Filed Under (Environmental Policy, Finance, U.S. Fiscal Policy) by Don Fullerton on Aug 3, 2012
Recent debate at the state and national level has focused on whether to enact a climate policy to control greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide. The fact is, however, that we already have policies that affect such emissions, whether we like it or not. Such policies can be coordinated and rational, or they can be piecemeal, inconsistent, and counter-productive. Almost any policy designed to improve energy security, for example, would likely affect oil prices and energy efficiency, just as any policy to encourage alternative fuels would also affect energy security, electricity prices, consumer welfare, and health! Here is a guide for thinking about how some of these policies work, and which combinations might work better than others.
The most obvious existing policy that affects carbon dioxide emissions is the gasoline tax that applies both at state and federal levels. If that tax encourages less driving and more fuel-efficient cars, then it also impacts urban smog and global warming as well as protecting us from the whims of oil-rich nations with unstable governments. In fact, with respect to the price at the pump, a tax on emissions would look a lot like a tax on gasoline, and vice versa. Averaged over all state and federal taxes, the U.S. gasoline tax is about $0.39 per gallon, far less than around the rest of the world. Most countries in the OECD have a tax over $2/gallon.
For the most part, the U.S. has chosen to avoid tax approaches to energy and environmental policy and instead uses various mandates, standards, and subsidies. Cars sold in the U.S. are required to meet emission-per-mile standards for most local and regional pollutants like fine particles, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) that contribute to ozone smog. Those rules make cars more expensive but have successfully cleaned the air in major cities and around the country. They also have the side effect of reducing greenhouse gases. Another mandate is the “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards that require each auto manufacturing company to meet a minimum for the average miles-per-gallon of their fleet of cars sold each year. For each big gas-guzzler they sell, the company needs to sell more small fuel-efficient cars to bring the average back down. To meet this standard, every car company must raise the price of their gas guzzlers (to sell fewer of them) and reduce the price of their small fuel-efficient cars (to sell more of them). The effect is the same as having a tax on big cars and subsidy on small cars.
These energy and environmental policies are also intricately related to other tax policies, as well as government spending! For any chosen size of government and overall tax bite, any dollar not collected in gasoline tax is another dollar that must instead be collected from payroll taxes, income taxes, corporate profits tax, or state and local sales tax. When looked at through that lens, gasoline taxes may not be that bad – or at least not as bad as some of those other taxes we must pay instead.
Every state and local government is also worried about the pricing of electricity by huge electric companies that might naturally have monopoly power over their customers. Production efficiency requires a large plant, so a small remote town might be served only by one power company (with no competition from neighbors far away, since too much power is lost during transmission). So the public utility wants to regulate electricity prices, perhaps with block pricing that helps ensure adequate provision to low-income families. Yet the pricing of electricity inevitably affects electricity use, which affects coal use, urban smog, and greenhouse gas emissions. These policies are intricately related.
And these policies are related to government spending, since they affect car and gasoline purchases and therefore required spending on roads and highways as well as train tracks and mass transit in cities. These environmental and energy policies affect human health, and therefore health spending by government – as necessary to pay for additional illness caused by emissions from cars, power plants, and heat from burning fossil fuel.
We have no way to avoid these inter-connections. You are a consumer who wants lower gas taxes and electricity prices, but you also own part of the power company and auto manufacturers through your mutual fund or pension plan. You pay other taxes on income and purchases, and you breathe the air, so you are affected by emissions and need health care. We might as well think holistically and act for the good of everybody, because we are everybody!