Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
This is a revenue-neutral program, with reductions in other taxes to balance this revenue source.

How can one evaluate Royal's response without having details of this. If the "other taxes" are income taxes on the lower brackets, she is just engaging in demagoguery. If, on the other hand, they plan to lower the taxes on capital gains, she may have a point.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 02:59:04 AM EST
Couple things.

  1.  There is, essentially, no way that an "excess profits" or equivalent tax would have the same impact re the "eco" side of things.

  2.  From what I've seen / heard, we're talking about Royal giving this a broadside and attacking this approach strong for awhile. There is a difference between saying "we should be highly concerned about making sure that this approach will not devastate people while helping us reduce pollution" and trying to score political points without regard to the real impact of the policy. Again, I don't have full details and am being open about it -- but her reaction/play seems to be second rather than first.


Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!
by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 12:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure that you're right about Royal, but I'm also very suspicious of Sarkozy. Even at the current level of detail, he could have given some idea who would benefit from the proposed tax cuts.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 01:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah. Seems like I've seen this movie before.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 03:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's two links.  I think Jerome might be right as well, though. It might be a disingenuous policy engagement strategy (to use the lobbying lingo) to change the policy agenda item to a decision about a "tax" instead of "trade" knowing that there is more opposition in the US to anything with the word "tax" in it.
by santiago on Fri Sep 4th, 2009 at 10:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the US debate over climate change legislation, rather than a cap and trade approach.  That should tell us something about what Royal is worried about. The reason is that a tax on all carbon sources, rather than a regulated limit on total carbon emissions, allows much, if not most, of the burden of of restricting GHGs to be placed on consumers rather than on producers of GHG-laced energy sources.  Consumers must make lifestyle sacrifices while producers remain highly profitable.  The elasticities of demand and supply for energy allow production of GHG fuels to be greater and more profitable under a tax regime than under a cap regime.  That's likely where Royal is coming from, and that's why most economists on the left favor a cap system in the US rather than a tax system.

The EU, however, which already has a cap system, has been constrained by lack of infrastructure to measure emissions so cap regulation has proved difficult to implement there.  Rather than spend additional euros on increasing the environmental regulatory bureaucracy for information gathering, a tax allows a second-rate political solution. Taxes, however, place no limit on carbon emissions, and if the elasticity of demand for carbon energy is great enough, emissions can even increase under a tax regime, depending upon other developments in the economy.

by santiago on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 05:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
santiago: The oil industry supports carbon taxes in the US debate over climate change legislation, rather than a cap and trade approach.

Could you provide any references for that?  (I always thought that the oil industry favored cap-and-trade as an easier system to "game".)

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

by marco on Fri Sep 4th, 2009 at 04:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the industry has also supported a carbon tax recently as a way to create confusion in the debate aned weaken the push for cap-and-trade, by putting on the table (again) a beguiling alternative and making some supporters of cap-and-trade waver and ask for new studies...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 4th, 2009 at 08:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oops, I responded here accidentally.
by santiago on Fri Sep 4th, 2009 at 12:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series