Since another college town has been in the headlines as having endorsed a carbon tax, let’s get it straight that what Ithaca, N.Y., did not do was approve a municipal carbon tax in the Boulder mould.
But what Ithaca’s City Council did do had a significance of its own. It voted 9-0 approving a resolution urging state and federal officials to pursue a federal carbon tax. Here’s coverage from the Ithaca Journal and the Cornell Sun. Like a number of initiatives related to global climate change, perhaps this one will come from the ground up at the local and state level as well.
The Ithaca initiative was propelled forward by a local resident named Sylvester Johnson, a member of the Climate Change Action Group of Central New York who holds a doctorate in applied physics, and who believes the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns are wrong to for cap-and-trade emissions programs over what he considers a more equitable tax. Here’s his web site and a sample of the resolution that he hopes to see passed by other localities.
How far can this approach take the carbon tax concept? Share your thoughts below, or follow the discussion at our online forums.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 2:41 pm and is filed under Government, Greenhouse gas emissions, Other Cities. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Entries (RSS)
February 13th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Advocates are being sought nationwide for this Initiative for local governments’ resolutions in support of a federal carbon tax. Both conservatives and liberals could consider endorsing this Initiative, because emissions trading acts like a disguised tax, but trading is more expensive and at the same time less effective, and more readily abused than an actual tax.
Whether the next President is Republican or Democrat, legislation is likely to get enacted to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Here’s a model for making a federal carbon tax politically possible:
A resolution in support was drafted in Dec. 2007. In Jan. 2008 the resolution passed the Planning Committee of the City of Ithaca, NY (Ithaca joins nationwide debate on carbon tax, cap and trade). On 02/06/2008 the resolution passed Ithaca’s Council, only two months after the resolution was first drafted, the political equivalent of turning lead to gold.
Copies of the resolution were sent to officials representing Ithaca at state and national levels, as well as to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, sending a signal that a carbon tax is politically possible. As the number of local governments that pass such resolutions increases nationwide, the magnitude of the news will increase with ever greater publicity.
This Initiative does not require money or much time, only an average of an hour a week to contact local elected officials to get the resolution on the local agenda until it comes up for a vote. The only training required is reading the sample resolution and background information at http://www.federalcarbontax.org.
After passage, the resolution requires no further commitment on the part of the advocate or the local government. Yet this relatively easy political action publicizes the benefits of a federal carbon tax.
The debate between a tax and emissions trading may seem remote from daily life, but the outcome will substantially affect citizens. Many economists both conservative and liberal support a federal carbon tax.
The reasons for this broad-based support for a tax are that emissions trading acts like a disguised tax as the costs disperse throughout the economy. In addition, trading is more expensive due to traders extracting fees, and at the same time less effective because of trading away the responsibility to reduce pollution. Furthermore due to persistent problems with quantification and verification trading is more readily abused than an actual tax.
To keep emissions trading from making energy costs extremely volatile, a maximum permit “stop” price has been proposed. However with such a stop price in the federal legislation, governmental sales of extra permits to pollute blow away the regulatory cap, resulting in a critical failure. Yet without this maximum permit stop price, trading increases the volatility of energy costs, making it more difficult to justify investments in energy conservation and renewable energy. Both results are counterproductive for the goal of reducing heat-trapping emissions.
In summary, an actual federal carbon tax is better for the economy because the majority of revenues get refunded. A tax is less expensive because of simpler administration, more effective because it’s consistent, as well as more equitable than the disguised tax of trading.
To find out further reasons to support a new tax, please see the non-profit Initiative for a federal carbon tax at http://www.federalcarbontax.org. Also available from that page is a free model resolution with enough points included so that it’s self-explanatory, as well as detailed background information, examples and analysis. The resolution could be modified as desired with little time commitment.
Could you volunteer an hour a week to work with a city, county, or other local government on this Initiative for a few months? Do you know anyone who might? Please check out http://www.federalcarbontax.org or forward this email. The Coordinator of the Initiative, Sylvester Johnson, Ph.D. Applied Physics, can be contacted via the website for free email or phone consultation.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It’s an interesting gesture, but then again, aren’t there towns in Vermont or New Hampshire in which there were unanimous/ineffectual votes to impeach most of the executive branch of the federal government? How different is a symbolic vote from a letter to a congressperson?
February 15th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Only one advocate is needed to help get a resolution passed by a large city or county government, with copies sent to federal lawmakers representing each government, publicizing the advantages of a tax: federalcarbontax.org