 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 25, 2008 at 20:06:27
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/25/08: by Dan Rosenblum Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Before president-elect Obama's cabinet is named -- even before we know who the next Senators from Minnesota or Georgia will be -- jockeying for position on 2009 climate legislation is well underway on Capitol Hill. Detailed intellectual cases and functioning coalitions are getting built now, not just for the idea that we need robust climate legislation fast – that's already widely accepted and anticipated in Washington – but for which specific mechanisms will deliver the biggest, fastest impact on carbon emissions and the economy. Significantly, these discussions aren't all taking place behind closed doors, but in full public view, for example at a public Hill briefing December 9 with carbon tax supporters like NASA scientist James Hansen, economists Gilbert Metcalf and Robert Shapiro, Canadian public affairs expert James Hoggan, and Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn., 1st district), who has just been elected chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and who introduced an early piece of carbon tax legislation into the House. The public can attend, along with Congressional members and staff -- details here. If introducing a new tax on carbon seems like a quixotic political battle in a time of historic economic and fiscal crisis, then you're out of touch. The economic crisis has in fact given it a big boost, and in this crisis-ridden political environment, the carbon tax is an increasingly formidable competitor to cap-and-trade schemes. The latter work by creating trillions of dollars' worth of complex, tradeable instruments, and public faith in market gurus to make such trading efficient, or in government agencies to regulate them, is at an all-time low. 
Critics point out lots of places to hide in the cumbersome trading scheme, witness 800-pages of special interest potlatches in the DOA Warner Lieberman bill, whereas a carbon tax is as inexorable as…taxes.
Crisis-driven volatility in oil prices has proven what advocates of gasoline taxes and energy taxes have said all along: price spikes may come and go, but if we don't somehow tax wasteful use of carbon fuels, the highs will just put windfalls in the pockets of oil producers and do nothing for American interests, either for energy independence or for getting control of our emissions. A carbon tax would put an effective floor under the price of gas, help smooth volatility, cut into the windfall profits of producers during price spikes, and as prices fall off the highs, keep oil consumers from going, as president-elect Obama recently said, from shock back into trance.
Perhaps most appealing of all amid the economic crisis is the fact that a carbon tax could be kept revenue-neutral. That would allow us to pay as we go to curb emissions; and wouldn't entail any huge government outlays or bureaucracies to get addicted to the revenue. Along with the increase in energy prices, carbon tax revenues would be big, but the money would be given right back to taxpayers, whether in the form of direct payments like Alaskans get for oil production, or in the form of a progressive tax cuts like cutting or eliminating payroll taxes, as progressives like Al Gore and even conservatives like T. Boone Pickens have proposed.
Payroll taxes are the biggest, most regressive taxes 80% of Americans pay, and a big drag on employment since they artificially raise hiring costs. Cutting them would both put money back into the pockets of middle-class and working-class families, and take the self-imposed brakes off job creation.
If you're President-elect Obama and you've promised to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011, and to lower taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, while finding the means for a meaningful economic stimulus and major reductions in carbon emissions, that has got to sound good.
If you're a concerned citizen who has been waiting for years for the political static to clear, and some real, productive grappling with meaningful climate legislation to begin, this is your moment. You can weigh in, sign petitions, write letters to Congress, attend that Hill briefing, and generally be part of substantive, small-d democratic debate about serious climate legislation at the Price Carbon Campaign.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
at last
it will take a lot more to stop climate change than a carbon tax--it will curb it, but considering population growth of 10 million this year in america it would do nothing really. we need a cheap alternative energy--thermal with solar and wind----since the governments are all global spraying daily with reflectives and cloud seeding----as seen daily in the skies of n-wisconsin-where we have not had a clear bluebird day in a long long time --the problem must be very very serious--go to u-tube and search chem-trails---read what james lovelock writes on climate change---he is the top scientest--------------------- by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:10:06 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is a Carbon Tax Enough?
skiidogs, by Daniel Rosenblum (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Two billion bodies...
versus 6.5 billion will help a lot too. And it is so easy to accomplish in reality! It is just the ideological part that seems to trip up our species; I encourage us all to ponder the art of changing assumptions as a regular exercise. by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 914 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Rosenblum
Does anyone see what's going on? Over $5 Trillion in promises just taken from our grandkids. Sir, may I have another? Carbon tax? You've got to be kidding. To whom? From whom? You really believe that a carbon tax will go to pay for improving the environment? Get real. Not to mention the valid scientific points on both sides as to the effects. Jesus H Christ. You buy this stuff? Why don't we just sign up for the banking/government IV Program? The corporations will not stop until they have the pennies on our eyes. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:27:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pennies on Our Eyes?
mikel paul, Really worried about your grandkids? Then help us reduce carbon emissions and climate change. by Dan Rosenblum (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Substantive Debate
Acutally, there is no debate. Anyone who speaks out against the crisis of global warming is beaten down.... No, governments are debating on how they can SCREW the people some more. We have a slowing economy that is turning into a train wreck, and yet, the government wants to take MORE from the people who need their money the most... In the mean time, we have people giving the bail out money, that we absolutely HAD TO HAVE 2 months ago before we all died in the catastrophe of the housing market crash, to his friends... though we don't know who or how much, because we are NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION where it went... YET, people are happy about giving these SAME CORRUPT POLITICIANS MORE power over our economy.... The answer to a government corrupted by money and power is NOT to give them MORE money and power. Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 831 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:50:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Debate?
“The answer to a government corrupted by money and power is NOT to give them MORE money and power.” Agreed! We’re proposing a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The government wouldn’t keep a dime. by Dan Rosenblum (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Well Speaking As An Enviornmentalists
Who understands that we are facing a potential catastrophic crisis with global warming, probably in the next 10-50 years which will in all probability be irreversible(the tipping point) I have really nice bridge for sale in New Jersey for you. It will be in even better condition than the corporate corrupted, sorry the <ahem cough> environmental policies of the Citi- Bank, oops I mean Obama Administration. Some of us tried to tell you is all that I can say. by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:18:00 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
