Congress Introduces Carbon Tax Bill, an Important Control Mechanism (See New World Order Checklist Below)
A Carbon Tax That America Could Live With (Excerpt)
August 31, 2013NY Times - This summer, the Obama administration released the President’s Climate Action Plan. It is a grab bag of regulations and policy initiatives aimed at reducing the nation’s carbon emissions, which many scientists believe contribute to global warming.
[...]
The second approach is to use government regulation to change the decisions that people make. An example is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards that regulate the emissions of cars sold. The President’s Climate Action Plan is filled with small regulatory changes aimed at making Americans live more carbon-efficient lives.
[...]
In a free society, the government can’t easily regulate how close I live to work, whether I car-pool with my neighbor or how often I don a cardigan. Yet if we are to reduce carbon emissions at minimum cost, we need a policy that encompasses all possible margins of adjustment.
Fortunately, a policy broader in scope is possible, which brings us to
the third approach to dealing with climate externalities: putting a
price on carbon emissions. If the government charged a fee for each
emission of carbon, that fee would be built into the prices of products
and lifestyles.When making everyday decisions, people would naturally
look at the prices they face and, in effect, take into account the
global impact of their choices. In economics jargon, a price on carbon
would induce people to “internalize the externality.”
A bill introduced this year by Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz does exactly that. Their proposed carbon fee — or carbon tax, if you prefer — is more effective and less invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has traditionally pursued.
The four sponsors are all Democrats, which raises the question of
whether such legislation could ever make its way through the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The crucial point is
what is done with the revenue raised by the carbon fee. If it’s used to
finance larger government, Republicans would have every reason to balk.
But if the Democratic sponsors conceded to using the new revenue to
reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a bipartisan compromise
is possible to imagine.
Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed.
Among economists, the issue is largely a no-brainer. In December 2011, the IGM Forum asked a panel of 41 prominent economists about this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” Ninety percent of the panelists agreed.
Could such an overwhelming consensus of economists be wrong? Well, actually, yes. But in this case, I am confident that the economics profession has it right. The hard part is persuading the public and the politicians.
New World Order Checklist Includes a Carbon Tax:
