AT:Beck The aff is key—carbon taxes generate revenue that can fuel social programs that help at risk populations and lower income tax bracketsAparna Mathur, a resident scholar in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Adele C. Morris, a senior fellow and the policy director for the Climate and Energy Economics Project, focused on the economics of climate change, "Distributional effects of a carbon tax in broader US fiscal reform," Energy Policy 66 (2014): 326-334, http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/-mathur-distributional-effects-of-a-carbon-tax-in-broader-us-fiscal-reform_17161031273.pdf, KD

Our results suggest that a carbon tax is regressive when using annual incomes as the base for the incidence measure, but less regressive when using consumption . Our analysis suggests that if policymakers direct about 11 percent of the tax towards the poorest two deciles, for example through greater spending on social safety net programs than would otherwise occur, then those households would on average be no worse off after the carbon tax than they were before. Of course, individual households within those groups might be better or worse off depending on their individual energy consumption patterns and participation in federal spending programs.

SolvencyCarbon taxes are effective and the most socially fair way to combat climate changeChalifour ’10 (Nathalie J. Chalifour “A Feminist Perspective on Carbon Taxes” June 1, 2010 Canadian Journal of Women & the Law)

Numerous economic, scientific, legal, and political studies have debated the various policy options for reducing GHG emissions in Canada.22

Given that climate change is caused by the emissions of a variety of GHGs, which are produced through a wide range of industrial and personal activities , climate change policies need to be multi-faceted and include a range of complimentary measures— from the regulation of emitting sources and economic instruments (such as taxes

and trading systems) to land use changes, voluntary approaches, and more. Despite the range of policy measures required, one very consistent recommendation is to establish an economy-wide price on carbon emissions .23 While there are many ways to change the price of carbon, two of the main carbonpricing policy tools are carbon taxes and emissions trading.

Carbon taxes are considered to be highly efficient from an economic perspective24 and have been used extensively in Europe as part of climate change policy over the last decade.25 Eleven European Union (EU) member states have implemented carbon taxes since Finland introduced the first one in 1990.26 The use of carbon taxes is much less common outside of the EU. However, initiatives are cropping up. For instance, Colorado implemented what is credited as the first North American carbon tax in 2006.27 The province of Que´bec is the first Canadian jurisdiction to implement a carbon tax. Described in greater detail in a later section of this article, the tax (called a redevance annuelle or annual charge) applies to fuel distributors, with the revenue being used to fund a climate change plan. British Columbia is the other province that has implemented a carbon tax, with the revenues being used to fund tax cuts and a low-income tax credit.28 Again, I

return to these measures in the fourth section of this article. Carbon taxes are one example of what can be categorized as “environmentally motivated taxes,” “economic instruments,” “market-based mechanisms,” and/or “carbon pricing mechanisms.”29 At their core, carbon taxes involve taxing or charging the carbon content of fuels or GHG emissions.30 The basic theoretical premise is the need to correct for the externalization of the environmental costs associated with carbon emissions.31 There are, of course, numerous ways to change price signals, from regulation that establishes baselines and standards of emissions (often called “command and control” regulation) to creating tradable emissions rights.32 One of the advantages of carbon taxes (along with other economic instruments) is that they are often considered more economically efficient than traditional forms of

regulation.33 As the chief economist for TD Canada Trust explains, “[ e]nvironmental taxes . . . promote both economic efficiency and greater fairness , because they help ensure that polluters bear the costs of their action s.” 34 In the context of carbon, “[a] carbon-based tax could capture the externality costs of those pollution emissions and embed them in the market price of fuel.”35 If “every emitter covered by the tax faces a uniform fee per tonne of [carbon dioxide], a tax system theoretically results in the lowest cost to the economy for a given level of emissions reduction.”36

Carbon taxes generate revenue that can be refunded to struggling families and used to cut back taxes from other areasMarisa Beck, a Global Governance PhD candidate (ABD) at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, specializing in Global Environmental Governance, Nicholas Rivers, Associate Professor Public and International Affairs Social Sciences University of Ottawa, Randall Wigle,professor in the School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University, focused on CGE modeling, Canadian Climate Policy, and innovation policy and the environment, and Hidemichi Yonezawa, “Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia,” Resource and Energy Economics 41 (2015) 40–69, http://www.tehranthesis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/beck2015.pdf, KD

Carbon tax revenue in BC has been disposed through two channels: (a) personal tax reductions and transfers to households and (b) business tax rate reductions and corporate tax credits. In fiscal year

2011/2012, nearly 60% of revenue measures targeted businesses and 40% went to households. Revenue recycling to households combines personal income tax rate reductions and lump-sum transfers, both primarily targeted at protecting low income households. In 2008/09 the government cut the income tax rates for the two bottom brackets by 5% (i.e. for annual taxable income up to $70,000) using carbon tax revenues. In fiscal year 2011/12, $220 M or 23% of total carbon tax revenues were used to fund this personal income tax cut. In terms of direct transfers, the central program implemented to date is the BC Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit program, which received $184 M in support in 2011/12. The maximum Climate Action Tax Credit amounts to $115.50 per adult and $34.50 per child. Eligibility is tied to net household income. In 2011, the full credit could be claimed if net household income was below $31,711 for singles and $36,997 for married couples or single parents.6 The third recycling measure to support households is the Northern and Rural Area Homeowner Benefit program, which has only received a small share of carbon revenue in 2011/12 ($66 M or 7%). Support of up to $200 is granted to homeowners outside the Capital, Greater Vancouver, and Fraser Valley districts. Eligibility for the homeowner benefit depends on property value and additional criteria related to age and income. In terms of business measures, the government has cut the provincial corporate income tax rate for both smal l and general businesses. The general rate was lowered from 12% in 2008 to 10% in 2011. The small business corporate income tax rate declined from 4.5% to 2.5% in 2008. In addition, the small business tax rate threshold was increased from $400,000 in 2009 to $500,000 from January 2010. An Industrial Property Tax Credit of 50% of school property taxes for light and major industrial properties was introduced in 2009 and increased to 60% in 2011. Finally, carbon tax revenues funded a cut in school property taxes for land classified as ‘farm’ starting in 2011.

2AC Econ DANUQ- The Gillespie evidence explains how the US economy is already dragging because of the Brexit which amplified the sluggish growth of employment and other crucial sectors of the economy – only a risk that the aff makes it betterFraming issue the disad does nothing to chance the current state of the environment- a world absent changes to environmental policy means that economic improvements won’t be sustainable because environmental degradation makes it impossible for sustainable economies

No short term econ decline. Incomes stay high and no price inflationJared C. Carbone et al. 2013, Associate Professor at the Colorado School of Mines in the Division of Economics and Business and scientific advisor to the Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Richard D. Morgenstern, Senior fellow at RFF, Richard Morgenstern's research focuses on the economic analysis of environmental issues with an emphasis on the costs, benefits, evaluation, and design of environmental policies, especially economic incentive measures. His analysis also focuses on climate change, including the design of cost-effective policies to reduce emissions in the United States and abroad, Roberton C. Williams III, Senior Fellow and Director, Academic Programs. Rob Williams studies both environmental policy and tax policy, with a particular focus on interactions between the two. In addition to his role at RFF, he is a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Dallas Burtraw, Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow. Dallas Burtraw is one of the nation’s foremost experts on environmental regulation in the electricity sector. For two decades, he has worked on creating a more efficient and politically rational method for controlling air pollution. He also studies electricity restructuring, competition, and economic deregulation. He is particularly interested in incentive-based approaches for environmental regulation, the most notable of which is a tradable permit system, and recently has studied ways to introduce greater cost-effectiveness into regulation under the Clean Air Act. "Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Impacts" Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that, through its social science research, enables policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions about energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. Located in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises programs in nations around the world, http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-Carbone.etal.CarbonTaxes.pdf

2.5. Intergenerational Impacts As noted earlier, a key feature of the new OLG model is its more realistic depiction of households’ decisions about work, savings, and consumption over their lifetimes . It contrasts with other frameworks, which either model people as living forever or involve a one-time snapshot of households. This framework helps provide more realistic estimates of the effects of changes in tax rates and budget deficits. It also allows us to look at how policy changes affect individuals across different generations. Figure 2. Intergenerational Impacts of a Revenue-Neutral $30 CO2 Tax by Birth Year Figure 2 displays the intergenerational effects of the different revenue-recycling options, expressed in terms of changes in economic welfare for individuals across birth cohorts. Although CARBONE ET AL. 10 this metric does not include the benefits of CO2 reductions (or any other environmental implications of the policy), it is otherwise a complete measure of economic effects.3 For example, it shows the effect of a carbon tax–labor tax swap as –$50 for

individuals born in 1985. This means that the net economic effect of that tax swap on the average person born in 1985 is the equivalent of losing $50/year starting when the policy takes effect and continuing for the remainder of that individual’s life.4 In all cases, this graph ignores any potential benefits from lower carbon emissions. Perhaps the most important interpretation of this figure is that the effects are relatively small . The largest cost for any policy, for any generation, is roughly $150/year, and in most cases the effects are much smaller than that (for the CO2 tax–capital tax swap, for example, no generation gains or loses more than $40/year). This indicates that the cost of a CO2 tax —net of the effect of revenue recycling— is modest . And the differences among the

various revenue-recycling options are also relatively modest in absolute terms—though in relative terms, they are still quite large (the cost of a carbon tax with lump-sum recycling is several times as large as the cost with recycling via capital tax cuts).

Implementing a carbon tax would create new revenues that sparks investment if clean energy technologyObeiter’15 (Michael – John Hopkins University -Energy and Climate advisor to the Senate“ A Carbon Price Would Benefit More Than Just the Climate” World Resources Institute. 04/30/2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/04/carbon-price-would-benefit-more-just-climate) KG

When the price of carbon-intensive fuels and goods increases, the government takes in new revenues, which it can put to use in any number of productive ways. In this way, a carbon price can achieve several policy goals simultaneously . For example, politicians from across the political spectrum support comprehensive tax reform. A carbon-pricing policy would provide the opportunity to reduce taxes on things we want to encourage (such as work and investment) by discouraging

things we want less of (greenhouse gas emissions). It’s no wonder that such a win-win opportunity has the support of an overwhelming majority of economists , the American public and residents of British Columbia, where that policy was put in

place seven years ago. As a result of the revenue-neutral tax swap it implemented, the province used carbon tax revenue to reduce other taxes. It now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada and one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in

North America. Deficit reduction is another priority of Democrats and Republicans alike , and carbon pricing revenues can be used to pay down the federal debt. Others support simply returning all of the revenues to consumers in the form of lump-sum dividends. This would ensure minimal government involvement and that lower-income households are not negatively

affected. While the carbon price itself would spur innovation in clean energy technologies, the government can enhance that incentive by using revenue to support research and development – a proposal that has polled well among the American public . Of course, policymakers could decide to mix and match among these options, as well as others that are discussed in more detail in the Handbook.

Positives outweigh the negativesSebastian Rausch and John Reilly August 2012 “Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution?” MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

While raising taxes is never popular, a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution . First, carbon tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense spending. Among the revenue raising options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would start at $20 in 2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year, approximately 4% in real terms given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it would raise on the order of $1.25 trillion over a 10-year period. Second, economic analysis has demonstrated the potential for a double dividend whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax to offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even under some circumstances boost economic welfare (Goulder, 1995). The Bush tax cuts and other

temporary tax relief measures are due to expire at the end of 2012. A carbon tax could allow their further extension. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil import s . The effects of

this last “win” would spread across the energy sector. With the new requirements for improved vehicle efficiency the higher tax-inclusive gasoline price would make fuel efficient vehicles more attractive to consumers and thus make it easier for automobile producers to sell a fleet that meets the efficiency requirements. With a more efficient fleet, even though gasoline prices would rise, the actual fuel cost of driving could fall. A carbon tax would also create support for renewable fuels and electricity. Provisions to stimulate these alternative sources have often involved tax expenditures—investment in or production of renewable energy gives companies a tax credit, thereby reducing tax revenue and aggravating the deficit. The investment and production tax credits for renewable electricity are due to expire, and with the looming deficit it would be more difficult to justify their continuation. A carbon tax would 3 continue to provide encouragement for these technologies by making dirtier technologies more expensive, and raise revenue rather than spend it.

A slow phase-in of the carbon tax solves the shocks to the economyMark Pattison, Catholic News Service 16, 6-9-2016, "Now is the time to start a carbon tax," https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/time-carbon-tax

The people who object to a carbon tax do have one argument in their favor. They note that for a carbon tax to work, it has to be high enough to really bite. To suddenly impose a big tax would be very disruptive to our economy. The public opinion polls reflect this concern. A 10-cent

increase could be processed but a 20-cent increase would be painful. The simple response to these concerns is to phase in a carbon tax slowly so that consumers and businesses would have time to adjust . For example, a carbon tax that was the equivalent of a penny per gallon of gasoline would hardly be noticed. If that tax were raised by a penny each month, it would take 10

years before the tax amounted to $1.20 per gallon. The advantage of such a phase in would be to put consumers and businesses on notice that higher prices are coming and give them time to adjust. They would know that it would be stupid to buy inefficient cars and equipment because the operating costs would continue to climb in the future. They would also know that it would be smart to invest in more efficient and alternative technologies. Implementing the tax slowly would also provide time to adjust trade legislation to make sure that American companies were not put at a disadvantage through higher energy prices . Others object that a carbon tax would be regressive, hitting the poor the hardest. Billionaires don’t care how much they have to pay for

gasoline. The impact of higher fuel prices on the poor can be mitigated by using the revenue raised by the carbon tax to help the poor. Reducing taxes on the working poor, making mass transit cheaper, and increasing government benefits for the poor can make sure that the poor do not suffer from a carbon tax. Revenue from a carbon tax can also help make government buildings, including public housing, more energy efficient. It can also fund research into energy efficiency and alternative forms of energy. If we really

want to take global warming seriously, we need to reduce our carbon footprint both as individuals and as a nation. Now is the time to start such a carbon tax while oil and gas prices are low and while the economy is recovering. When the economy fully recovers, oil and gas prices are going to go up and it will be harder to increase prices with a tax. We should act now , but sadly, we do not have the political will. This is an opportunity we will miss.

Aff models economic effects better than neg models. Overlapping generations models support us.Jared C. Carbone et al. 2013, Associate Professor at the Colorado School of Mines in the Division of Economics and Business and scientific advisor to the Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Richard D. Morgenstern, Senior fellow at RFF, Richard Morgenstern's research focuses on the economic analysis of environmental issues with an emphasis on the costs, benefits, evaluation, and design of environmental policies, especially economic incentive measures. His analysis also focuses on climate change, including the design of cost-effective policies to reduce emissions in the United States and abroad, Roberton C. Williams III, Senior Fellow and Director, Academic Programs. Rob Williams studies both environmental policy and tax policy, with a particular focus on interactions between the two. In addition to his role at RFF, he is a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Dallas Burtraw, Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow. Dallas Burtraw is one of the nation’s foremost experts on environmental regulation in the electricity sector. For two decades, he has worked on creating a more efficient and politically rational method for controlling air pollution. He also studies electricity restructuring, competition, and economic deregulation. He is particularly interested in incentive-based approaches for environmental regulation, the most notable of which is a tradable permit system, and recently has studied ways to introduce greater cost-effectiveness into regulation under the Clean Air Act. "Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Impacts" Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that, through its social science research, enables policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions about energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. Located in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises programs in nations around the world, http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-Carbone.etal.CarbonTaxes.pdf

In a first set of simulations, we generate “revenue-neutral tax swaps,” by substituting a carbon tax (in a revenue-neutral manner) for existing capital, labor, and consumption taxes or by returning carbon tax revenues via lump-sum rebates . We also look at how emissions reductions vary based on the tax swap.

In a second set of simulations, we study the effect of including a carbon tax in a package of measures to reduce the budget deficit. In a third set, we look at the carbon tax as a deficit-reduction tool by itself, with the tax revenue serving as a down payment on deficit reduction. Previously, the economics literature has considered possible interactions between environmental taxes and the broader fiscal system, largely in the context of budget-neutral changes that use the new revenues to fund cuts in other taxes or increases in spending. Although policy interest in the use of environmental taxes for deficit reduction can be traced at least to the Clinton CARBONE ET AL. 4 administration’s 1993 Btu tax proposal, the economics modeling community has devoted only limited attention to using environmental taxes to help reduce the deficit, as such an effort requires methodological tools that differ from those used in a revenue-neutral approach. Thus, we build a dynamic general-equilibrium overlapping-generations (OLG) model of the US economy, which includes detail on government taxes and expenditures and substantial energy-sector information. The key feature of this model is its more realistic depiction of households’ decisions about work, savings, and consumption over their lifetimes . It contrasts with other frameworks, which either model people as living forever or involve a one-time snapshot of households. This OLG approach has several advantages. First, it is particularly well suited to examining the effects of changes in the timing of taxes or spending because, unlike most other models, which imply that government borrowing is fully offset by private sector saving (a concept referred to in the economics literature as “Ricardian equivalence”), this is not the case in an OLG model. Instead, we account for an accumulation of debt and anticipate the eventual impact that debt would have on the economy . Second, the assumptions in other models imply infinitely elastic capital supply, whereas an OLG model enables a more realistic analysis of the effects of tax policy on capital accumulation. This is obviously crucial when considering capital taxation, but is also important for analyzing other taxes that may indirectly affect capital, such as a carbon tax. Third, the OLG structure permits us to examine how different generations —baby boomers, new labor market entrants, and even future generations— are affected by policy reforms, including their behavioral response to the policies. Each of these three features is widely used in economics, but to our knowledge , no other model combines all of them , as is needed to address key questions about carbon taxes and fiscal policy. Although this model is designed primarily to look at broad, longer-term issues, as opposed to shorter-term emissions or abatement costs, it can also provide useful estimates for the nearer term. Finally, we link the OLG model to a household-level model to examine the net burdens of the various reform options based on income and region of the country in the near term. Such impacts are especially important because it is current voters who will determine the choices that are made. Detailed descriptions of the OLG model and the near-term household model are available on request from the authors.

investors anticipate the tax. Solves market shocksJared C. Carbone et al. 2013, Associate Professor at the Colorado School of Mines in the Division of Economics and Business and scientific advisor to the Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Richard D. Morgenstern, Senior fellow at RFF, Richard Morgenstern's research focuses on the economic analysis of environmental issues with an emphasis on the costs, benefits, evaluation, and design of environmental policies, especially economic incentive measures. His analysis also focuses on climate change, including the design of cost-effective policies to reduce emissions in the United States and abroad, Roberton C. Williams III, Senior Fellow and Director, Academic Programs. Rob Williams studies both environmental policy and tax policy, with a particular focus on interactions between the two. In addition to his role at RFF, he is a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Dallas Burtraw, Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow. Dallas Burtraw is one of the nation’s foremost experts on environmental regulation in the electricity sector. For two decades, he has worked on creating a more efficient and politically rational method for controlling air pollution. He also studies electricity restructuring, competition, and economic deregulation. He is particularly interested in incentive-based

approaches for environmental regulation, the most notable of which is a tradable permit system, and recently has studied ways to introduce greater cost-effectiveness into regulation under the Clean Air Act. "Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and Distributional Impacts" Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that, through its social science research, enables policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions about energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. Located in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises programs in nations around the world, http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-Carbone.etal.CarbonTaxes.pdf

3.1.3. Emissions Table 6 displays the 2025 emissions reductions resulting from the different carbon tax cum revenue offset options. Overall, the pattern of emissions reductions is quite similar to the deficitneutral cases. Higher carbon taxes result in larger emissions reductions, although the results are distinctly nonlinear, reflecting the impacts of both slower economic growth and the increasing cost of decarbonizing the economy at higher tax rates. Because the lump-sum rebates have somewhat more adverse impacts on GDP growth than the other policies, the emissions reductions induced by the carbon tax are slightly greater when expressed in percentage terms. Conversely, the other policies, which have less adverse impacts on GDP growth, result in lower emissions reductions, with the CO2 tax–capital tax offset resulting in the smallest decrease in emissions. In reality, the economy is growing faster when the CO2 taxes are substituted for capital, labor, or consumption taxes, and this, in turn, is causing the slightly smaller emissions reductions. In other words, th e lump-sum payment has the largest effects on emissions because of the adverse impact on economic growth . Not surprisingly , the three tax offsets all result in smaller emissions reductions as they correct for some market distortions that lead to more economic activity than the lump-sum transfer. Of the three, offsetting capital taxes results in the smallest emissions reductions, whereas offsetting consumption taxes leads to the largest. CARBONE ET AL. 20 Table 6. Percentage Reduction in Emissions (from Business as Usual) Due to a Carbon Tax in 2025 Capital Labor Consumption Lump sum $20/ton –11.87 –12.17 –12.43 –13.18 $30/ton –15.78 –16.17 –16.51 –17.56 $50/ton –21.60 –22.13 –22.61 –24.15 3.1.4. Intergenerational Impacts Figure 6 shows how the policy change affects individuals in different generations. It parallels Figure 2, which showed the analogous results for the revenue-neutral tax swaps, and yields results that are generally similar. The overall efficiency ranking of the options is the same: using the carbon tax revenue to prevent capital tax increases is the most economically efficient of the options; second-most efficient is avoiding labor tax increases, followed by avoiding consumption tax increases. Using the revenue for a lump-sum transfer is the least efficient. Similarly, the oldest generations fare better than younger generations when the revenue is used for a lump-sum transfer or to prevent a consumption tax increase, and they fare worse when the revenue is used to prevent a labor tax increase. This similarity in results is what one would expect. In the revenue-neutral case, the carbon tax revenue is used to cut other taxes, whereas in this case, it is used to prevent increases in those other taxes. But in either case, what the carbon tax revenue buys is another tax rate that is lower than it otherwise would have been . Figure 6. Intergenerational Impacts of a Deficit-Reducing $30/ton CO2 Tax by Birth Year 3.A.5. Cost to Households We have not performed a separate analysis for the household-level impact of the deficitreduction cases. However, we speculate that they would look a lot like the household-level impacts of the revenue-neutral tax swaps (as discussed in Section 2.F); the overall effects on welfare are similar, as is the distribution across generations, so the household-level distribution of effects is also likely to be similar. 3.B. Carbon Tax as a Down Payment on Other Long-Term Tax Increases In this section, we take an alternative approach: rather than looking at a carbon tax as part of a full package of deficit-reducing measures beginning in 2015, we instead treat a carbon tax as a deficit-reduction measure by itself, with any broader action on the debt deferred until the future . Specifically, we assume that full-scale action on the debt (involving

tax increases and spending cuts to put the economy on a sustainable path that eventually leads to a 60 percent debt-to-GDP ratio) will be delayed until 2035. In that setting, we consider the effect of imposing a carbon tax in 2015, and devoting all of the revenue to deficit reduction, versus doing nothing now. This strategy lowers the deficit over the next 20 years and thus permits the increases in capital, labor, or consumption taxes in 2035 to be correspondingly smaller. CARBONE ET AL. 21 This case is substantively different from either the revenue-neutral case or the deficit-reduction case previously considered. In each of those cases, the level and time path of the deficit were the same with and without a carbon tax. In contrast, in this case, the carbon tax revenue actually changes the time path of the deficit. At the same time, as with the other scenarios, because current and future tax changes are announced in advance, consumers and investors are able to anticipate the future tax regime which, in turn, affects their spending, working, and saving patterns. Unsurprisingly, the initial revenue and emissions impacts associated with the introduction of CO2 taxes beginning in 2015 are roughly comparable to those calculated for the earlier debtreduction scenarios. Specifically, a $30-per-ton CO2 tax yields $224 billion in average annual revenues (2015–2025), or about $2.24 trillion over the decade, while CO2 emissions are reduced by 16 percent below baseline. Most interesting are the longer-term impacts, particularly the effects on GDP and economic welfare. Figure 7 displays the percentage difference in GDP in the down-payment scenario, relative to a case where debt reduction is postponed until 2035 (at which point, only non-CO2 taxes—i.e., capital, labor, and consumption taxes—are raised to meet the long-term debt-to-GDP target). Similar to the earlier debt-reduction scenarios, we find a small decline in GDP in the early years. The declines max out at 0.60 percent and 0.95 percent for the capital and labor taxes, respectively, but then reverse and start increasing in 2025–2030. In the case of the capital tax offsets, the positive GDP effects reach 1.5 percent by 2045. For labor tax offsets, the GDP gains are smaller, rising to a positive 0.15 percent by 2050. The early-year GDP declines are driven by the CO2 tax itself. Thus, the results for the three different taxes are essentially identical for 2015 and 2020. But for later years, the effects of avoiding large tax increases in 2035 become important. Interestingly, even though the three policies are identical until 2035, their effects differ even before that, because households and firms start changing savings, consumption, work, and investment decisions in anticipation of the changes in 2035. This is particularly evident for the capital tax, for which the effect of the smaller tax increase is visible as early as 2025. CARBONE ET AL. 22 Figure 7. Percentage Difference in GDP of Debt-Reduction Scenario with a $30/ton CO2 Tax “Down Payment” CARBONE ET AL. 23 Figure 8 shows the effects on different generations of using carbon tax revenue for deficit reduction, thus permitting smaller future tax increases. Here we see quite interesting results. Figure 8. Intergenerational Impacts of a Debt-Reduction $30/ton CO2 Tax “Down Payment” by Birth Year The intergenerational effects in this case are dominated by the effect of paying down the deficit sooner rather than later. This makes older generations worse off (more of the deficit reduction occurs during their lifetimes) and younger generations better off (less of the burden of paying down the deficit falls on them). Consequently, all of the alternative tax options show the same general pattern. The swings are greatest for the capital tax offset, where negative NPV impacts reach $350 for individuals born in 1960 before turning positive for those born in 1995 and thereafter. For labor tax offsets, negative NPV impacts reach $270 for individuals born in 1960 before turning positive for those born in 2010 and thereafter. For consumption tax swaps, the swings are less dramatic; however, they do not actually turn positive over any of the observed generations. One important implication is that enacting such a policy will be politically difficult unless current generations are altruistic. Although this case is more efficient overall than a revenueneutral

policy, it also makes every current generation (all of those currently old enough to vote) worse off, while making future generations better off.

2AC Elections DA1. Case O/W and turns the DA – idk why thoughObama is bent on decreasing emissions --- State of the Union provesKnox 16 (Nora, staff writer for US Green Building Council, “State of the Union 2016: Obama’s focus on environment,” Advocacy and Policy from US Green Building Council, 13 Jan 2016, http://www.usgbc.org/articles/state-union-2016-obamas-focus-environment)

Last night, President Obama delivered the 2016 State of the Union. In his remarks, he declared that as a nation we must make technology work for us when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change . In last year's address, the president emphasized that "no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change ." This year, he stressed that now is the time to commit to developing clean energy sources. “Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200

nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. But even if the planet wasn’t at stake; even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record—until 2015 turned out even hotter—why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power . On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal—in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy—something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth .

No conclusive piece of link evidence it just says that it would open Hillary up to attacks not that those attacks would secure Trump the presidency Clinton win now Needham 7/1 (Vicki, staff writer for The Hill, “Election model: Clinton will win easily” 7/1/16 http://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/prediction-hillary-clinton-easily-wins-beats-donald-trump-moodys-presidential-election-model

Democratic chances of winning the White House remain strong, according to a closely followed economic election

model. Moody’s Analytics is forecasting that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will easily win the presidency in November over Republican Donald Trump, the June forecast predicts. The latest model shows for the fourth straight month that the Democratic nominee will win 332 electoral votes, compared with 206 for the Republican nominee. The model chooses a party, not a candidate, to win. “The closer we come to election day, the more that two-year change is based in history and less on our economic forecasts,” said Dan White, a Moody’s economist who oversees the monthly

model. “With just over four months left to election day, the chances of an economic forecast error distorting the results are fading,” he said. “This ups the confidence level in the model’s results, though forecast risks are always present, especially when it comes to politics.” Moody's bases its forecast on a two-year change of the economic variables, from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of this year. A slight increase in gasoline prices modestly improved Republican chances, but that shift was offset in part by higher incomes, house

prices and President Obama’s rising approval rating. The latest Gallup poll shows the president’s approval at 52

percent, up a point from last month. Separately, a FiveThirtyEight election forecast gives Clinton a 79.2 percent chance of winning to Trump's 20.7. In that forecast, Clinton would win 48.8 percent of the vote to Trump's 42. The former secretary of State is holding leads across most major polls. Clinton leads Trump by 6 points, 47 to 41 percent, in a New York Times/CBS News poll. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll saw Clinton widen her lead to 51 to 39 percent from 46 to 44 in May .

Trump wins now – even CNN shows Binder 7/22 (John

Immediately following GOP nominee Donald Trump’s electrifying Republican National Convention ( RNC) speech, not even CNN could deny that the public was loving it . In four polls taken immediately after Trump’s speech, viewers told CNN what they really thought. Take a look at a compilation put together by a Twitter user: CNN, The most biased political media source there is, polled its viewers, & even they agree WE NEED TRUMP #Trump2016 pic.twitter.com/MR3LqIqPeP — Jesse #Trump2016

(@EaglesJesse) July 22, 2016 For viewers, a whopping 57 percent said they had a “very positive” reaction to the speech, while only 24 percent said the speech had a “negative effect.” Even more incredible for Trump was that 73 percent of viewers said the policies proposed in the speech would move the country in the “right direction,” with only 24 percent saying otherwise. The speech left 56 percent of viewers saying they are “more likely” to vote for Trump .

Fiat solves the link - We should assume that the plan passes instantly without the legislative process so we can have better debates about the effects of the plan not the processNo vote switching – most voters have made up their mindsDutton et al 6/15/16 (Sarah Dutton and Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto. “Clinton maintains lead after claiming nomination - CBS News poll,” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-maintains-lead-after-claiming-nomination-cbs-news-poll/ | prs)

Clinton continues to enjoy strong support from liberals, moderates, women, African Americans, and voters under 45, while Donald Trump gets the support of men - particularly white men - Republicans, conservatives, and white voters without a college degree. Most registered voters say they have made up their minds about who to support : 87 percent of Trump voters and 89 percent of Clinton voters say they won't change their minds before the election. But just over a third of each candidate's supporters say they strongly favor their choice. About a quarter of both Trump and Clinton voters are supporting their candidate mainly because

they dislike the opposition. Only 32 percent of voters are very enthusiastic about the 2016 presidential election, and there is little difference between Clinton and Trump voters . Overall, enthusiasm is down from the beginning of the year: now 23 percent of voters say they are not at all enthusiastic, up from 15 percent in January before the primary season began.

Their impact evidence is terrible and just says that a shift in the white house could harm the United States broader climate change policy, two problems with this 1- is that the repealing of the carob tax is not listed as a program that will get Trump’s energy advisor promotes carbon taxRoussi 16 (Antoaneta, Staff writer for Salon, “Even Donald Trump’s climate-change skeptic energy adviser believes there should be a carbon tax,” May 16 2016, http://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/even_donald_trumps_climate_change_skeptic_energy_adviser_believes_there_should_be_a_carbon_tax/)

Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota — the second biggest oil drilling state in the country — was approached by the billionaire businessman about two weeks ago, when Trump was giving a foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and asked to draft a white paper on energy policy, sources told E&E Climatewire. The news comes a little after Cramer and other Trump energy advisers met with lawmakers from western states, in the hopes Trump will expand federal land for drilling. “It’s easy to talk about the ways the federal government has gotten in the way,” Cramer said of regulations. “But then what can we do to bring back the jobs that Hillary Clinton seems to want to get rid of in her keep-all-the-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground attitude?” Cramer said that his energy paper would emphasize the dangers of foreign ownership of U.S. energy assets, burdensome taxes, and over-regulation . The congressman also proposes to repeal the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, but unlike Trump, believes there should be a replacement in the form of a small tax on carbon. “He can do all that if he wants,” Cramer said of Trump’s climate position, according to Reuters . “ But my advice would be, while I’m a skeptic, as well, he is a product of political populism, and political populism believes that there needs [to be] some addressing of climate change.”

No impact to Trump – he’ll moderate and his radical policies will flop Bragman 4/29/16 (WALKER BRAGMAN “A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016,” http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/ | prs)

2.) That said, most of his policies are DOA In all likelihood, Trump will not accomplish anything. He has made serious enemies in both parties and the media, whom he feels have slighted him, and I cannot see him working with those people. Trump holds grudges. He has filed more frivolous lawsuits than anyone in the public eye — or maybe we just hear about them more.

Either way, politics do require compromise to one degree or another, and without it, nothing gets done. As such, when Trump finds himself up against institutional and bureaucratic resistance , it is unlikely he will deliver . For example, his wall — paid for by Mexico — is never going to happen. Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.? Not a chance.

But what if he does work with Congress? Well, first off, we do not know what his platform will be when he hits the general

election. He likely tack to the middle. Second, even if he does work with Congress, he is still not going to get his social policies passed . The Senate with its filibuster and cloture rules is enough of a check on that , even if Democrats do not have a majority. Basically, we will not have immigration reform, but we will not have people rounded up in the streets

and deported. Third and most important of all: I do not need to trust Donald Trump in the same way I would have to trust Hillary Clinton were she elected. The reason for this is very simple: Trump represents the GOP brand, and Clinton claims the mantle of progressive. If Trump fails to accomplish anything in office , or if he manages to do

whatever damage he can do, he will represent the Republicans. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he represents America’s crypto-

fascist element. The best way to discredit both of these groups is to let them fail on their own. Trump will not succeed as a president. On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton screws up by compromising too much (which is likely) or doing too little (also likely), progressivism will take a big hit in the public eye, which is something we cannot afford. 3.) The 2020 election looms Now we arrive at the point where I start sounding old Jud Crandall from Stephen King’s “Pet Sematary.” Progressives and Democrats should be focusing on the election in 2020 because 1) it is a census year — meaning the makeup of the House of Representatives for the following decade will depend on down-ballot voting — and 2) there may be openings on the Supreme Court. The last consecutive two-term presidents from the same political party were James Madison and James Monroe. In other words, Democrats face long historical odds if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, of winning again in four years. Historically, the party in control of the White House loses seats in the midterm. A Trump presidency would force Democrats to organize and turn out in the off-year. And it might provide a head-start on taking back the chamber in 2020 Clinton is also one of the weakest candidates ever to secure the nomination for president from either party. As Gallup pointed out, the word most associated with her name is “dishonest.” Her favorability ratings are abysmal, she’s prone to secrecy which opens her up to perceptions of scandal, and she has an FBI investigation hanging over her head. Unlike her rival, Bernie Sanders, but like Donald Trump, she underperforms among Independents — a

necessary voting bloc for any president. Trump will also struggle in 2020 due to his lack of policy understanding, unwillingness to work with others, and lack of popularity. As I mentioned, he will probably be defending a record of little by way of achievement at a time when voters are demanding serious overhauls. Trump now would enable the Democratic Party to regroup, and reform under a more economically populist banner in order to tap into the American zeitgeist. Perhaps 2020 could see President Elizabeth Warren. 4.) I’m Not Afraid of Donald Trump

Some of you might be reading this and thinking to yourselves: “That’s all well and good, but Trump is dangerous.” I understand those feelings. Donald Trump’s messages on social policy have been mixed at best, and fascistic at worst. His

approach to climate science is frightening considering the dire situation our planet is in. Trump is also the kind of man who would use the office of the president to aggrandize himself, and punish his detractors — well, attempt to do so, like in his many libel and

slander suits. Over the last twenty years the powers of the president have expanded considerably as commander-in-chief, and that’s concerning, too. Additionally, there is the matter of the Supreme Court of United States. But let’s step back for a moment, and address some important points: Trump will not transform America’s oligarchy into a fascist dictatorship, nor is he the second coming of Hitler. Our political culture precludes such a shift within any one presidency. Regardless of what Donald Trump has said in this primary, like

Hillary Clinton, his past positions and financial ties belie his sincerity. He’s been a consistent ally (and donor) to the Clintons for decades — so similar, he even shares the same Delaware address as they do, to avoid taxes: In 1999, he supported efforts to eliminate our national debt. In 2000 he supported “tough on crime” policies, called for prosecuting hate crimes against homosexuals, criticized U.S. dealings with China, saying we’re “too eager to please,” and criticized the Communist country for their record on human rights. He has supported the assault weapon ban, waiting periods, and background checks, called for universal health care. and was tentatively pro-collective bargaining, arguing that unions “fight for pay, managers fight for less, and consumers win.” In 2010, he called for government

partnering with environmentalists before undertaking “projects.” Trump has also been consistently to the left of the Clintons on trade. In 1999, he said that the world views U.S. trade officials as “saps,” and in 2000, when Hillary Clinton was still very

much pro-NAFTA, he called for renegotiating our trade deals to be more tougher and more fair for American workers. Even today, Trump is to the left of Hillary Clinton on some issues. He supports medical marijuana, while she says “more research” needs

to be conducted. He’s against super PACs — instructing those supporting his campaign to return all the money to the donors. I would not be the least bit surprised to see Trump run to Clinton’s left on economic policy in a general election — especially given the fact that he just

announced that he will be using many of Sanders’ attacks on her then. The implications of such a move are a subject for a separate article. As for foreign policy, Trump and Clinton are both talking about bombing ISIS, and have aggressive outlooks .

For her part, Clinton recently announced, on the verge of a lasting peace, that the U.S. could “obliterate Iran.” Both have, at one point or another, supported torture. She voted for the war in Iraq, he opposed it. They each want to escalate some U.S. involvement overseas. They have at one point or another, both supported torture. Their rhetoric makes my inner dove cringe. Hillary Clinton, for example, has pandered to Netanyahu and AIPAC. She couldn’t even say, during the Brooklyn debate, that the Israeli prime minister wasn’t “always right.” She recently announced that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iran in the event of a nuclear conflict. The U.S. and Iran are on the verge of a lasting peace deal that she supposedly supports.

Trump’s foreign policy talk has alienated our allies like the United Kingdon, and that isn’t something to take lightly. However, it has also earned praise from Vladimir Putin. That is interesting and of course potentially disingenuous, yet we’ve not had a good relationship with Russia for some time and Clinton’s “reset” as secretary of state failed. There is one important distinction between the Clinton and Trump: she has a body count. Her foreign policy blunders — voting for the Iraq War, legitimizing the coup regime in Honduras, and supporting violent

regime change in Libya — have cost thousands of lives. Finally, let’s talk about the Supreme Court. We have no way of predicting who Trump would appoint, but we can speculate with Hillary Clinton . While she has said that her litmus test for nominees will be commitment to overturning Citizens United v. FEC, there is little reason to trust her given how much she benefits from the current campaign finance system that is a product of that ruling and others. Clinton’s reliance on dark money and coordination with super PACs, along with her lack of serious discussion and failure to prioritize this issue belie her promise to reform. This is the single most important, and inclusive problem today because it affects our ability to deal with every other issue. It is also the one area Democrats are not necessarily better than Republicans. President Barack Obama’s recent Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, is one of the judges responsible for the disastrous SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling which gave us Super PACs, and upheld Citizens United. Trump has talked about appointing additional Scalias. That’s dangerous — and all the more reason to hope Democrats take back the Senate, but also play

hardball as well as Republicans have in the last year. In the end, it is doubtful that the more negative aspects of Trump’s platform will ever come to pass. In 2016, the lesser-of-two-evils is not so clear.

Trump couldn’t do anything – political checksCooper 3/16/16 (Matthew, Columnist @ Newsweek, "WHAT THE WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE UNDER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP," http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald-trump-437158.html)

All of which is nuts. Trump isn’t Hitler. He isn’t a fascist either—although he has, despite a career of deal-making, the my-way-or-the-highway proclivities of a Latin American strongman, which would be worrisome if America were Bolivia and not an enduring democracy. (Trump was the inspiration, by the way, for the Back to the Future bully, Biff Tannen.) He’s also not a savior. Due to his solipsistic personality

and vague, unworkable policies, he could never be what he promises to be if elected. But that doesn’t make him the sum of all fears. The unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we

recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember

Schoolhouse Rock ? Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants.