[SustainableTompkins] COMMON COUNCIL TO VOTE ON CARBON TAX RESOLUTION WEDNESDAY

[senecajean at aol.com]

Exciting news from the Climate change Action Group of Central NY!!!
We urge everyone to come to Common Council this Wednesday and speak out during the public comment period to urge the City to pass a resolution in support of a federal carbon tax. Details, talking points and a copy of the resolution below!! 

The resolution is item 11. 3.  However the public comment period is earlier (Item 6) so one does not have to sit through the meeting. Link to full agenda.
Jeanne


http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/vertical/Sites/{5DCEB23D-5BF8-4AFF-806D-68E7C14DEB0D}/uploads/{C651B061-CE2D-48CB-A783-BC999B680A49}.PDF

 
11.3 SUPPORT FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL CARBON TAX – RESOLUTION

 

OFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING

A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, February 6,

2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green

Street, Ithaca, New York.

 

>From Sylvester Johnson 

       A resolution in support of a federal carbon tax passed the Planning Committee of the City of Ithaca, NY on 01/16/2008 (“Ithaca joins nationwide debate on carbon tax, cap and trade”). There’s an excellent chance that Ithaca's City Council will endorse a federal carbon tax at it's meeting THIS Wednesday, February 6th!  

 

Agenda Item 11.3 SUPPORT FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL CARBON TAX – RESOLUTION

      

      The debate between a tax and emissions trading may seem remote from daily life, but the outcome will affect citizens for decades. New York City is also remote from Washington, however Mayor Michael Bloomberg has declared his support for a federal carbon tax, as have many economists both liberal and conservative. 

      The reason for this broad-based support is that “cap-trade” in heat-trapping emissions acts like a disguised tax, but trading is more expensive and at the same time less effective for emissions reduction, and more readily abused than an actual tax.

      Without a maximum permit “stop” price, trading makes energy costs too volatile. With a stop price, selling extra permits to pollute blows off the regulatory cap. Both results of of cap-trade or cap-auction are counterproductive for the goal of reducing heat-trapping emissions.

      Many local governments may hope to sell offsets in emissions trading to help fund projects that reduce heat-trapping emissions. However, the value of those projects may get undercut by competition from inexpensive offsets from abroad.

      A federal carbon tax is less expensive as well as more effective and simpler than trading.

      To find out further reasons to support a new tax, please see the non-profit initiative for a federal carbon tax at the "Initiative" page of http://www.climatehealth.net/Initiative.html. 

 

 

11.3 SUPPORT FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL CARBON TAX – RESOLUTION

 

 

WHEREAS, legislation at the federal level is being considered for reductions in heat trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, with the primary methods for motivating

reductions being either a federal carbon tax or emissions trading, and

WHEREAS, the outcome of this legislative debate will substantially affect residents of

the City of Ithaca for decades, and

WHEREAS, the cost of trading in emissions of carbon dioxide spreads throughout the

economy like a tax, yet emissions trading increases expense significantly beyond that of

an actual tax due to income extracted by intermediaries such as traders and brokers,

due to detailed participation by attorneys, as well as due to an extensive regulatory and

oversight bureaucracy, and due to overhead and infrastructure for all the above, so that

emissions trading costs society substantially more than an actual tax, and

WHEREAS, the volatility of trading in permits to pollute will likely prove a deterrent to

investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, because emissions

trading increases energy cost uncertainty, in turn making returns on investments more

uncertain, and

WHEREAS, offsets are challenging for quantification of emissions reduced and for

reliable verification of fulfillment of the goal for each offset, and

WHEREAS, many offsets actually build in warming by applying the carbon dioxide

saved by the offset over the many years of the lifetime of the offset against the current

year’s emissions, instead of applying the current year’s reduction by the offset against

the current year’s emissions, and

WHEREAS, many offsets create other counterproductive unintended effects or would

have been constructed anyway, even without extra funding, such as hydropower

projects that already have been planned, and

WHEREAS, offsets undermine the U.S. economy due to potentially high volume

purchases of inexpensive offsets from abroad, worsening the balance of trade and

sending jobs abroad, and

WHEREAS, effective action requires reducing emissions at the source, not trading off

the pressure to reduce emissions, and

WHEREAS, the potentially useful feature of emissions trading is that the overall total

amount of permits to pollute shrinks over time according to a regulatory goal, but that

feature gets negated whenever the price of permits to pollute exceeds a set “stop price”

or “safety valve,” in which case the government sells more permits at that price to

maintain the price at that level, so that the total amount of permits is no longer

determined by the regulatory goal, and

WHEREAS, the analogy made to trading in emissions of sulfur dioxide to reduce acid

rain is not applicable due to the limited number of coal-burning power plants that

practice trading in emissions of sulfur dioxide, compared to the diverse sources of fossil

fuels and emissions of carbon dioxide that would make emissions trading unwieldy, and

WHEREAS, a straightforward federal carbon tax is projected by many economists to be

more effective than unwieldy emissions trading at achieving reductions in fossil fuel

usage, and at motivating investments in the U.S. in energy efficiency and renewable

energy sources that would create jobs in the U.S. and stimulate the economy, and

WHEREAS, the European experiment in cap-trade has been called a failure in part due

to export of responsibility to reduce emissions with the purchase of possibly

questionable offsets from abroad, providing historical evidence that cap-trade may work

substantially less effectively than a federal carbon tax, and

WHEREAS, a tax achieves goals for reduction of emissions by applying judiciously

adjusted price-demand modeling as a public policy tool, because as price increases,

demand decreases. Using this well-developed modeling, the fixed tax rate for each year

gets determined by the goal for reduction in usage of fossil fuels, without the continual

price volatility of permit trading, and

WHEREAS, the annual goals for reduction of emissions could be mapped out for

decades, for example to ultimately achieve at least 80% reduction from the emissions of

1990 by 2050 as advised by climate scientists, and

WHEREAS, a federal carbon tax levied upstream (at the sources close to extraction or

import of fossil fuels) will minimize the number of entities directly taxed and the expense

of monitoring compliance, and

WHEREAS, the major part of the proceeds of a tax could be refunded in a progressive

manner as equal dividends to every citizen or as an expansion of the Earned Income

Tax Credit, stimulating the economy, and

WHEREAS, part of the tax proceeds could fund meritorious projects in the U.S such as

energy conservation and the production of energy from renewable sources, creating

“green” jobs and supporting local economies, and

WHEREAS, the competitive position of the U.S. could be maintained by imposing a

border tax tariff on products imported from countries without a carbon tax, and

WHEREAS, a carbon tax could be accepted more widely for a worldwide protocol than

emissions trading since each country’s proceeds from a tax would remain in that

country with minimal impact from foreign countries on national sovereignty, and

WHEREAS, both labor and business have reasons outlined above to support a federal

carbon tax over emissions trading, so that once the merits of a tax become better

known it could soon become politically possible, and

WHEREAS, the Mayors for Climate Protection organization (www.coolmayors.com) has

supported Mayors nationwide in their efforts to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets

(7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012) in their own communities, and

WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has increased its own efforts to reduce its heat-trapping

emissions, and

WHEREAS, cities have taken the initiative because of delays by the federal

government, and

WHEREAS, for the above environmental and economic reasons a federal carbon tax

would be substantially more effective than emissions trading; now, therefore, be it

 

RESOLVED, That the Common Council and the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, New York,

declare their support for enactment of a federal carbon tax, to be levied upstream, with

a majority of revenues refunded to citizens, and be it further

RESOLVED, That the City Clerk notify and send copies of this resolution to the Director

of the United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC, and to the following

elected officials:

• United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington, DC

• United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, Washington, DC

• United States Representative Maurice Hinchey, Washington, DC

• New York State Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, Albany, NY

• New York State Senator George H. Winner, Jr. Albany, NY

• Deputy Secretary for the Environment Judith Enck, Office of the Secretary to

the Governor, Albany, NY

 



________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com