Yesterday, the New York Times lost its way on carbon taxes, publishing a confused and self-contradictory oped called, “On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend.” In it, Monica Prasad argues for taxing carbon and giving the proceeds to industry.
Charlie Komanoff has now skewered the piece, so I don’t have to. Thanks, Charlie.
So… is anyone writing a rebuttal op ed to run in the NY Times?
I read the Times’ OpEd, Charlie’s retort, as well as some other related commentary. I think disagreements originate from different language and from different conceptions of what revenue recycling (the new term for tax shifting) refers to. What I thought was lost in a quibble over the terms ‘tax & spend’, ‘tax & don’t spend’, ‘revenue neutral’ and ‘revenue recycling’ is an opportunity discuss what we should do with carbon revenues, how they impact different stakeholders, and how they effect the economy. Imbedded in Monica’s article was one of the key questions: Should carbon policy only seek to reduce emissions or should it also serve other policy ends? Reminds me of our tolling debate – should tolling revenues only go to road repair and maintenance?
Monica Prasad offers a thoughtful and well-reasoned response here.Peace,Michelle