Carbon Tax – Pros and Cons

A carbon tax aims to make individuals and firms pay the full social cost of carbon pollution. In theory, the tax will reduce pollution and encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives. However, critics argue a tax on carbon will increase costs for business and reduce levels of investment and economic growth.

The purpose of a carbon tax

The purpose of a carbon tax is to internalise this externality. What this means is that the final price of the good should include the external costs and not just the private cost. It is similar to the ‘polluter pays principle.‘ – which was incorporated into international law at the 1992 Rio Summit. It simply means those who cause environmental costs should be made to pay the full social cost of their actions.

Diagram to show welfare loss of a negative externality

This diagram shows that in a free market (without any tax), we get overconsumption (Q1) of carbon, leading to a welfare loss to society.

Social efficiency with Carbon Tax

The tax shifts the supply curve from S to S2. With the tax, consumers now face the full social cost (SMC). Quantity falls from Q1 to Q2. Q2 is socially efficient because social marginal cost = social marginal benefit.

Revenue neutral

In theory, a carbon tax could be revenue-neutral. This means the tax raised from taxing carbon emissions can be used to reduce other taxes. There should be no overall increase in the tax burden. The aim is to increase social efficiency by making people aware of the full social cost.

Arguments for a Carbon Tax

1. Encourages alternatives. A higher price of carbon emissions will encourage firms and consumers to develop more efficient engines or alternatives to consuming carbon emissions. For example, with carbon taxes, it will be more efficient to develop hydrogen engines or solar power.

• It might encourage more people to cycle or walk to work. This would have health benefits such as the lower risk of a heart attack.
• This could make it more feasible to generate electricity from green sources (e.g. solar power). If we develop more green sources it will also make us less reliant on oil.
• It will help make the transition to a post-oil economy easier.

2. Raises revenue. The revenue raised from a carbon tax could be used to subsidise alternatives such as green electricity or the revenue raised could be used to repair the damage caused by environmental pollution. Alternatively, a higher carbon tax could be used to reduce other taxes, such as VAT.

3. Leads to a socially efficient outcome. It makes people pay the social cost and overcomes the excess consumption we see in a free market.

4. Improves the environment. With higher taxes, firms will reduce pollution and look for alternatives which have a lower environmental impact. For example, it will make solar power even more competitive than traditional fossil fuels.

5. Evidence of success. Countries which have implemented carbon taxes have seen encouraging results – resulting in lower carbon emissions than would otherwise have occured, and in many cases substantial falls in CO2 emissions. For example, Sweden introduced a carbon tax of €33 per tonne in 1991. Over time, the tax was increased to €120 per tonne. (Some sectors like manufacturing, agriculture and forestry, received a discounted rate). Link – carbon price works in Sweden)

Source: Eurostat, 2018a

Since the mid-1990s emission levels in Sweden has fallen by over 20%, making it one of the more successful EU countries in reducing emissions – despite a period of strong economic growth. This shows a carbon tax can play a role in enabling lower carbon emissions, without holding back economic growth and rising living standards.

Successful implementations of carbon tax/ carbon pricing include

• UK – coal use fell sharply after introduction of a carbon tax of around $25 per ton in 2013. In the UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen to lowest level since 1890. (NY Times)
• British Colombia (a province of Canada) introduced a scheme in 2008 to charge a levy on carbon. In the first four years of the scheme 2008 and 2012, Karen Tam Wu of the Pembina Institute said “We saw fossil fuel consumption decrease by more than 17% and in the rest of Canada fuel consumption increased by more than 1%,”  (link)
• Canada has implemented an ambitious carbon pricing tax (named pollution pricing). In Canada, it has led to higher energy bills, but 90% of proceeds are given to households in the form of tax rebates. The full success of the scheme is not fully evaluated, but it retains popular support

Problems of a Carbon Tax

• Production may shift to countries with no or lower carbon taxes. (so-called ‘pollution havens’) This can give developing countries an incentive to encourage production processes which cause pollution, i.e. there is ‘outsourcing’ of pollution.
• The cost of administrating the tax may be quite expensive reducing its efficiency.
• It is difficult to evaluate the level of external cost and how much the tax should be.
• Possibility of tax evasion. Higher taxes may encourage firms to hide carbon emissions.
• If demand is price inelastic, the tax may have to be very high to reduce demand significantly. In the short term, firms may not feel they have many alternatives. Though, over time, demand will become more elastic as more alternatives are generated.
• Consumers dislike new taxes and often don’t believe that they will be ‘revenue neutral’. This is not an economic argument, but it is a political reality and explains why it is often difficult to implement.
• A global carbon tax may curtail economic activity in the poor developing world because they can’t afford the small increase in energy costs, but the developed world may simply be able to pay. There may be a need for a carbon tax to reflect different abilities to pay.

Evaluation

• To be successful, it depends on how the proceeds of carbon tax is distributed. In British Colombia, Canada, the main proceeds of Carbon pricing go directly to firms households – making the carbon tax quite popular amongst important political constituencies.
• By contrast, Australia’s short-lived carbon tax 2012-14 suffered from lack of political understanding and poor communication about who benefitted from it.   Popularity of Carbon Pricing

Carbon Tax vs Cap and Trade

• See: Carbon Trading

Related

• 10 reasons not to cut petrol tax
• Tax on unhealthy foods
• Polluter pays principle
• Sugar tax – pros and cons
• Cigarette tax and smoking rates

About The Author

Tejvan Pettinger

Tejvan Pettinger. Author of “Cracking Economics” “What Would Keynes Do?” – studied PPE Oxford University (1995-99) and works as an economics teacher and writer.

See author's posts