The editors of the Washington Post wonder why Democrats don’t enact a carbon tax:
If governments recycled the revenue back to low-income and vulnerable people, and cut economically inefficient taxes — such as income taxes — a $50-per-ton carbon tax would feel to the economy more like $20 per ton. The plan would help low-income households and place a higher burden on the upper-income bracket. There could also be money for essential research and development to aid the energy transition.
I think there are many reasons and they vary from legislator to legislator. Politicians tend to operate in the immediate—at best they address the problems of the here and now. They don’t handle long term problems well. Even with the measure the editors propose carbon taxes will be regressive. The only question is how regressive. They don’t want to irritate their donors, either.
However structured a carbon tax will inflict economic pain. That’s the point, isn’t it? That’s a risk that the Congressional Democrats would just as soon not take, especially not alone.
There are some who would rather have the issue to run against the Republicans on or don’t want to go on the record about something they’re pretty sure the Republicans will vote against. And there are probably some who don’t really believe there’s a crisis but know a good issue when they see it.
My own view is that a carbon tax however implemented will be disappointing. That was the experience in Europe where they mostly served as vehicles for rent-seeking. Note, too, that the results in Europe tended to be reckoned by measuring inputs and assuming outputs which isn’t necessarily an effective way of going about it. And even assuming a crisis and that a high enough carbon tax could be effective, I don’t believe that legislators have the guts to impose a tax high enough to be effective, preferring a painless system that doesn’t work over a complicated, painful one that does. That’s why I emphasize nuclear power and carbon capture in the solutions I propose.
A carbon tax is merely another virtue-signaling device to collect badly needed revenue for government to dole out to donors and interest groups who then in return fund reelection campaigns or create sinecures for friends, children, and political retirees turned lobbyists. A run-on cynical sentence, but the older I get the more suspicious I’ve become regarding those who state they know how best to spend my money. Because it isn’t really my money, I didn’t earn it, it was a gift from government to start with (they printed it, after all) that they just rented out to me to earn more for them.
I thought that the purpose of a carbon tax was to compensate third world countries and people of color who are most affected by climate change and rising sea levels. Not for lower income Americans.
Best enacted by the U N.
“I thought that the purpose of a carbon tax was to compensate third world countries and people of color who are most affected by climate change and rising sea levels. Not for lower income Americans.”
You silly goose. Haven’t you heard about the scourge of Americans having to choose between rent, prescription drugs………………or a $5 package of tampons. (Pack of 72. What is that, a 9-10 months supply?) Now there’s an inspiring plank for the Democrat platform.
The U. N. has no taxing authority (thank your lucky stars). And there is nothing that is best implemented by the U. N.
There once was a time…before tampons, before diapers, before disposable razors, before bottled beer.
Do we need to go back to that wonderful time to save what’s left of this fragile planet?
And they don’t pass that tax, because they would own the resulting recession.