Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders, alumni, and approved guests only
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
Saudi Arabia’s recent moves into the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market may be a sign the giant oil exporter is looking to expand into a rapidly growing and politically influential market it had long ignored.
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
We often associate energy poverty with developing nations, but the reality is that tens of millions of Americans struggle to pay their monthly energy bills. Oftentimes, they forgo...
Find out more about our upcoming and past events.
Join us for a virtual information session focused on career pathways at the World Bank, one of the world’s leading international financial institutions dedicated to poverty reduction and...
A federal carbon tax in the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate significant new revenue for the federal government. In this study, part of the Carbon Tax Research Initiative led by Columbia University’s SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates the effects of various potential carbon taxes on the tax burdens of US households across the income distribution.
In a separate study, the Rhodium Group (RHG) uses its version of the National Energy Modeling System to estimate the effects of the same carbon taxes on energy market outcomes, including the prices of consumer goods. The outputs of the RHG analysis are inputs to this study, which uses Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s large-scale microsimulation model to distribute the burden of a carbon tax across US households of different income levels.
We consider three carbon tax scenarios that would price carbon at roughly $14, $50, and $73 per metric ton starting in 2020 and increasing thereafter between 1 and 3 percent per year. A carbon tax at those rates would raise a significant amount of federal revenue, ranging from $740 billion ($14/ton scenario) to $3 trillion ($73/ton scenario) over a 10-year period. We consider four options for the use of this revenue: reducing the federal deficit, reducing payroll taxes, reducing the corporate income tax, and providing per capita household rebates.
Depending on how the revenue is used, a carbon tax policy can have dramatically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens. When revenue is used to reduce the deficit, a carbon tax is moderately regressive—that is, it increases taxes by a larger percentage of income for lower-income households than for higher-income households. Using revenue to reduce the corporate income tax (beyond the corporate tax cut in the recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) would result in higher taxes for low-income families and disproportionate benefits for higher-income taxpayers. Using revenue to provide lump-sum rebates would more than o set the carbon tax burden for low- and middle-income taxpayers but leave high-income families with a net tax increase. Using carbon tax revenues to reduce employee payroll taxes would result in a net bene t for upper middle-income taxpayers, while increasing tax burdens modestly for low-income and the highest-income households.
Our study is the first of which we are aware to estimate the distributional implications of a carbon tax since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Our results are consistent with the findings of previous similar studies that have showed an overall carbon tax policy can be progressive, regressive, or neither, depending on how the revenue is used.
Calls to "Drill, baby drill" are back with Donald Trump's return to the White House, and for US natural gas production, the catchphrase might also be a necessity over the next three years if demand for the fuel grows as steeply as expected.
China’s demand for oil, long an important driver of global oil demand growth, slowed dramatically during January–September 2024.
The US Federal Reserve (Fed) commenced its monetary easing cycle on Wednesday with an aggressive 50 basis points policy rate cut.
