In essence, a Greenhouse Gases FeeBate policy will impose a fee on products that cause emissions of greenhouse gases, while the proceeds of these fees will in each case be used to help better alternatives, in the form of rebates. In many respects, markets are best suited to work out which products and technologies should get support through rebates - the main criteria should be that they are replacements for the item that attracted the fee, that they are safe and that they cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, or - even better - that they are greenhouse gas negative.
The FeeBate policy should be adopted globally, but executed locally; levels of fees and rebates can be adjusted on an annual basis, depending on how successfully the shift takes place. Fees can be collected on items that are sold locally, or - if necessary - fees can be imposed on imported items. The FeeBate policy that I propose includes:
- a fee of 10% on sales of new cars with internal combustion engines, with proceeds used to fund rebates for electric cars
- a fee of 10% on sales of gasoline, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchases and installation of facilities that produce renewable energy
- a fee of 10% on sales of coal, with rebates given when electricity suppliers install facilities that produce electricity from renewable sources
- a fee of 10% on building and construction work using concrete that contributes to global warming, with proceeds used to fund rebates on buildings that used clean concrete
- a fee of 10% on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on sales of agrichar, which is produced by means of pyrolysis from various forms of biowaste
- a fee of 10% on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers for alternative food (my personal favorite: vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
If we change the nature of our money, we will automatically get exactly the results your febate system would provide in an ideal world, but do so without any special effort or legislation. To understand what I'm talking about (a dramaticly different solution than anything previously suggested) please read my novel "Invisible Hand" published here on Gather and also at:
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
where there are no ads.
My solution has the following additional advantages:
no government involvement.
no taxes
no poverty
no unemployment
no inflation
no organized crime
no government regulation of business
private property (no joint ownership of anything and no "government property"
far fewer potholes.
Where is this place of solutions that Larry is creating? Sounds like pie in the sky when I die.
It is definitely something to consider, but I am not sure that I am on the band wagon if it would include everyday items like gas and food. I am all for it when considering luxury items or when someone is choosing to build a house that is less than green.
I think you may be on to something here, though. Perhaps [SHORTTERM] regulation of companies that offend most -- removing their tax breaks but not allowing them to raise the price of their products. Charge them the 10% WITH a requirement that they formulate and file a plan to remediate the problem (i.e. a car maker could change the mix of their line to add hybrid / electric-only / and raise gas mileage in combustion engines to 50mpg over that entire fleet, no exemptions).
Let's also get a bigger rebate to people for all local recycling.
Actually, such rebates already exist in states like California and Colorado, and consumers are saved thousands on installing residential solar systems.
Amory Lovins proposes such a "feebate" on cars. His plan is a bit different than Sam's, in that he targets incrementally increasing efficiency. For example, 2005 - 2010, a fee would be paid on cars that get below 25mpg and a rebate would be paid for cars that get above 25mpg. Every few years, the standard is raised, so that industry and consumers have time to adjust. It's not that complicated, and consumers benefit directly at the point of purchase.
If you don't want to eat meat for ethical or health reasons, by all means do so. My sister and her family are happily vegan. But I'm going to need to see a better story than I've seen to date AND someone explain why we can't better use methane rather than throwing it away before I swallow the story. We can work smarter.
The feebate system seems similar to what many other countries are already doing. I'm not against it, by any means. I just traded in a gas guzzler for two with higher efficiency and use 100% renewable sources for electricity. When I find an electric car I can fit my whole family in that won't cost more than my house, I'll switch there, too.
Things that depend on government to be an honest broker are problematical, in my estimation. Having observed what happens when government gets involved in family matters, all I can say is that if there is a way to harm the least of us, government tends to figure out how to do that.
Curbing corporate welfare is a top priority in my book.
I would LOVE to be the first on my block to go to work across town every morning in a golf cart............right after I figure out how to trade in my 2003 Toyota. And, no, I don't have the pink slip.
Don't get me wrong, Sam. It's a great idea - but to say that it's going to work without a bureaucracy strains credibility. This is essentially a new tax and budgetary system. It's going to need careful and open governance.
I've discussed why I support a fee on meat in my article Tax the sale of meat. That article has attracted by far the lowest ratings of all the articles I've posted here at Gather, so I'm keen to see how the proposal could be improved.
Note that, as I say in the article, my personal favorite is to support vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads. I welcome further suggestions as to what should be supported. Many people support subsidies, carbon credits and offset plans for innovations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane capture. That may help, but it could be counterproductive to use tax money to pay polluters for polluting less.
The FeeBate policy that I propose is more effective than many of the current government policies. In fact, many government policies are counterproductive and actually support polluters. So, I would rather change that, and start with 10% fees. If the shift towards clean and safe technologies doesn't eventuate fast enough, fees and rebates could be adjusted. Also note that a 10% fee on polluting cars would create a large pool of money, while there are few electric cars on the market. Similarly, renewable energy has a small share of the market. The proposed 10% on sales of gasoline would create a large pool of money, resulting in rebates that would proportionally be huge.
I love to hear more about the arguments behind a fee on water. I have considered a policy that includes a fee on water usage. In combination with that and where appropriate, government could then issue vouchers if water became too expensive. Alternatively, market mechanisms could sort things out. As more clean and safe energy becomes available, desalination plants could produce more water.
Indeed, there should be a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In my view, the most effective way to achieve reductions is by means of a FeeBate policy that is implemented locally, i.e. proceeds of fees should be used to support local supply of better alternatives. In other words, there's no reason to delay implementation with the excuse that others elsewhere should take the first step. Where other countries fail to make adequate progress with reductions of greenhouse gases, fees could be charged on imports of products from those countries. Progress could be monitored on, say, an annual basis. Countries that fail to meet their targets would have to raise their fees from the initial 10% to, say, 20%, or face fees on their exports.
Expenditure of gas and oil by income 2004
Average income $24'102.00 4.80% of income spent on gas & oil
$132'158.00 1.89%
Expenditures on Utilities, Housing, Fuels and Public Services by Income, 2004
Average income, $9'168.00 18.8 % of income spent
$132'158.00 3.3 %
These figures alone show that any additional fees placed on petroleum products will have an exceptionaly high burden on the lower income of our society.
But that burden will not stop with those costs the poor spend a much greater porportion of their income on food and with the average supermarket product traveling 2500 miles to get to the store the poor will need to spend a lot more if these types of fees are ever enacted.
http://www.policylink.org/pdfs/HealthyFoodHealthyCommunities.pdf
"Low-income residents often live in distressed, high-poverty communities that have experienced years of population and job loss, and physical and economic decline. New grocery store developments can help revitalize these communities, contributing to economic development. In addition to creating jobs for local residents, new stores
create local shopping opportunities that can capture dollars being spent outside of
the community. One study estimated that residents of inner city communities across
the United States spend $85 million per year at stores located outside their community."
According to the above study the poorest of the poor not only spend more on food but many don't have any choice to spend their food monies at higher priced local markets or to travel outside their local communities to find better prices.
I recently read a community transportation plan for a large eastern city where they estimated that over 70% of low income earners drove to work daily
Again additional taxes on fuels will have a devestating effect on the poor of our society.
There is no "feebate" debate. It's not going to happen. Trust me (or don't) it is a can of worms to be administered and affected by the powers that be with the vested interests already. By the time you saw it you would never recognize it. And, just like taxing beef, would be opposed by a majority of the citizens who vote!
When you say the feebate would be 10%, do you mean that every commodity would be topped with a 10% fee - similar to the European value added tax?
The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel has passed a "green tax" bill, with incentives for buyers of a hybrid or electric car, and penalizing owners of vehicles deemed "environmentally unfriendly."
Feebates have been around for years. Until now, feebates typically focused on fuel efficiency. This has led to fears in the US that feebates give an advantage to cheap and light imports, while disadvantaging the heavier cars produced by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
However, I propose that proceeds go to zero emission vehicles. This way, the US industry can start with a clean slate. Much development of electric cars, as well as fuel cells, is taking place in the US and this would be an opportunity for the US to tap into its engineering innovation potential, supported by the presence of venture capital and many drivers and companies who want zero emission cars.
Rebates for zero emission vehicles are easier to administrate than setting arbitrary emission standards or giving subsidies to research and development of products that may never reach the market.
One of the studies on feebates that will be discussed is by Walter McManus, of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, who in 2007 completed an economic analysis of feebates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles for California.