ES&T LETTERS Carbon taxes Dear Editors: This letter relates what I now perceive as a distressing environmental policy tactic: to claim that increased environmental legislation helps the economy. My first letter criticized Dr. Templets' assertion that strict environmental laws increase the economic health of the private sector. Now, in the November 1993 issue, Roger C. Dower espouses a similar presumption—that carbon taxes "can reduce economic costs. . ." (p. 2265). Dower's first technical error occurs in his first sentence: "carbon dioxide [is] still the leading greenhouse gas." No, it is not. The leading greenhouse gas is water vapor, and its effect so completely dwarfs that of C0 2 that it is a major source of uncertainty in current global climate models. In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that the earth is cooling, r a t h e r t h a n w a r m i n g . Dower then engages in contorted doublespeak explaining how an increase in carbon taxes would actually "boost" economies. "[OECD countries'] economic troubles make
them shy away from raising energy taxes, but such a move would boost their economies if it were coupled with lower taxes on wages, income, and savings." Well, which is it, Mr. Dower? Do increases in taxes help or hurt economies? Dower echoes the recent trend of many environmentalists: to claim that an increased governmental burden on the private sector will help the economy. I am beginning to wonder just how much such persons understand about the environment or the economy. Joseph Colannino, P.E. Colannino Consultants Oceanside, CA 92056 Author's response Mr. Colannino's first criticism has some merit. If I had inserted "anthropogenic" in front of "greenhouse gas," it would have been perfectly clear that I was talking about how human activities, not natural processes, are affecting the atmosphere. Still, it seems to me that this s e n t e n c e is clear enough as it stands, given context clues: after all, one can't tax clouds. But Mr. Colan-
nino's second criticism is way off the mark. Although he accurately quotes the sentence that rankles him, he seems to have missed its main point. The italicized if is meant to underscore the importance of the point that Mr. Colannino ignores, i.e., "coupled with lower taxes on wages, income, and savings." As spelled out in the very next sentence (which he did not quote), what I am arguing for is a shift, not an increase. The proper question is not "Do increases in taxes help or hurt economies?" but "Would economies benefit from raising taxes on energy and lowering taxes on capital?" My answer is "yes." Roger C. Dower World Resources Institute Washington, DC 20006 Correction Steve Eisenreich would like to correct a number in the figure, "PCB budget for Lake Superior, 1986" [ES&T, p. 94A, Feb. 1994); the recycling number should be —2890 kg/ year. —Ed.
Erratum The following figure was inadvertently omitted from the article "Guidelines for Lead in Soil" by Bobby Wixson and Brian Davies, which appeared in the Jan. 1994 issue, p. 26A. Our apologies to the authors and our readers.
FIGURE 1
Phased action plan for lead in soil Problem
Testing
110 A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28, No. 3, 1994
Initial assessment
Risk assessment evaluation
Second assessment
Implementation
