Pigovian Taxes

A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. For instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the pollution. Certain types of Pigovian taxes are sometimes referred to as sin taxes, for example taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

Pigovian taxes are named after economist Arthur Pigou (1877-1959) who also developed the concept of economic externalities.

from the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax]

In 2005, carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels climbed to a record high of 7.9 billion tons, an increase of some 3 percent from the previous year. Annual global emissions have been increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth century, when humans first began burning fossil fuels on a large scale to produce energy. Since the early 1900s, emissions have been rising at an increasingly rapid pace. Annual emissions have grown by a factor of fifteen since 1900, advancing nearly 3 percent a year over that time.

Joseph A. Florence, Earth Policy Insitute[http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006.htm]

Recent news on Global Warming is dire, with a new U.N. report arguing that we can expect sea levels to rise for the next 100 years, with devastating results. Much of this was discussed in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” of course, but it’s good to see that the issue is attacking some attention in the profit-media. The question then becomes, of course, what to do about it. One idea gaining ground involves a Pigovian Tax on carbon; the more you put into the atmosphere, the more you pay. Last November, MS-NBC reported on Boulder Colorado’s carbon tax program.

Continue Reading →

That’s Two Trillion, with a T

Back in the days of shock and awe
We came to liberate them all
History was the cruel judge of overconfidence
Back in the days of shock and awe

Back in the days of “mission accomplished”
Our chief was landing on the deck
The sun was setting on a golden photo op
Back in the days of “mission accomplished”

Thousands of bodies in the ground
Brought home in boxes to a trumpet’s sound
No one sees them coming home that way
Thousands buried in the ground

Neil Young, Shock and Awe

When America invaded Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would turn a profit, paying for itself with increased oil revenues. So far, though, Congress has spent more than $350 billion on the conflict, including the $50 billion appropriated for 2007.

But according to one of the world’s leading economists, that is just a fraction of what Iraq will actually wind up costing American taxpayers. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, estimates the true cost of the war at$2.267 trillion. That includes the government’s past and future spending for the war itself ($725 billion), health care and disability benefits for veterans ($127 billion), and hidden increases in defense spending ($160 billion). It also includes losses the economy will suffer from injured vets ($355 billion) and higher oil prices ($450 billion).

from Rollingstone.com, December 15, 2006

I thought this was an interesting and important counter-point to the post I wrote about the cost of the Iraq war. Or, at least, what might be called its formal cost, the amount of money that the U.S. Congress has allocated. As the Head Shrub prepares to force his violent surge on the Iraqis, U.S. soldiers, the U.S., and the world, that is an important number to remember. But it is also important to remember that this formal number is really only the tip of an iceberg, and that the real costs, both in lives ruined and lost and in money, are much higher. Neil Young has it right.

Continue Reading →

Wal-Mart’s Local Harvest

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. unveiled a national TV advertising campaign on Sunday aimed at burnishing the image of the world’s largest retailer.

The 30-second and 60-second spots, which initially broadcast in Omaha, Neb. and Tucson Ariz., in the summer, feature Wal-Mart employees describing cost savings for shoppers, charitable donations and the company’s recent efforts to provide health insurance for eligible employees, according to a press release from the retailer.

Market Watch, January 7, 2007

At Wal-Mart, we know that being an efficient, profitable business and being a good steward of the environment are goals that can be accomplished together. And our environmental goals are simple and straightforward: to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain our resources and our environment. We believe that corporations can develop and implement practices that are good for the environment and good for business. We’re making amazing strides in this endeavor and we’re doing more every day.

from the Sustainability page, on Wal-Mart Facts

A study by the consulting firm Global Insight, which concludes that Wal-Mart’s expansion has saved U.S. consumers $263 billion, is deeply flawed. The statistical analysis generating this widely quoted figure fails the most rudimentary sensitivity checks used in good economic analysis, rendering its conclusions unreliable.

A robust set of research findings shows that Wal-Mart’s entry into local labor markets reduces the pay of workers in competing stores. This effect is largest in the South, where Wal-Mart expansion has been greatest.

Wal-Mart could raise wages and benefits significantly without raising prices, yet still earn a healthy profit. For example, while still maintaining a profit margin almost 50% greater than Costco, a key competitor, Wal-Mart could have raised the wages and benefits of each of its non-supervisory employees in 2005 by more than $2,000 without raising prices a penny

from the Economic Policy Institutes’ Report, “The Wal-Mart debate:A false choice between prices and wages.”

I live in one of those small central Illinois towns where it can be difficult to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart. Actually, there are two Wal-Marts nearby, one here in Charleston, and another about fifteen minutes away in Mattoon. We do have another grocery store, a local chain that was recently swallowed up by County Market, but they can’t beat the prices created by the economies of scale. Wal-Mart has, according to it’s website, “more than 6,600 stores in 13 countries and serve more than 176 million customers around the globe each week.”

If you are relatively affluent (or bored or both) and willing to spend the money, you can always drive an hour north to shop in Champaign, which as a university town has the usual quota of so-called health food groceries and the like. And, even though it makes no sense at all to burn up all that global-warming carbon just to avoid Wal-Mart, that is a fairly common thing among the local liberal cognoscenti, such as it is. (We have our own, much smaller university.) My guess is that Wal-Mart caught on among a lot of academic liberals because it meshes so well with their sense of superiority.

Continue Reading →