Cap and Dividend: How to Curb Global Warming While Protecting the Incomes Of American Families

This essay examines the distributional effects of a “cap-and-dividend" policy for reducing carbon emission in the United States: a policy that auctions carbon permits and distributes the revenue to the public on an equal per capita basis. The aim of the policy is to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant causing global warming, while at the same time protecting the real incomes of middle-income and lower-income American families. The number of permits is set by a statutory cap on carbon emissions that gradually diminishes over time. The sale of carbon permits will generate very large revenues, posing the critical question of who will get the money. The introduction of carbon permits – or, for that matter, any policy to curb emissions – will raise prices of fossil fuels and have a regressive impact on income distribution, since fuel expenditures represent a larger fraction of income for lower-income households than for upper-income households. The net effect of carbon emission-reduction policies depends on who gets the money that households pay in higher prices. We find that a cap-and-dividend policy would have a strongly progressive net effect. Moreover, the majority of U.S. households would be net winners in purely monetary terms: that is, their real incomes, after paying higher fuel prices and receiving their dividends, would rise. From the standpoints of both distributional equity and political feasibility, a cap-and-dividend policy is therefore an attractive way to curb carbon emissions.

[1]  H. Vollebergh,et al.  Green Taxes and Administrative Costs: the Case of Carbon Taxation , 1999 .

[2]  J. Proops,et al.  The Effects of Pollution and Energy Taxes across the European Income Distribution , 2000 .

[3]  Peter J. Barnes,et al.  Who Owns the Sky?: Our Common Assets And The Future Of Capitalism , 2001 .

[4]  A. Baranzini,et al.  What Do We Know About Carbon Taxes? An Inquiry into Their Impacts on Competitiveness and Distribution of Income , 2003 .

[5]  Suzi Kerr,et al.  USING EMISSIONS TRADING TO REGULATE U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: AN OVERVIEW OF POLICY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES , 1998, National Tax Journal.

[6]  L. Goulder Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies on Energy-Intensive Industries , 2002 .

[7]  Hilary A. Sigman,et al.  The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies , 2005 .

[8]  J. Proops,et al.  Carbon Taxes, Consumer Demand and Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Simulation Analysis for the UK , 1994 .

[9]  Carol A. Dahl,et al.  A survey of energy demand elasticities in support of the development of the NEMS , 1993 .

[10]  John Creedy,et al.  Carbon taxation, prices and inequality in Australia , 1996 .

[11]  Joyce Dargay,et al.  ESTIMATION OF A DYNAMIC CAR OWNERSHIP MODEL: A PSEUDO-PANEL APPROACH , 1999 .

[12]  Daniel M. Kammen,et al.  The Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget , 2007 .

[13]  S. DeCanio Distribution of emissions allowances as an opportunity , 2007 .

[14]  Nicholas Z. Muller,et al.  Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States , 2007 .

[15]  S. Tiezzi The welfare effects and the distributive impact of carbon taxation on Italian households , 2005 .

[16]  F. Ackerman The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs , 2006 .

[17]  K. Hamilton,et al.  Simulating the Distributional Effects of a Canadian Carbon Tax , 1994 .

[18]  D. Fullerton,et al.  Tax Incidence , 2002 .

[19]  T. Dinan,et al.  Distributional Effects of Carbon Allowance Trading : How Government Decisions Determine Winners and Losers , 2002 .

[20]  Carol Dahl An Analysis of the Short-Run Consumer Demand for Gasoline Using Household Survey Data: A Comment , 1983 .

[21]  Ian W. H. Parry,et al.  Are Emissions Permits Regressive , 2004 .

[22]  The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies , 2005 .

[23]  T. Dinan An Evaluation of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions , 2001 .

[24]  P. Cramton,et al.  The Distributional Effects of Carbon Regulation: Why Auctioned Carbon Permits are Attractive and Feasible , 1998 .

[25]  Arthur B. Kennickell,et al.  Recent changes in U.S. family finances: evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances , 2006 .

[26]  D. Holtz-eakin,et al.  A CBO PAPER: Shifting the Cost Burden of a Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program , 2003 .

[27]  G. Metcalf A Distributional Analysis of Green Tax Reforms , 1999, National Tax Journal.

[28]  Sergey Paltsev,et al.  Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals , 2007 .

[29]  Ignasi Puig-Ventosa,et al.  Potential use of feebate systems to foster environmentally sound urban waste management. , 2004, Waste management.

[30]  Eban S. Goodstein The Trade-Off Myth: Fact And Fiction About Jobs And The Environment , 1999 .

[31]  Gilbert E. Metcalf,et al.  Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy , 2001 .

[32]  Sarah E. West Distributional Effects of Alternative Vehicle Pollution Control Policies , 2004 .

[33]  T. Dinan Trade-offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions , 2007 .

[34]  Terry M. Dinan,et al.  Who Gains and Who Pays under Carbon-Allowance Trading? The Distributional Effects of Alternative Policy Designs , 2000 .

[35]  L. Shepard The Short-Run Incidence of a Gasoline Tax Rebate Plan , 1976 .

[36]  H. Jacobsen,et al.  Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience , 2005 .

[37]  Paul A. Cramton The Distributional Effects of Carbon Regulation , 1999 .

[38]  Runar Brännlund,et al.  Carbon Tax Simulations Using a Household Demand Model , 2004 .

[39]  Hilke Kayser,et al.  Gasoline demand and car choice: estimating gasoline demand using household information , 2000 .