Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

Trump Finally Found a Carbon Tax He Can Love

A toll on oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz isn’t technically a carbon tax ... but it also isn’t not.

•
A Hormuz toll.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The United States and Iran have agreed to a 10-day ceasefire, and thank goodness. Israel, the third combatant in the conflict, was reportedly informed late about the ceasefire and isn’t happy about it.

The tentative agreement brings to end, at least for now, a destructive and strategically inept war that has weakened Trump’s political position and strengthened China’s solar, battery, and electric vehicle industries. The conflict paused soon after Trump fantasized about committing genocide against Iran.

The monthlong war has changed the global state of play for the oil industry. Until late February, the Strait of Hormuz was an open shipping lane through which 20% of the world’s crude oil — and even more of its liquified natural gas and jet fuel — passed. But Iran closed the strait during the war’s early phases, threatening to blow up ships with drones or missiles and commencing the worst global energy crisis since the 1970s.

Now, as part of its peace proposal, Iran has pledged to take joint control of the waterway with Oman. It wants to set a toll of roughly $1 per barrel of oil on every ship that passes through the strait, along with as-yet-unspecified fees on food, natural gas, and refined products. The toll will reportedly need to be paid in Chinese yuan or stablecoins so as to circumvent American sanctions.

One of the enjoyable ironies of this state of affairs is that the Iranian regime seems to appreciate a good tariff just as much as President Trump does. But another irony is that this fee — imposed, as it would be, on just under a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels — would amount to a de facto carbon tax.

Naturally, we had to know: How significant a carbon tax would it be?

The answer: Not very big. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that every barrel of oil produces 0.43 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Divide the new $1 per barrel fee by that figure, and it comes to a tax of roughly $2.33 for every ton of emissions. If you figure that some oil barrels coming out of the strait are more carbon-intensive than others — Basrah Heavy from Iraq is especially dirty, whereas Saudi Arab Light is much cleaner — then the effective carbon tax can flex up or down by about 20 cents. But for even the cleanest fuels, the mooted Iran fee would be about $2.50.

That isn’t very big, as these things go. Nearly a decade ago, a group of former Republican statesmen proposed a $40 per metric ton carbon tax. That was below the $50 per ton social cost of carbon preferred by the Obama administration. It’s closer to what Trump has floated — during his first term, officials suggested a much smaller $2 per ton fee. Of course, all those figures would be much larger today given robust post-pandemic inflation.

(Yes, we know that the “social cost of carbon” isn’t quite the same thing as a carbon tax, but in theory you would set a carbon tax at the social cost of carbon, so as to internalize the emissions’ environmental harms.)

Of course, any future HormE-ZPass system won’t really resemble a carbon tax at all. Because it will only be levied on some of the world’s oil supply, any Iranian tariff will predominantly be paid by Persian Gulf drillers, not by international energy consumers, according to the European think tank Breughel. (And to the degree that the rest of the world can switch to non-oil-burning alternatives, such as electric vehicles, Gulf producers will bear even more of the burden.) Most importantly, the revenue collected by the tariff will go to fund the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not to decarbonizing the economy or paying down the federal deficit.

But it’s still going to increase the cost of shipping oil out of the Persian Gulf. The kind of tanker that predominates in the strait — aA Very Large Crude Carrier, or VLCC — holds roughly 2 million barrels of oil. That’s a roughly $2 million per ship fee.

A year ago, I joked that Trump seemed to be pursuing a crash decarbonization agenda — cutting off global trade, raising oil and gas drilling costs, and pursuing an energy policy that encouraged countries to switch to batteries, renewables, and electric vehicles. Call him “Degrowth Donald,” I said. Never in my wildest dreams did I envision that Donald would actively consider a carbon tax — and especially an Iranian one, paid in yuan. The president continues to astound.

Blue
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

Why the Wilderness Society Backs a Data Center Moratorium

Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.

The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Data Center Outrage Catches Up to Renewables Outrage in Michigan

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).

  • This week brought the first and likely only debate between Rep. Tom Barrett and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who are locked in a tight contest over the Michigan 7th congressional district. As I’ve written, their race is a must-watch not only for control of the U.S. House but also the political fortunes of the data center sector.
  • The debate contained a remarkable exchange: Moderators played taped remarks from Paula Caltrider, identified as “a local resident” in the city of Mason to ask the candidates a question about data centers. Instead, she offered a comment. “You know, you can’t be a part of this no data center movement without renouncing the large solar farms and dangerous battery storage facilities that power these data centers.” (Quick TL;DR on Caltrider: She’s been quoted in national media coverage of the data center backlash and last year won a legal settlement after allegedly being fired for refusing a vaccine mandate.)
  • Barrett then ran with Caltrider’s baton. “I appreciate Paula linking these together, the stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing that took away control from communities” – a reference to the state’s primacy law that other Michigan Republican candidates have opposed.
  • Lawrence, whose support for a federal data center moratorium made him a national political test case, did not take the bait, nor did he criticize renewable energy. Instead, this part of the debate became a tit-for-tat about whether the sitting congressman once backed tax breaks for data centers. “He stuck his finger up into the wind, saw which way it was blowing, did a complete 180 on this issue,” Lawrence said. Then Barrett and Lawrence got into a confusing back-and-forth about whether the Inflation Reduction Act was a giveaway to data centers.
  • To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the Data Center Trojan Horse has reared its ugly head on any kind of prominent debate stage, but it won’t be the last. For example: The Wisconsin gubernatorial debate is Oct. 21, and we’ve warned you about that one.

2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Data Center Backlash Is Coming for Permitting Reform

The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.

The Capitol and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.

This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow