated in finer detail. A method for applying carbon pricing to imported electricity that is both economically valid and legally viable needs to be devised.

Between the experience in BC and the results of our research, we can avoid the trade-off between doing what is right for the environment and what is right for the economy. It would be ideal if carbon pricing was adopted on a national or regional level, but it could be adopted locally.

There will be winners and losers in any scenario, but with carefully-designed repatriation methods we can reduce what we do not want — carbon emissions — while promoting want we do want – a healthy economy and job creation.

Thomas Potiowsky, Jenny Liu, and Jeff Renfro are researchers at Portland State University's Northwest Economic Research Center.

Editor's Note:  Oregon Business accepts opinion pieces on topics relevant to the state's business community. See op-ed submission guidelines here.

 

Comments   

 
Guest
0 #1 you are sickGuest 2013-04-10 17:35:15
OK here is the just of it. There are industries we have in this state which produce pollution. It doesn't matter how many laws or restrictions you put on them, they will. Now if you don't want them here fine just say that. You don't want to produce metal or wood products anymore because its yucky. Because those are the industries that will be hit, and a lot of them wont stay. I hope someday all of you anti manufacturing, production of tangible goods bastards get to stand in front of all the peoples lives that you have ruined and explain to them calmly that there businesses weren't what you envisioned for Oregon. Their lives weren't as important, feeding their families didn't matter. And then try to explain why we don't produce anything in this country anymore, why our jobs have all been shipped out. Why our trade deficits are so high. Why we have to import freaking wood because we can't process it here anymore. Oh sure I bet all those companies that would be effected are supposed to be big giant money sponges. Guess what, at least a few of the big ones will move, little ones will close. There will be a few that stay, but they won't be as competitive. But that's the goal right? Lawyers and tour guides, that's what we want the new Oregon to be. You want to make things better make it positive incentive based where they get tax breaks for emissions reduction. Don't add more strain to the economy.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Guest
+2 #2 worthknowingGuest 2014-09-02 16:42:33
Why is institutionaliz ed blatant public deceit so acceptable now?
How do 3 smart people become so duped and dishonest?
Are they so naive and unprincipled that they are simply impressionable children susceptible to falling for any influences?

Their lack of curiosity and need for confirmation is astounding.
And media doesn't seem to know those smoke stack plumes are water vapor.

All of the Oregon left is waging their climate war on carbon and have lined up to push for a carbon tax to alter our behavior.

"Our lives are surrounded by regulations to influence behavior...... Usually, a violation of these regulations is associated with a fine or a tax to discourage greater use........
The fines and taxes serve two purposes: 1) to discourage an unwanted behavior and 2) to generate revenue..........
In a very broad sense, our society fines and taxes undesirable behavior and uses the funds to promote behavior we do want.
When it comes to climate change, we also have a number of regulations to stop or discourage behavior that may lead to global warming. Violations of these regulations have fines associated with them. However, .....there is no price or cost placed on emitting carbon. Furthermore, we are missing the second part of using the funds to promote behavior we do want.
A properly designed carbon tax can get us there."


"Can get us there"? Where is there?

As is obvious from this graph displaying all of the failed global warming predictions, "there" has nothing to do with climate.
So what is the point in a costly futile attempt to reverse what is not even happening? Do these bright people really believe a carbon tax and behavior controls will impact the climate.

http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Quote | Report to administrator
 

More Articles

A Good Leap Forward

September 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
BY AMY MILSHTEIN

Agriculture businesses ramp up to meet international demand as workforce and succession challenges loom.


Read more...

Launch

September 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
BY JESSICA RIDGWAY

September's Launch article features Orchid Health, BuddyUp and Inter-Europe Consulting.


Read more...

Grape Expectations

October 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
BY HANNAH WALLACE

Well-financed outsiders from France and California are buying up vineyards and wineries in the Willamette Valley.


Read more...

100 Best Nonprofits announced

News
Thursday, October 02, 2014

100NP14logo4WebOregon Business magazine has named the sixth annual 100 Best Nonprofits to Work for in Oregon.


Read more...

True Blood

October 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
BY JOE ROJAS-BURKE

Antibiotics really aren’t magic bullets.


Read more...

Books Rule

October 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
BY JON BELL

Powell's stays relevant in the digital age.


Read more...

Tight and Loose

September 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
BY JENNIFER MARGULIS

As schools implement more rigorous academic standards, holistic and flexible approaches to K-12 education flourish.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS