Article
Deborah Gordon, Stephen D. Ziman
{
"authors": [
"Deborah Gordon"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SCP",
"programs": [
"Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics"
],
"projects": [
"Carnegie Oil Initiative"
],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Climate Change"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Future Surprises That Could Shock the World
Taxing climate pollution instead of productivity will be a societal breakthrough.
Published on Sep 14, 2016
Source: International Economy
First it was the 2008 global financial crisis. Then the Arab Spring. Then Brexit. International conventional wisdom always seems unaware of the big changes about to unfold. There are in the present few facts about the future. Ten years ago, for example, who would have predicted surprise developments such as negative interest rates, the potential breakup of the European Union, the Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders effect, drones, the use of driverless cars, the rise of ISIS, the myriad uses of artificial intelligence and big data, U.S. energy independence, the emergence of the Zika virus, or the rate at which robots are taking away jobs. TIE asked more than fifty top thinkers to look ahead ten years at what outside-the-box developments could shock the world.
Taxing climate pollution instead of productivity will be a societal breakthrough.
Carbon will be taxed on a global scale. This policy transformation will start in the United States, despite current hurdles from both political parties. Canada and Mexico will follow the United States. This makes sense since 80 percent of oil consumed in the United States is now sourced from within North America and the vast majority of petroleum products refined in the United States are consumed on this continent.
But it won’t stop here. The United States and Canada will lead the way for other nations to establish carbon markets. Taxing climate pollution instead of productivity will be a societal breakthrough.
The burning question remains: Will the United States design a smart tax that prices fossil fuels individually based on carbon emissions, or issue a blunt tax on fossil fuels? Pricing fossil fuels—especially oil—for a safe climate is most effective if the tax differentiates among the very different chemical entities that today all go by the name “a barrel of oil.” It must also account for greenhouse gas emissions along the entire oil supply chain: production, refining, transport, and end product use. And it must apply to ancillary byproducts, like petroleum coke and residual oils, that do not fuel the transport sector.
A grand bargain that ultimately makes a U.S. carbon tax politically attractive will include: (1) eliminating the need for the increasingly unpopular and perennially thwarted gas tax before it hits its 2032 centennial mark; (2) spreading climate responsibility fairly to the myriad of oil supply chain stakeholders—from producers to refiners and truckers to airlines and motorists to manufacturers; (3) spending a portion of its proceeds to fund rebates to lower- and middle-class Americans; and (4) cutting the corporate income tax. While this policy will start with oil, it will eventually spread to other fossil fuels, leading to sought-after regulatory relief for gas and coal.
This article was originally published in the International Economy.
About the Author
Deborah Gordon
Former Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and Climate Program
Gordon was director of Carnegie’s Energy and Climate Program, where her research focuses on oil and climate change issues in North America and globally.
- Petroleum Companies Need a Credible Climate Plan
- Advancing Public Climate Engineering DisclosureArticle
Deborah Gordon, Smriti Kumble, David Livingston
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- How Will Trump and Putin’s Diesel Deal Impact Russia and Global Markets?Commentary
Without a ceasefire with Ukraine on attacking each other’s energy infrastructure—to which the Kremlin is unlikely to agree—the diesel agreement between Putin and Trump is largely for show, rather than representing a genuine increase in the volumes of Russian diesel on the global market.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Belarus Wants More From the West Than a ‘Massive Deal’ on PotashCommentary
Trump has promised Belarus a massive potash deal. But Minsk is seeking something greater: restored Western transit and greater room for maneuver from Russia.
Balázs Jarábik
- Have U.S.-Belarusian Negotiations Stalled?Commentary
Minsk clearly expected the dialogue with Washington to yield more results, in particular the lifting of EU sanctions and permission to export potash.
Artyom Shraibman
- Russia Is Exporting Its Fuel Crisis to Central AsiaCommentary
When faced with fuel shortages in the past, Central Asian governments could always count on additional supplies from Moscow. That safety net no longer exists.
Galiya Ibragimova
- Building Mini-Refineries Will Not Solve Russia’s Gasoline CrisisCommentary
Official discussions about mini oil refineries are unlikely to come to anything—but the mere fact they’re happening reveals the regime is failing to deliver a functioning economy.
Sergey Vakulenko
