{"title":"行为公共选择与碳税","authors":"Gary Lucas, Jr.","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2682733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to the historic Paris Agreement on climate change and to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan, economists and other climate policy experts have renewed the call for the United States to adopt a carbon tax. Opposition among the public presents a major obstacle. While a majority of the public supports government action on climate change, most people favor the use of “green�? subsidies and command-and-control regulations—a fact that frustrates economists of all political stripes who contend that a carbon tax would be much cheaper and more effective. This Article argues that a cognitive bias known as opportunity cost neglect pervades the public’s thinking about climate policy instruments, causing people to ignore the hidden costs of subsidies and command-and-control and, for that reason, to support these less efficient alternatives to the carbon tax. The Article will help proponents of the carbon tax better tailor their advocacy efforts. The Article also contributes to the burgeoning literature on behavioral public choice, which shows how the cognitive biases of political actors (including voters) influence the law. In addition, the Article points to the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory for conservative policymakers who oppose the carbon tax. Rather than averting major government action on global warming, defeating the carbon tax will very likely facilitate adoption of more costly substitutes that the public strongly favors as a result of cognitive bias. In that respect, the Article lends support to recent proposals by a small but growing group of conservative scholars who argue for a policy swap in which conservatives agree to a revenue-neutral carbon tax in exchange for support from environmentalists for abandoning the government’s current regulatory approach. The Article also suggests that conservative policymakers rethink their position on the carbon tax given that the states are currently considering which policy options to pursue in satisfying their respective obligations to reduce carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan.","PeriodicalId":83442,"journal":{"name":"Utah law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.2682733","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioral Public Choice and the Carbon Tax\",\"authors\":\"Gary Lucas, Jr.\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2682733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to the historic Paris Agreement on climate change and to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan, economists and other climate policy experts have renewed the call for the United States to adopt a carbon tax. Opposition among the public presents a major obstacle. While a majority of the public supports government action on climate change, most people favor the use of “green�? subsidies and command-and-control regulations—a fact that frustrates economists of all political stripes who contend that a carbon tax would be much cheaper and more effective. This Article argues that a cognitive bias known as opportunity cost neglect pervades the public’s thinking about climate policy instruments, causing people to ignore the hidden costs of subsidies and command-and-control and, for that reason, to support these less efficient alternatives to the carbon tax. The Article will help proponents of the carbon tax better tailor their advocacy efforts. The Article also contributes to the burgeoning literature on behavioral public choice, which shows how the cognitive biases of political actors (including voters) influence the law. In addition, the Article points to the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory for conservative policymakers who oppose the carbon tax. Rather than averting major government action on global warming, defeating the carbon tax will very likely facilitate adoption of more costly substitutes that the public strongly favors as a result of cognitive bias. In that respect, the Article lends support to recent proposals by a small but growing group of conservative scholars who argue for a policy swap in which conservatives agree to a revenue-neutral carbon tax in exchange for support from environmentalists for abandoning the government’s current regulatory approach. The Article also suggests that conservative policymakers rethink their position on the carbon tax given that the states are currently considering which policy options to pursue in satisfying their respective obligations to reduce carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utah law review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/ssrn.2682733\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utah law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682733\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utah law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2682733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
摘要
为了响应历史性的气候变化《巴黎协定》(Paris Agreement),以及美国环境保护局(Environmental Protection Agency)最近敲定的《清洁能源计划》(Clean Power Plan),经济学家和其他气候政策专家再次呼吁美国征收碳税。公众的反对是一个主要障碍。虽然大多数公众支持政府对气候变化采取行动,但大多数人赞成使用“绿色”一词。补贴和命令和控制规则——这一事实让所有政治派别的经济学家都感到沮丧,他们认为碳税会更便宜、更有效。本文认为,一种被称为机会成本忽视的认知偏见弥漫在公众对气候政策工具的思考中,导致人们忽视补贴和命令与控制的隐藏成本,因此,支持这些效率较低的碳税替代方案。这篇文章将帮助碳税的支持者更好地调整他们的宣传工作。这篇文章还为行为公共选择的新兴文献做出了贡献,这些文献展示了政治行为者(包括选民)的认知偏见如何影响法律。此外,文章还指出,反对碳税的保守派政策制定者可能会得不偿失地取得胜利。打败碳税非但不能避免政府在全球变暖问题上采取重大行动,反而很有可能促使公众采用由于认知偏见而强烈支持的更昂贵的替代品。在这方面,这篇文章支持了最近一群保守派学者提出的建议,他们主张进行政策交换,保守派同意征收收入中性的碳税,以换取环保人士支持放弃政府目前的监管方式。文章还建议,鉴于各州目前正在考虑采取何种政策选择来履行各自在清洁能源计划下减少碳排放的义务,保守派政策制定者应重新考虑他们在碳税问题上的立场。
In response to the historic Paris Agreement on climate change and to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan, economists and other climate policy experts have renewed the call for the United States to adopt a carbon tax. Opposition among the public presents a major obstacle. While a majority of the public supports government action on climate change, most people favor the use of “green�? subsidies and command-and-control regulations—a fact that frustrates economists of all political stripes who contend that a carbon tax would be much cheaper and more effective. This Article argues that a cognitive bias known as opportunity cost neglect pervades the public’s thinking about climate policy instruments, causing people to ignore the hidden costs of subsidies and command-and-control and, for that reason, to support these less efficient alternatives to the carbon tax. The Article will help proponents of the carbon tax better tailor their advocacy efforts. The Article also contributes to the burgeoning literature on behavioral public choice, which shows how the cognitive biases of political actors (including voters) influence the law. In addition, the Article points to the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory for conservative policymakers who oppose the carbon tax. Rather than averting major government action on global warming, defeating the carbon tax will very likely facilitate adoption of more costly substitutes that the public strongly favors as a result of cognitive bias. In that respect, the Article lends support to recent proposals by a small but growing group of conservative scholars who argue for a policy swap in which conservatives agree to a revenue-neutral carbon tax in exchange for support from environmentalists for abandoning the government’s current regulatory approach. The Article also suggests that conservative policymakers rethink their position on the carbon tax given that the states are currently considering which policy options to pursue in satisfying their respective obligations to reduce carbon emissions under the Clean Power Plan.