This article was published in Dhaka Tribune on 25th August, 2019.
The rational, economic solution is to tax fossil fuels at point of extraction or import by coal, oil and gas companies. This would increase prices of coal, oil and gas and reduce their use, and thus slow down carbon emissions and global warming. However, governments have been wary of carbon taxes as a political liability which could create both unemployment and public dissatisfaction. In France, Macron’s attempt to impose a carbon tax at the beginning of 2019 sparked the violent ‘yellow vest’ protests among low-paid workers who could not afford higher transport and heating bills.
Every day, the news
brings fresh stories about the urgency of stopping climate
breakdown.
The number of record hot years over the past decade keeps
climbing,
along with reports of severe storms, summer heat waves and melting
polar ice. And yet we continue burning
coal, oil and gas every day, generating more carbon dioxide
emissions
and making the planet hotter. Sometimes the scale of the climate
problem seems overwhelming. But the fact remains that stopping
global
warming is simple; it only requires implementing a policy of
global
carbon taxes.
Economist have
acknowledged for decades that global warming is essentially a
failure
of the market to price fossil fuels correctly. The abundance of
coal,
oil and gas means their minimum price is largely determined by
extraction
costs from the earth, which generally results in a low price
(particularly for coal, which is cheap to mine).
Unfortunately, the low prices of fossil fuels don’t reflect their
true cost to society: if global warming is allowed to raise the
Earth’s temperature by 4 or 5 degrees Celsius over the next
century
as projected by scientists, it could mean the end of much of the
world’s population through droughts, crop failure, famines and
ultimately warfare over food and water (a pattern already seen in
Syria). The long-term cost of unmitigated climate change would be
almost incalculable.
The rational, economic solution is to tax fossil fuels at point of extraction or import by coal, oil and gas companies. This would increase prices of coal, oil and gas and reduce their use, and thus slow down carbon emissions and global warming. However, governments have been wary of carbon taxes as a political liability which could create both unemployment and public dissatisfaction. In France, Macron’s attempt to impose a carbon tax at the beginning of 2019 sparked the violent ‘yellow vest’ protests among low-paid workers who could not afford higher transport and heating bills.
However, there is a
refinement of carbon tax policy which can solve the problem of
imposing any tax burden on the poor, namely 'carbon dividends'.
This is the subject of
economist James Boyce’s excellent new book, ‘The case for carbon
dividends’. A ‘carbon dividend’ simply returns carbon tax
revenue to the public as a flat payment per taxpayer. If all
carbon
tax revenue is returned this way, the net economic burden of the
carbon tax will be zero, and it will not create unemployment. An
example is helpful here; consider a simplified population of 100
people
consisting of 5 wealthy people and 95 lower-income people. As
wealthy
people buy more carbon-intensive goods like cars and aeroplane
flights, the wealthiest 5% may have 100 times the carbon footprint
and thus might each pay $1000 carbon tax (as opposed to $10 for a
lower-income person who doesn't fly or drive). Total carbon tax
revenue for a sample
population of 100 people would be (5 wealthy people x $1000 per
person carbon tax) + (95 lower-income people x $10 per person
carbon
tax) = $5,950. However, all taxpayers would receive an averaged
equal
carbon dividend of $5950/100 or $59.50 each. That means that the
wealthiest 5% of people would pay a net tax of ($1000 carbon tax -
$59.50 carbon dividend) = $940.50 each, which gives them a
powerful incentive to reduce their fossil fuel consumption. On the
other hand, the lower-income 95%
would receive a net benefit of ($59.50 carbon dividend - $10
carbon
tax = $49.50). This net benefit will help low-income people to pay
for higher costs of fossil fuels (due to carbon taxes) without
falling further into poverty, and thus help prevent political
backlash against the carbon tax. Even though it doesn’t cause any
net tax burden, the carbon tax will make all use of fossil fuels
more
expensive and speed up the transition to renewable energy. The
higher the
carbon tax, the faster the transition will be.
This carbon
dividend
policy is not invented by Boyce; he has just written the first
book
devoted to it. In fact, carbon dividends are the policy advocated
by
Citizens’ Climate Lobby (www.citizensclimatelobby.org)
a worldwide group of volunteers dedicated to educating the public
and
politicians about how to stop climate breakdown by implementing
carbon taxes and dividends. The imposition of a carbon tax and
dividend policy in Canada at the beginning of 2019 was largely the
outcome of years lobbying by this group. This initial success in
Canada needs to be replicated in every country if climate
breakdown
is to be prevented. Since Bangladesh is one of the countries most
vulnerable to climate change, and there is now a large expatriate
Bangladeshi population around the globe, one hopes that
Bangladeshis
wherever they are will join the campaign to stop global warming
through carbon taxes and dividends.