Please find below the
Although interesting and well-structured, the proposal has not been advanced due to a few critiques from the judges, that can be seen as follows:
Judge 1: The premise of the proposal is not quite right - there is a clear line of sight of current carbon pricing and emissions reductions: in fact, ETSs have a clear cap that is shrinking. Differentiated tax rates are not novel. It is not clear how they will be determined that can be equitable for example, and how in general the targets will be set. The feasibility is questionable as there is no clear action to promote and implement it. Also, it seems like there is little need for further modelling.
Judge 2: The pricing criteria of this proposal is one tax over the excess of a certain revenue intensity emission level and another based on long term damages. The first one is the typical carbon tax although based on intensity which is not theoretically the first best option since it may lead to higher emission if intensity is not aligned with absolute targets. The basis for the second one is not quite clear and should compensate for future damages. The conventional carbon tax based on absolute emissions and timely varying would achieve the same scope with greater efficiency. Also, the idea of applying tax revenue in earmarked expenditures is not efficient in theoretical grounds. To promote renewable energy and other mitigation options a R&D subsidy may be more efficient. The proposal needs to address those technical issues and improve the justification for such tax design.
Judge 3: My critique is based on whether it is speaking to the reality of where we are with carbon pricing now globally. The proposal seems to assume that the problem we face with the Carbon Pricing systems already in place or being developed is a design problem. And that if we get that right, all will be fine. This is exactly the trap many policymakers fall into. The problem we face in implementing carbon pricing policy is often a political one and that does not mean a technocratic solution is where you go to first. The proposal highlights countries such as China and Canada and does not address what they are already doing.
No comments have been posted.