Carbon taxation

On the eve (11 March, 2008) of the 2008 budget, Newsnight discussed climate change taxation

Here's what I might have added to the mix had a logistical muddle not prevented my appearance in the set-up filmed package*

1 Whether you ration or tax carbon, the main signal for most people will be price increases
2 Huge changes in price would be needed to make much difference to consumption quickly
3 We haven't thought through our preference for (many different kinds) of rationing or taxes
4 Whether you use rationing or tax the poor will suffer more
5 (In the case of rationing, that's because you will almost certainly go for tradeable quotas)
6 Hypothecation (shifting money from bad to good things) only works with small taxes
7 To be effective without killing the economy, carbon tax would have to replace general taxes
8 If carbon taxes replace general taxes, people will be able to afford the carbon taxes
9 We don't how much to charge for carbon because we can't price a low carbon future
10 No taxation minister is anywhere near charging enough for carbon to reduce carbon

oh, and

11 The Brits will expect an internationally level playing field

*More generally - on the Newsnight event...

1 Climate change policy discussions should be shifted toward economics and politics journalists, and away from environment and science journalists.

2 This one failed because the mix was doomed. The package fielded the very green Andrew Simms (of the New Ecnomics Foundation) and the green Tory MP, Tim Yeo. The studio discussion had the (radical) Green party's Sian Berry, the (realist) Green Alliance's Stephen Hale - and the (quite green) super-realist, the former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke.

3 Clarke had the merit of wanting to discuss the real world but the demerit of not engaging in the hypothetical question of what would be required to take the climate issue seriously. Hale had the merit of stressing that personal carbon limits were for the birds. Berry, Hale and Simms were predicatbly romantic but at least Simms stressed that there's an immense mountain to climb. (He may even accept how little most of us want the journey.)

4 Arguably the line-up was a four-to-one green-to-realist ratio. Five-to-one if you include Susan Watts, the package's presenter and the show's science correspondent.

5 There was no taxation, economics or energy expert capable of discussing how you would go about delivering a low-carbon future with least damage to the economy. To have that discussion you still have to suspend disbelief about voters' willingness to engage, of course.