Three Options for Better Climate Policy

By :: May 28th, 2014

Thanks to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has to do something to control them. But the act is ill-suited to controlling a non-toxic global pollutant. The law requires the EPA to set separate emissions guidelines for each category of existing stationary pollution sources--one for power plants, another for oil refineries and so on--and then each state is supposed to write a compliance plan for every category.  This fractured process is likely to lead to large differences in the marginal cost of emissions abatement among states and across industries, which makes no economic sense.

Luckily, there is a better way.  In fact, there are three:

One would be a national carbon tax, which could be part of a broader pro-growth, deficit-reduction package. Such a tax is politically impossible for now, but it’s still smart policy, as Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute and I explain in a new paper.

A federal excise tax on carbon would equalize incentives to reduce emissions across all sources and greenhouse gases and provide revenue that can lower the deficit and reduce other tax burdens. It could also substitute for more costly and less effective regulations and subsidies. Policymakers can also target some of the revenue to ensure poor households are not made worse off.

Another alternative that's getting attention in Congress: Offer states the option of enacting their own sensible carbon tax to avoid the convoluted regulations that otherwise would be required by the Clean Air Act. Legislation drafted by Rep. John Delaney (D., Md.) would offer states just such a powerful choice.

The bill would allow any state to sidestep EPA emissions standards, as long as the state adopts a tax on the regulated emissions that starts no lower than $20 per ton of CO2 and increases at least 4 percent over inflation each year.  States can do whatever they want with the revenue, including lowering other state taxes.

Or, the EPA and the states could muddle through under existing law. Stanford scholars and I analyzed how the EPA could allow states to adopt a carbon tax as their Clean Air Act compliance plan if they could show it would satisfactorily reduce emissions. A survey of 40 prominent economists last year found that 90% agree that a carbon tax is the “best system of emission reduction.” The question is: Will the EPA?


  1. Michael Bindner  ::  4:50 am on May 29th, 2014:

    While a carbon tax is more universal, sometimes going after the rally big polluters, like coal plants, bear the needed fruit. Adding a carbon levy to gasoline would essentially tax gasoline for two purposes – roads and air. Confusing. On the gasoline side, it would be preferable to replace entire road systems with electric cars powered from an overhead or roadbed based grid. Using a tax allows polluters to innovate at the margins. There are better innovations that do more – whether it is good economics or not. Indeed, some of us would say that if AEI suggests something, do the opposite.

    Letting states set standards based on CO2 may allow them to avoid regulating other pollutants, such as sulfur. Unless the Democratic Gentleman from Maryland has some majority co-sponors, this is a save proposal to make that will go nowhere.

    As for the EPA adopting carbon taxes, I doubt Congress would let them do so on their own. As for economists liking the solution – they do so because it is an economics proposal. It has been floating around in some form or another since Schultz suggested taxing all pollution (among others). I would prefer Seize and Fix – although a tax on goods from nations fueled by high CO2 polution might work – or it might start a trade war. It would be better to have Wal-Mart lean on its Chinese suppliers to insist on cleaner energy – although at some point that can be dangerous in what is still a totalitarian state. Of course, nuking Chinese power plants would be worse than the carbon.

  2. kinds-of-probiotic  ::  12:13 am on October 5th, 2014:

    It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy.
    I’ve read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions.
    Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article.
    I wish to read more things about it!

  3. Jon Storey  ::  2:27 pm on March 15th, 2015:

    Thank you for another magnificent post. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such info.