Daily Score Blog

Via Brad Plumer:  a traffic jam in in a bottle.

To me, it's pretty remarkable how closely the real-world experiment above matches up with this java-based computer traffic simulator. 

WARNING - if you click the last link, and you're at all geeky, prepare to lose your afternoon!!  A few years back I wasted hour after hour playing with the java settings, and watching "traffic" jams materialize and melt -- just like in real life.  My favorite quirk:  for one lane-narrowing scenario, I could make traffic flow along beautifully at 40 miles per hour, but seize up like glue at either 20 mph or 60 mph.  Another fave (and very relevant to congestion pricing debates) was letting traffic flow along smoothly at, say 1,400 "cars" per hour, and then increasing traffic volumes to 1,500 -- and watching the traffic jam crystallize within moments. 

Obviously, a java-based traffic simulator, or even a controlled experiment like the one in the video above, can't perfectly replicate real driving.  But it's interesting to consider how sensitive traffic flow is to subtle changes.  A seemingly negligible increase in traffic volumes, a tiny obstacle, a driver's hesitation:  any of those can precipitate a phase change, turning free-flowing traffic into viscous muck.  But conversely, a seemingly intractable traffic mess can free itself -- if you remove an obstacle, smooth out a choke point, or simply reduce the peak traffic volume.

British Columbia’s bombshell announcement of a carbon tax shift last month made me want some context. Here’s a rundown of other carbon taxes elsewhere in the world. As I noted, none of them is as consistent and comprehensive as BC’s, though some do have higher tax rates. In most cases, these levies came in tax shifts that reduced payroll taxes, business taxes, or other energy taxes. BC’s starts at Cdn$10 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent and rises in steps to $30 in 2012.

At least nine jurisdictions elsewhere in the world claim to have carbon taxes. (Good starting places for learning about them are the Carbon Tax Center and these dated but informative US EPA sites.)

On February 19, we applauded British Columbia’s new carbon tax shift. I’ve now had time to digest the plan. It’s even better than we said, and the province could tweak it to make it better still.

This policy is the purest instance of a tax shift that I’ve ever seen. It’s an exceptionally faithful implementation of tax shifting—a policy innovation Sightline has been promoting since 1994 and especially since our 1998 book. (A small brag: Gordon Campbell read the book that year and told me he was going to shift taxes in his second term as premier. I didn’t hold my breath, but now he has delivered.) The carbon tax shift (as opposed to the larger government budget it’s wrapped in) is almost entirely untarnished by handouts to special interests. It is built on four principles:

1.  Revenue neutrality--shifting taxes from "goods" to "bads." As the BC Finance Minister’s plan says, “All revenue generated by the carbon tax will be returned to individuals and businesses through reductions in other taxes. None of the carbon tax revenue will be used for expenditure programs.” That’s good news for the province’s economic vitality: tax shifting boosts opportunity, strengthens enterprise, and generates wins for families, prosperity, and our natural legacy.

Last week, Eric dinged the WCI -- a multi-jurisdictional effort to design a market for curbing climate-warming emissions -- for kicking the can down the road on transportation fuels.

Of course, the WCI has NOT ruled out the possibility of capping emissions from the transportation sector.  They've just delayed a decision until they run some more economic analysis.  So there's no reason to gnash our teeth -- not yet, anyway -- over a lost opportunity.  Still, it's hard to tell whether the glass is half-full (transportation fuels haven't been ruled out -- hooray!) or half-empty (transportation isn't clearly in yet -- boo!).

However, I'm listening in on a WCI climate conference call as I write  -- and I gotta say, I really like what they've done with electricity!!  The WCI floated a draft proposal last week.  And in my view, at least, the glass is about as full as it can get:

• Broad coverage.  They've proposed coverage for just about all electricity-related emissions for the region -- even if the generators aren't even in the WCI.  That's a big deal, since it helps to ensure that we don't "comply" (scare quotes intended) with emissions limits by simply importing dirty power from a part of the world with no climate cap.
  
• Limits "contract shuffling" loopholes.  Contract shuffling is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic:  it's a way for electricity providers to "comply" (scare quotes again) with climate obligations simply by rearranging power-supply contracts. By shuffling contracts, "clean" power gets shipped into the WCI, and "dirty" power goes to states with no cap -- but the only thing that actually changes in the real world is signatures on a few pieces of paper.  Of course, it's hard to stop all contract shuffling, since a lot of it is beyond any one state's control -- particularly if the generators are in another state.  But the WCI proposal takes one big step forward -- it would prevent high-carbon generators in the WCI from shipping power outside the region, in exchange for "clean" power generated elsewhere.
  
• Plays well with others.  The system they've outlined would segue nicely into a national cap and trade system.  They're not going to create a separate, incompatible system for the western US that's hard to integrate with the rest of the country.  That's a huge win, since it could make designing a comprehensive, national or North American emissions system a lot easier down the road.
  
• As simple as possible, and no simpler. Administratively, it looks like this system is about as streamlined as you can get, while still ensuring that the bulk of electricity emissions are covered by a hard cap.  And -- even better -- the system is actually set up to get simpler over time, as more states in the western US and Canada develop their own emissions limits.
  

Astonishingly, the WCI proposal seems to be making some of the electric utilities stand up and cheer, too.  That's quite an accomplishment -- a proposal that makes at least some utilities happy, and that climate advocates like as well.

So my hat's off to all the folks who worked on this -- it's a big step forward.  Let's hope it portends more great stuff on all the other issues they're wrestling with...