Isramart : Exxon’s Tillerson: Forget Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax is the Answer

Isramart news:
Here’s a question: When the head of Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly-traded energy company, calls for a carbon tax, is that serious or is it just a tactic to avoid any action on climate change?

Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson renewed his attack in a speech last night on a cap-and-trade plan, like that included in the latest Senate climate bill, and again explained his preference for a straight tax on carbon emissions. He’s been down that road before, though now he’s gotten into Washington’s spirit of euphemisms: “I know that’s hard for a politician to say, so we have given it a new name. We call it a ‘refundable greenhouse gas emissions fee.’”

His arguments were similar too: A cap-and-trade scheme means volatility, bigger government, and a government picking winners and losers. Companies investing tens of billions of dollars a year don’t like volatility. Without steady investment, technology will suffer, and without technology, the energy—and environmental–future looks bleak.

But when the boss of Exxon attacks climate-change legislation, skepticism is usually in order. “We think it’s fair to view Exxon’s opposition to cap-and-trade – Tillerson’s reasonable critiques notwithstanding – as a tactic meant to delay passage of meaningful legislation,” argue the folks at Green Energy Reporter.

Mr. Tillerson addressed that head on:

Now, some people have suggested that a revenue-neutral carbon tax has no chance of gaining sufficient support in Congress to become law. They say a carbon tax is too politically sensitive and that it is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them. They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook.
I disagree with this assessment. I believe the American people want climate policy to be transparent, honest, and effective. Economists generally agree that achieving a given emissions target costs less under a tax or fee approach than under a cap-and-trade system. I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change. Indeed, there has never been a more opportune time for Congress to pursue this course of action.

A movement, like the call for a carbon tax, that can gather Al Gore, James Hansen, Rex Tillerson, Peter Orszag and Greg Mankiw under one roof must have something going for it.

Is it time, as Mr. Tillerson suggests, for Congress to give up on cap-and-trade and take a carbon tax seriously?Here’s a question: When the head of Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly-traded energy company, calls for a carbon tax, is that serious or is it just a tactic to avoid any action on climate change?

Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson renewed his attack in a speech last night on a cap-and-trade plan, like that included in the latest Senate climate bill, and again explained his preference for a straight tax on carbon emissions. He’s been down that road before, though now he’s gotten into Washington’s spirit of euphemisms: “I know that’s hard for a politician to say, so we have given it a new name. We call it a ‘refundable greenhouse gas emissions fee.’”

His arguments were similar too: A cap-and-trade scheme means volatility, bigger government, and a government picking winners and losers. Companies investing tens of billions of dollars a year don’t like volatility. Without steady investment, technology will suffer, and without technology, the energy—and environmental–future looks bleak.

But when the boss of Exxon attacks climate-change legislation, skepticism is usually in order. “We think it’s fair to view Exxon’s opposition to cap-and-trade – Tillerson’s reasonable critiques notwithstanding – as a tactic meant to delay passage of meaningful legislation,” argue the folks at Green Energy Reporter.

Mr. Tillerson addressed that head on:

Now, some people have suggested that a revenue-neutral carbon tax has no chance of gaining sufficient support in Congress to become law. They say a carbon tax is too politically sensitive and that it is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them. They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook.
I disagree with this assessment. I believe the American people want climate policy to be transparent, honest, and effective. Economists generally agree that achieving a given emissions target costs less under a tax or fee approach than under a cap-and-trade system. I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change. Indeed, there has never been a more opportune time for Congress to pursue this course of action.

A movement, like the call for a carbon tax, that can gather Al Gore, James Hansen, Rex Tillerson, Peter Orszag and Greg Mankiw under one roof must have something going for it.

Is it time, as Mr. Tillerson suggests, for Congress to give up on cap-and-trade and take a carbon tax seriously?