Comment on Nordhaus: Carbon Tax Calculations

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS Economists Voice Pub Date : 2010-01-01 DOI:10.2202/1553-3832.1796
Yoram Bauman
{"title":"Comment on Nordhaus: Carbon Tax Calculations","authors":"Yoram Bauman","doi":"10.2202/1553-3832.1796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"William Nordhaus argues (“Carbon Taxes to Move Toward Fiscal Sustainability,” Sept 2010) that “most people are surprised to learn that the effect [of a carbon tax] on gasoline prices is relatively small.” This is true in general, but the specific number cited by Nordhaus—that a tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide “would raise gasoline prices only 7 cents a gallon” —is a mistake, one that apparently came from a switch from discussing carbon units to carbon dioxide units. Each ton of carbon produces 44/12 tons of carbon dioxide. As a result, although a tax of $25 per ton of carbon would raise gasoline prices by approximately 7 cents per gallon, a tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide would raise gasoline prices by approximately 25 cents per gallon. A second issue is that it is not clear whether Nordhaus is using “metric tonnes” or the “short tons” often used in the U.S. The difference here is not great—one metric tonne is approximately 1.1023 short tons, so a tax of $25 per metric tonne CO2 is equal to a tax of about $23 per short ton CO2—but it highlights the need for caution when performing carbon tax calculations.","PeriodicalId":42390,"journal":{"name":"Economists Voice","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1553-3832.1796","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economists Voice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1553-3832.1796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

William Nordhaus argues (“Carbon Taxes to Move Toward Fiscal Sustainability,” Sept 2010) that “most people are surprised to learn that the effect [of a carbon tax] on gasoline prices is relatively small.” This is true in general, but the specific number cited by Nordhaus—that a tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide “would raise gasoline prices only 7 cents a gallon” —is a mistake, one that apparently came from a switch from discussing carbon units to carbon dioxide units. Each ton of carbon produces 44/12 tons of carbon dioxide. As a result, although a tax of $25 per ton of carbon would raise gasoline prices by approximately 7 cents per gallon, a tax of $25 per ton of carbon dioxide would raise gasoline prices by approximately 25 cents per gallon. A second issue is that it is not clear whether Nordhaus is using “metric tonnes” or the “short tons” often used in the U.S. The difference here is not great—one metric tonne is approximately 1.1023 short tons, so a tax of $25 per metric tonne CO2 is equal to a tax of about $23 per short ton CO2—but it highlights the need for caution when performing carbon tax calculations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评论诺德豪斯:碳税的计算
威廉·诺德豪斯(William Nordhaus)认为(《碳税走向财政可持续性》,2010年9月),“大多数人惊讶地发现(碳税)对汽油价格的影响相对较小。”这在总体上是正确的,但诺德豪斯引用的具体数字——每吨二氧化碳征收25美元的税“只会使每加仑汽油价格上涨7美分”——是一个错误,这个错误显然来自于从讨论碳单位到讨论二氧化碳单位的转换。每吨碳产生44/12吨二氧化碳。因此,虽然对每吨碳征收25美元的税会使汽油价格每加仑上涨约7美分,但对每吨二氧化碳征收25美元的税会使汽油价格每加仑上涨约25美分。第二个问题是,目前尚不清楚诺德豪斯使用的是“公吨”还是美国常用的“短吨”。这里的区别并不大,1公吨大约等于1.1023短吨,因此每公吨二氧化碳征收25美元的税相当于每短吨二氧化碳征收23美元的税,但这凸显了在计算碳税时需要谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Economists Voice
Economists Voice ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
25.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: This journal is a non-partisan forum for economists to present innovative policy ideas or engaging commentary on the issues of the day. Readers include professional economists, lawyers, policy analysts, policymakers, and students of economics. Articles are short, 600-2000 words, and are intended to contain deeper analysis than is found on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, but to be of comparable general interest. We welcome submitted Columns from any professional economist. Letters to the editor are encouraged and may comment on any Column or Letter. Letters must be less than 300 words.
期刊最新文献
Natural Interest Rate and Money Interest Rates An Evolutionary Path Towards a European Monetary Fund The Fairy Tale of Low Inflation in the Euro Area Food Insecurity and Health Outcomes The Economists’ Voice: Special Issue on Nutrition and Poverty Introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1