The facts of carbon taxes - Andrew Lawton with Dr. Ross McKitrick
Episode Stats
Words per minute
174.16702
Harmful content
Misogyny
1
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode, we're joined by Ross McKittrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph, to talk about the economics of a carbon tax and whether or not it's a good idea.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
One of the big issues that we know, because we've been covering it extensively, that is
00:00:08.960
going to I think and I would say I hope be one of the defining issues of the federal
00:00:13.220
election campaign is the carbon tax and really this idea not only of whether the federal
00:00:18.620
government should impose one, but more specifically whether this is an effective way to do all
00:00:23.560
of the things that governments are saying it does and we see battles going on in the
00:00:27.800
court system specifically with Ontario and Saskatchewan, but we're going to have a political battle
00:00:32.500
here and I wanted to talk about not the politics of it, but the economics of it.
00:00:37.000
Do carbon taxes work and are we actually looking at policies that are going to make the economy
00:00:45.120
Very pleased to be joined by Dr. Ross McKittrick, who's an economics professor at the University
00:00:54.340
This idea that we've often been presented by politicians, specifically in Ontario years
00:00:59.020
ago, was do we go for a cap and trade or do we go for a carbon tax?
00:01:05.900
And I've always been in the why do we have to do either?
00:01:08.440
I mean, why are we picking between a gun or a knife on this?
00:01:11.740
But let's talk about this because oftentimes this is a political discussion that never really
00:01:16.660
gets to the science or the economics of it, which I know must be infuriating for you.
00:01:24.940
Now you can ask the question cap and trade versus carbon tax if you've got to the point
00:01:30.860
where you've decided we're going to do one or the other.
00:01:33.720
And in that case, economists by and large much prefer carbon tax to cap and trade.
00:01:39.860
The cap and trade system, it works best when emitters have a lot of flexibility in how
00:01:45.960
they would reduce emissions and a lot of options.
00:01:49.520
But in the case of carbon dioxide, there's really no way to reduce emissions except scaling
00:01:56.080
And so as a result, the cap and trade system, because it doesn't have that flexibility, you
00:02:01.740
get a lot of price volatility and the cost to the public goes up quite a bit.
00:02:09.300
The carbon tax approach, you still don't have much flexibility for the emitters in terms
00:02:15.180
of their abatement options because carbon dioxide, the technology just isn't there to
00:02:24.280
But you can manage the price volatility because you are in control of the price.
00:02:29.160
And so as a result, again, just a comparison of those two systems, carbon taxes work better
00:02:39.620
Now getting to the larger question, and I agree with you, and if it's presented as, well,
00:02:45.160
we've decided we have to do one or the other, so we should pick, I do think, no, we can't
00:02:50.660
skip past the first question, which is why are we doing either one?
00:02:58.880
And are the costs worth it given what we expect to benefit from this?
00:03:05.120
And when you ask specific questions like that, most climate policy comes out looking rather
00:03:13.960
So let's talk about the idea of whether we can benefit.
00:03:18.240
Because one argument that I've heard, which I think has merit, is that if you even take
00:03:22.800
the alarmist view that man-made global warming is a giant threat, that it's being caused by
00:03:28.100
greenhouse gas emissions and all of this, and we accept that it face value, you also have
00:03:32.480
to accept that Canada is such a tiny fraction of a percent of where the problem is coming
00:03:38.700
So is it something that a country like Canada should do?
00:03:42.980
Because the flip side of that is that you don't want to do nothing if that, if we accept
00:03:48.940
So in order to steer away from terms like alarmist and denier, I prefer to just stick with the
00:03:58.700
So if you stick with mainstream science, mainstream economics, what you would get is an estimate
00:04:05.960
that by using fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide emissions, you're causing social costs
00:04:12.560
on the scale right now of maybe $30 to $40 a ton.
00:04:17.180
And then, you know, we quibble about how the numbers are arrived at, but let's, but if we're
00:04:23.340
just going to go with the mainstream off-the-shelf numbers, that's what it would be.
00:04:27.060
So at $30 to $40 a ton, then there's a moral argument for saying, okay, then the people doing
00:04:39.540
The economic argument though is to say, okay, you should charge up, but your emissions aren't
00:04:44.800
Like that translates into a couple of cents per liter of gas.
00:04:51.060
And also, you shouldn't layer on top of that a whole bunch of other regulations.
00:04:55.640
So the whole economic efficiency arises because you put, in this case, a carbon tax in place,
00:05:01.600
You don't couple it with a whole bunch of, you know, with ethanol mandates and coal phase
00:05:05.840
out and renewable energy subsidies and electric vehicle subsidies and all these other climate
00:05:15.100
It's in all of those directions where you're imposing policies that cost hundreds or thousands
00:05:25.060
So when we talk about a carbon tax, the proponents of carbon taxes in Canada, they evade this point.
00:05:34.380
They like to say, well, we have Nobel Prize winning economics on our side on behalf of
00:05:41.220
You have solid economic arguments on behalf of carbon tax, but only if you first repeal
00:05:48.660
If you keep all those policies in place, carbon tax doesn't reduce emissions very much and
00:05:58.100
So we're having a discussion in Canada about whether we should have a carbon tax in a regulatory
00:06:03.220
context where we know the carbon tax doesn't make any sense and doesn't accomplish anything.
00:06:08.100
And so that, as an observer of the way the policy has developed over the years, I find that
00:06:13.620
That's actually a valid point because if you view this in an economic context, there
00:06:22.200
There's a cost of really dealing with oversight of all of these different things.
00:06:26.400
There are a lot of people though on that environmental side that would say you can't quantify that.
00:06:32.780
You can't put a price tag on that, even if you can put a price tag on it, but it's worth
00:06:37.220
it whatever it costs because it's the environment.
00:06:41.700
Whenever you do environmental policy, you have to put a price tag on the benefits and
00:06:46.020
you can argue whether it's a good number or a very uncertain number.
00:06:51.460
Because they're trying to sell, it sounds like more of a moral price tag than a monetary
00:06:57.880
Any decision you make to either take an action or not take an action on an environmental
00:07:03.540
issue, you're either explicitly or implicitly putting a price tag on it.
00:07:07.880
So the best thing to do is be explicit about what the price tag is you're using.
00:07:13.040
So if we take the ethanol mandate for instance, that's a policy where if it even reduces emissions,
00:07:20.820
which isn't necessarily the case, but on the best case assumption, the emission reductions
00:07:27.400
from the ethanol mandate for greenhouse gases are probably around $2,000 a ton.
00:07:33.380
And so if we go back to the point of saying, well, we're not going to put a price tag on
00:07:40.820
You said these emission reductions are worth $2,000 a ton out of people's pockets.
00:07:46.940
And that is actually an extremist position in terms of what greenhouse gases do to the climate.
00:07:55.440
Nobody argues that a ton of CO2 emissions causes damages at that level.
00:08:00.380
So the idea of saying, we're not going to bother putting a price tag on it, you can't do that
00:08:12.200
because like I say, you implicitly put a price tag on it whenever you make a decision on a
00:08:16.920
So you at least need to be upfront about what that price is.
00:08:19.200
Do you think that there is going to be a point at which, and maybe we're already here, we
00:08:27.660
Because I know that take Volvo, for example, Volvo has said that it's going to be rolling
00:08:30.780
out over the course of several years, electric vehicles only is going to be their end game.
00:08:37.900
And I know there are a lot of companies that are really, as a point of pride, putting this
00:08:44.420
And does that, is that current stronger than what regulation, carbon tax, and all that
00:08:51.420
For typical policy settings where some kind of coordinated response is required, we don't
00:09:04.780
usually think in terms of we're going to leave it up to the market.
00:09:08.600
Because the incentives that people in the market face favor not dealing with external
00:09:18.920
costs and free riding on other people's actions.
00:09:21.480
And so we can't assume that human nature has just undergone some miraculous transformation
00:09:28.040
and companies are just going to do this out of the goodness of their heart.
00:09:32.420
I'm puzzled by Volvo's decision because ultimately, if they decide to withdraw ordinary gasoline-powered
00:09:41.160
engines from their product line and replace them with electric vehicles, what they're saying
00:09:47.480
Because people don't buy electric vehicles, even with generous subsidies, they don't like
00:09:52.820
No, and they may well be ahead of the curve, but that curve hasn't come yet.
00:09:56.720
So they're going to pay a price if that is a miscalculation.
00:10:00.320
Well, if they think that the market is there, then why isn't it there for all these other
00:10:06.020
companies that can't sell their cars, their electric vehicles?
00:10:10.020
And also, Volvo sells a lot of conventional gasoline-powered cars.
00:10:16.120
If they decide, well, for moral reasons, we're no longer going to sell these cars, then other
00:10:24.800
We've got government doing nothing, leaving it to the market.
00:10:27.000
And you've said that is probably not going to do this.
00:10:31.140
And then we have the overreactions that we've talked about of cap-and-trade, aggressive
00:10:36.620
Where do you think the government should be having this discussion, if at all?
00:10:39.860
Well, if it was up to me, first of all, my message to the people who are advocating for
00:10:50.780
climate policy and who've latched onto carbon taxes and they get the logic of carbon taxes,
00:10:57.120
I would just say, okay, you realize that if we do this in the economically efficient way,
00:11:05.640
Because for one thing, it means we're going to allow provinces to use coal-fired power again.
00:11:12.100
We're going to eliminate a lot of these energy efficiency rules and all these other regulations.
00:11:17.900
We get rid of all those and we replace it with a carbon tax.
00:11:20.260
And the nature of demand for energy is, we say, it's inelastic, which means people don't
00:11:28.120
change their consumption a great deal when prices go up.
00:11:33.500
If on the weekend, the price of gas goes from $1 a litre to $1.10, that's a pretty big pricing.
00:11:40.100
That's a 10% price increase, but you don't notice a 10% change in consumption.
00:11:46.320
So that's the nature of the beast for energy use, that it's not very responsive to the price.
00:11:51.780
So we can build that carbon price into the price of fuels, but it's not going to change
00:12:00.320
I would like to see, if we were going to go that route, we shouldn't set it up the way
00:12:08.520
the government has with these automatic escalators so the tax goes up year after year.
00:12:15.020
The price is supposed to reflect what we understand about the social cost of the emissions.
00:12:21.540
And that just doesn't go up with the passage of time.
00:12:24.100
That has to reflect current knowledge and scientific understanding in it.
00:12:30.320
The one other issue I would point to, though, is coming back to the limited options that
00:12:38.380
We don't have technology that can scrub CO2 out of a smokestack and put it in a form for
00:12:50.880
But sulfur and particulates, especially, it can be extracted from the smoke and put into
00:12:59.060
And in the case of sulfur, it even becomes a usable product that the company can sell.
00:13:06.840
And that means we can keep using energy, keep increasing our energy consumption while we're
00:13:13.380
I think we should be really striving to come up with an equivalent technology for CO2.
00:13:20.100
And I've only been able to find a tiny bit of information about people working on this.
00:13:28.960
But the idea, if you could, at a low cost, pull the CO2 out of the smokestack and render
00:13:38.180
And if you could do that for, say, $5 a ton, this whole issue would be over.
00:13:44.900
We'd just put these in place on smokestacks, tailpipes if it can fit on a car.
0.53
00:13:50.400
But otherwise, all these issues would disappear.
00:13:53.740
So that's the way the market could play a role in this, is if the market comes up with
00:13:58.380
But even then, it would be more, it sounds like it would be more profitable for the
00:14:01.240
government to bankroll development of that than to do all of these other things.
00:14:05.140
Yeah, and there's a debate about this among economists, but let's say you put in a carbon
00:14:12.580
In principle, that would then create the market incentive for someone to come up with this
00:14:17.560
Now, if the scrubber ends up costing $100 a ton to operate, then it's not going to be adopted
00:14:23.280
But if someone did come up with this low cost scrubber, they're going to cash in on it.
00:14:30.900
But then some economists would argue, well, the benefits of that go far beyond just
00:14:37.220
So there's a case for the government trying to subsidize some of the knowledge formation
00:14:47.740
Oddly, I just don't see a whole lot of research going on on that topic.
00:14:52.040
Maybe people have looked at it and just decided it's still too hard.
00:14:56.440
But that's kind of the end point in all of this, that we've done an amazing job in Ontario
00:15:05.160
and other parts of the Western world cleaning up smokestacks, like getting rid of all the
00:15:11.600
old dirty soot and particulates and sulfur and all the smog-causing compounds.
00:15:16.780
So we can run coal-fired power plants and have very few emissions coming out of them, mostly
00:15:28.160
And so if there's a scrubber that could deal with the CO2 at a low cost, then really the
00:15:38.860
Well, you heard it from future Environment Minister Ross McKittrick first.
00:15:41.380
Ross McKittrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and also Senior Fellow