Personal tools

Argument: Carbon taxes don't cost consumers more than cap-and-trade

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

US Congressional Budget Office April 2007 Report, "Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions" - "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

"Doffing the cap". The Economist. 14 June 2007: "Taxes are also more prone to ideological caricature, particularly in America, where many conservatives argue instinctively that all taxes are bad. Too many politicians pretend that carbon taxes will hurt consumers more than a cap-and-trade scheme, even though the cost of carbon permits will be passed on to consumers just as quickly as a tax."

"Most Cap & Trade Cost Will Be Borne By Consumers". ENewsUSA. 27 Apr. 2007

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits