The economic impacts of carbon pricing in the United States

The Revenue From Carbon Pricing Will not Reduce Household CostsThe central point of my opponents argument is that the revenue resulting from Carbon Pricing will offset the increase in costs. First, let me explain my original argument like this: 1) The goal of Carbon Pricing is to reduce the use of Carbon, in favor of more expensive greener Energy2) By Forcing People to switch to a more expensive energy source, Household Energy Prices will go upMy argument is that simple. My opponent responds by basically making this argument:1) Carbon Pricing generates a revenue stream2) That revenue stream can be used to make up the difference in costs between Carbon and Green Energy, thereby not increasing household pricesThis is a major fallacy on my opponents part. You see, carbon pricing schemes rely on revenue that comes from carbon usage. For example, a carbon tax only generates a lot of revenue if people use a lot of carbon, as there would be nothing to tax in a green economy. Therefore, the revenue argument falls short because there will not be revenue from Carbon Pricing if it is successful. Here is the basics of this argument:1) Carbon Pricing's goal is to reduce the usage of Carbon, but2) The revenue that supposedly comes from Carbon Pricing relies on the continued heavy usage of Carbon3) As stated in 1), the goal of Carbon Pricing is to reduce Carbon Usage4) As stated in 2), the revenue that comes from Carbon Pricing relies on the continued heavy usage of Carbon 5) Therefore, Carbon Pricing cannot simultaneously reduce Carbon Usage and create an large Revenue StreamSwitching to a more expensive energy source will raise household prices no matter what. My Opponents Attack on the Study I CitedIn my last argument, I cited a study from the Heritage Foundation showing that the Cap and Trade bill from 2009 would cost each household $3,900 annually. This study took into account the long term lost output and higher energy costs associated with the Cap and Trade bill.I expected my opponent to respond to this by explaining what he sees as problems with this study. Instead, he resorts to an Ad Hominem attack on the Heritage Foundation:" This study came from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative American think tank. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. [2-3] Therefore, the findings of my opponent’s study should not be weighted heavily."My opponent did not even mention why the results of the study may be wrong. He seems to believe that attacking the Heritage Foundation is enough to discredit this study. Studies need to be judged on their methodology above all else, something that my opponent does not even mention.My opponent does cite a few studies that show the 2009 Cap and Trade bill having much smaller costs than the study I cited found. I mentioned why this could be in my last post:"My opponent countered by offering a couple studies that found much smaller impacts from Carbon Pricing. I'm having trouble reading these studies, but I have a couple of problems with them. First, do they take into account, fully, the lost long term output from Cap and Trade?Even one of the studies my opponents offers finds significant output losses from Cap and Trade [2]. Second, do these studies rely on the unexplained premise that Government Spending will magically increase energy efficiency?"I expected my opponent to respond to these questions, but he did not. I still hold that the Heritage Foundation study is superior because it fully takes these things into account.The Private Sector is the Best Source of Energy EfficiencyMy opponent disagrees with my assertion that the private sector is best at promoting energy efficiency. The core of his argument is this: "Without governmental assistance, many individuals are unable to obtain energy efficient technologies."Clearly, my opponent's argument is more complex than this, but I think that this is a pretty fair simplification of what he is arguing. However, I see this as another flawed argument.The core of my argument is that energy will only become more efficient through the private sector. My opponent seems to forget that a key part of en energy being "more efficient" is that "more efficient" energy would also be cheaper. When things get more efficient, they increase in quality and decrease in price.This is where I see a flaw in my opponents argument. He ignores that producers of energy will look for ways to offer energy at cheaper prices, in trying to make their products more attractive to consumers. In order to make their energy cheaper, producers will find more efficient ways to produce energy. This is how the private market has always worked. Over time, energy will get more efficient, and, therefore, more affordable.Carbon Pricing Tends to Make Companies Move AbroadMy opponent claims that this is not true. He first says that other countries are switching to Cap and Trade systems, including China. He links to an article proving this. This article, however, has some Chinese officials making very vague claims for a Carbon Pricing system in 2015. My opponent does not give any reason to believe that China will actually switch to a well enforced Cap and Trade System. Given China's bad record on a number of other issues, there is little reason to believe that China will enforce a Cap and Trade system [1].The rest of my opponent's argument relies on the ideas that 1) Carbon Pricing will bring in a lot of Revenue, which will be spent on Business Incentives and 2) Carbon Pricing will increase Energy Efficiency more than the Private Sector would have. Please read the earlier parts of this post where I prove these are both false assertions.Carbon Pricing Will not Substantially Reduce Global Emissions I recommend reading my post in the third round on this issue and the above issue. Carbon Pricing does, in fact, send many companies overseas where they can pollute more freely. My opponent cites the fact that The Acid Rain Cap and Trade system seemed to reduce these emissions. This does nothing to refute my point. I have always allowed that Carbon Pricing will reduce US emissions. My claim is that they will not reduce Global Emissions by a lot. The Acid Rain case did not look at this. Economists on this IssueMy opponent never showed a survey showing all Economists support Carbon Pricing. However, we seem to agree that this is not particularly important in the first place.ConclusionI think I have made a fairly strong case that Carbon Pricing does hurt the economy.VOTE CON!!!Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China