Glen Gyssler
One of the difficulties of mitigating climate change is that when people or companies send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—thereby contributing to a process that is raising global temperatures—they don’t pay the full environmental cost of that action. One solution to this problem is to tax carbon emissions, allowing the government to set a price equivalent to its estimate of the future costs of carbon usage. Another is a cap-and-trade system, in which the government sets a limit on carbon usage and allows companies to trade or sell their rights to emit carbon at a price set by the market. When Chicago Booth’s Initiative on Global Markets asked its US Economic Experts Panel which of these solutions is better, the respondents tended to favor a carbon tax—though a quarter of the panel said the answer was uncertain. A number of the experts noted that either policy would be preferable to doing nothing.
Judith Chevalier, Yale
“Depends. But of course, either better than status quo.”
Response: Uncertain
Kenneth Judd, Stanford
“A carbon tax imposes a uniform carbon price across all emissions. How do you cap my car’s annual CO2 emissions? Also, we need the revenue.”
Response: Strongly agree
José Scheinkman, Columbia
“Carbon taxes greatly simplify market design, albeit with the risk of missing desired targets. This can be fixed by changing tax rates.”
Response: Agree
Chicago Booth’s Jean-Pierre Dubé discusses the benefits of personalizing fines according to people's means.
Should Billionaires Pay Higher Fines?
Hyperinflation in 1920s Germany set off ripples that persist a century later.
Inflation Affects Behavior Decades after Prices Have Stabilized
Monetary policy makers set the stage for inflation but were slow to respond when it appeared.
The Case for and against Central BankersYour Privacy
We want to demonstrate our commitment to your privacy. Please review Chicago Booth's privacy notice, which provides information explaining how and why we collect particular information when you visit our website.