As we are building from the recession, I think it's important to recognize that methods of creating jobs make more sense than others. What I mean is that we ought to be taking advantage of the fact that we are doing a pitiful job of being environmentally progressive and that we are facing 10% unemployment and thus try to create jobs in the area of sustainability because it will create short-term and long-term growth. After reading this article by Thomas L. Friedman about the Copenhagen Climate summit I began realizing how much these sorts of environmental policies tie into economics by manipulating the market for nonrenewable, coal based resources by taxing them (and thus making them less profitable and less desirable) and then using that money to invest in the renewable energy market so that prices, which at this point are not that affordable for the average American due to resources and technology, could be. I think it would be an excellent fiscal policy. Here's most of Thomas Friedman's article, The Copenhagen That Matters:
The more I listened to the Danish minister, Lene Espersen, the more I thought of my own country, where I’ve been told time and again by U.S. politicians that proposing even a 10-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline taxes to make America more energy independent and to stimulate fuel efficiency is “off the table,” an act of sure political suicide.
Not in Denmark. So I asked the Danish minister: “Tell me, what planet are you people from?”
Espersen laughed. But I didn’t. How long are we Americans going to go on thinking that we can thrive in the 21st century when doing the optimal things — whether for energy, health care, education or the deficit — are “off the table.” They’ve been banished by an ad hoc coalition of lobbyists loaded with money, loud-mouth talk-show hosts who will flame anyone who crosses them, political consultants who warn that asking Americans to do anything important but hard makes one unelectable and a citizenry that doesn’t even ask for optimal anymore because it believes that optimal is impossible.
Sorry, but there are no good ideas proven to work in other democratic/capitalist societies that we can afford to shove off our table — not when we need to build a knowledge economy with good jobs and everyone else is trying to do the same.
“Already the green taxes here are quite high,” said Espersen. “And even though we know this is not popular with business and industry, it has made all the difference for us. It forced our businesses to become more energy efficient and innovative, and this meant that, suddenly, we were inventing things nobody else was inventing because our businesses needed to be competitive.”
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute, a nonpartisan research center, and the Embassy of Denmark recently held a briefing on how Denmark is working to become a low-carbon economy. Here are some highlights:
Although it still generates the majority of its electricity from coal, “since 1990, Denmark has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. Over the same time frame, Danish energy consumption has stayed constant and Denmark’s gross domestic product has grown by more than 40 percent. Denmark is the most energy efficient country in the E.U.; due to carbon pricing, through energy taxes, carbon taxes, the ‘cap and trade’ system, strict building codes and energy labeling programs. Renewable resources currently supply almost 30 percent of Denmark’s electricity. Wind power is the largest source of renewable electricity, followed by biomass. ... Today, Copenhagen puts only 3 percent of its waste into landfills and incinerates 39 percent to generate electricity for thousands of households.”
The Danish government funnels energy tax revenue “back to industry, earmarking much of it to subsidize environmental innovation,” wrote Monica Prasad, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s Institute for Policy Research, in a March 25, 2008, essay in this newspaper. Therefore, “Danish firms are pushed away from carbon and pulled into environmental innovation, and the country’s economy isn’t put at a competitive disadvantage.”
It’s why Denmark, with only five million people, boasts some of the leading wind, biofuel and heating, cooling and efficiency companies in the world. Energy technologies are now 11 percent of Denmark’s exports. Oil exports and energy taxes also subsidize mass transit and energy efficiency, keeping bills low for Danish consumers.
Denmark is succeeding at being environmentally friendly (in comparison to America at least) because of three main reasons. There are fewer people in Denmark, so it seems easier to unite and be productive as a country. When it comes to environmentalism, it takes everyone to make the green choices. It also seems that the people want to be more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Also, with proper execution of laws, there are consequences for breaking them. In America, you can get written up by the EPA so many times but there is no execution or consequence to it. T
ReplyDeleteThere is intense debate over the efficacy of a "cap and trade" system versus a "carbon tax." I'm afraid I am not too well informed on the matter, but I have the general idea down. Scientists and progressives generally favor a direct tax on dirty industries relative to their carbon output. Politicians and economists favor the creation of a limited market of carbon credits so that, above a certain amount, emitters must trade for their excess. Then there are the denialists and those who believe in the imminence of the rapture, but that's a whole separate problem.
ReplyDeleteIf you've been reading any of my comments, you probably won't be surprised when I say that I have little trust in the effectiveness of a new market at properly internalizing the externality that is carbon emission. Such a market would be better at allocating allowances to big emitters that can probably afford to buy more, while strangling the middle of the road actors (assuming there is at least some protection for smaller businesses). Worse, with the amount of influence lobbyists have in Washington, any proposition is sure to be written in such a way so as to leave it very open for interpretation and with loopholes bigger than Texas.
Though I suppose that's also a problem for the theoretical implementation of a carbon tax in the U.S. If we can't trust our representatives to serve our best interests in one thing, they aren't going to do so in another. But that's straying a bit far from the economics angle.