Red, Green and Blue: Dingell Calls for Carbon Tax
Since taking control of Congress last fall, the Democrats have (justifiably) taken a lot of flak for being spineless, but Rep. John D. Dingell’s (D, Michigan) recent proposal for a national carbon tax is anything but. I’ll give him a (biofuel-powered) truckload of credit for coming up with a bold plan for reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Dingell hasn’t brought his plan to the House yet; he’s in the public-opinion gathering stage at this point. But here’s what he’s suggesting: a $50-per-ton tax on petroleum, coal, natural gas and petroleum-based products, along with an additional 50-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline (with exemptions for diesel and biofuels). He’s also looking to roll back the mortgage interest deduction for houses larger than 3,000 square feet: the bigger the McMansion, the lower the deduction.
So, where would the money go? While I’d prefer to see it all invested in renewable energy projects (no coal or nuclear), Dingell proposes some other beneficiaries as well: an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (that’s OK: lower-income people will need a bigger break somewhere to compensate for higher fuel costs), low-income home energy assistance (ditto), conservation, renewable energy research and development, Social Security, Medicare, children’s health insurance and universal healthcare. I suppose he figures his bill will be a tough sell, so he’s sweetening the pot with funding for other social programs. Will it be enough to win the votes needed? I’m not optimistic, but I like the way Dingell’s thinking.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
Tags: carbon emissions, carbon tax, climate change, Congress, fossil fuels, global warming, greenhouse gases, John Dingell, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Isn’t this just a tax on Capitalism?
I mean, I could go for a tax on oil based on environmental, economic and geopolitical issues but this tax on carbon just seems like a ruse to separate people from their money and put more power in the hands of government. Currently oil is about 40% of our trade deficit and it is a large part of the reason we deploy our military around the world every decade or so to handle oil revenue drunken despots. But this bill seems to be an opportunistic swipe at the American way of life undermining almost every aspect.
I personally think an oil tax that would help index its cost to its real costs and would be OK; but I don’t trust that Dingle and those who follow are the proper arbiters of our energy dollars. Why not go slowly on this and find common ground on what makes sense rather than take a Kyotoesque swipe at civilization as we know it?
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Are you saying you don’t like this proposal, Jimmy? : )
Wow. As I said, I believe this is a bold (read, in some circles, as "no way in hell") move, so of course it’s going to meet with a lot of opposition. I’d imagine Dingell’s ears are burning already based on the comments he’s gotten through his Website.
Two thoughts, though: One, really, isn’t any tax, by your logic, a tax on capitalism?
Two, yes, you’re absolutely right: oil is a large part of the reason for our trade deficit and our troop deployments. So wouldn’t any effort to reduce our dependence on that oil be both a smart and a patriotic thing to do?
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I think encouraging a reduction in our dependence on oil is a great idea… that’s where the common ground comes in. I can think of no better way to do this than to index those real costs back to the cost of oil.
Dingle’s carbon tax looks like an almost free-for-all energy tax even on things that compete with oil. I don’t trust that his goal is energy independence… I trust that his goal is giving government more power. It is my opinion that it’s important to leave the decision about how to spend money as much as possible in the hands of those who go to the trouble and risk to earn it. This way the work reward cycle stays strong and can residually fund all manner of altruism and environmental advancement.
Dingle wants to separate us from our money and do his definition of ‘good’ with it. He’s not my kind of guy, really.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Hmmm, in the "giving government more power" department, I can’t think of anyone who’s contributed more than W himself (Patriot Act, signing statements, executive privilege, etc.)
But back to the carbon tax. We’ve had this discussion before and I agree with you that a carbon tax indexed to the real cost of oil would be a good thing. I’d be all for that, if anyone were proposing it … but no one has (that I’m aware of) so far. That leaves Dingell’s proposal. At least he’s trying.
By the way, I know your spell-check probably doesn’t include proper names, so I’ll have to point it out: it’s "D-I-N-G-E-L-L." : )
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I think to be more clear “W” has put more power back under the executive branch of government bringing it back up closer, I would say, to its constitutionally co-equal status.
As for Patriot I understand it’s been used very effectively and aside from the side-show antics of politicians and biased judges it’s been approved by congress repeatedly because of its effectiveness against terrorism and lack of abuse. As I’ve said before, if you really care about civil liberties you should care less about wire tapping Bin Laden or the heard of terrorist whackos basking down at Gitmo; and you should care much much more that the US has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners or the fact that 1 in 8 black males between the ages of 20 and 35 are in jail at this very moment. The bipartisan liberty failures of this country are secondary, however, to politically motivated headlines that make Bush seem like the anti-Christ.
As for the signing statements I think it’s good to know where the president stands. I know there’s a whole nut-ball-wing of the internet devoted to finding a conspiracy here but the truth is that it is a clarification of how the White House is interpreting the laws within the co-equal structure that does not subordinate the responsibilities of the executive branch to the political whims of the legislative branch.
And please don’t throw around ‘Executive Privilege’ after congress has circled the wagons around William Jefferson the way they have for what are obvious improprieties. It is quite obvious Congress has been on a witch hunt since the Bush first parked his tail in the Oval Office; just as it has been with every administration since Congress first tasted Presidential blood with Nixon back during Watergate.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Dingle’s carbon tax looks like an almost free-for-all energy tax even on things that compete with oil. I don’t trust that his goal is energy independence… I trust that his goal is giving government more power.
Jimmy–
Dingell’s goal isn’t energy independence, and he doesn’t say that it is (at least on the page to which Shirley linked) — it’s reducing carbon emissions.
As far as the element of giving government more power, this bill would certainly be more palatable (or less bold, in Shirley’s sense of the term) if it were revenue-neutral. Why not replace payroll taxes and some levels of income tax with a carbon tax? This is hardly a new idea, and it shifts taxation away from something that we as a society value (work) to something that’s doing harm. It’s the whole argument of externalities again… why not internalize the costs created by CO2 emissions…?
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Jimmy,
Please take a look at the Carbon Tax Center’s proposal for a revenue-neutral carbon tax at http://www.carbontax.org. It satisfies your concern that “it’s important to leave the decision about how to spend money as much as possible in the hands of those who go to the trouble and risk to earn it.” Carbon tax revenues should be returned to all Americans, who then can make the decision how to spend the money. People will make their own decisions whether to use less energy through purchasing more efficient cars and appliances or through turning off unneeded lights and other behavioral changes. Large energy users, such as utilities, will make their own decisions whether to use less carbon-intensive fuels.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
From my viewpoint, Dingell introduced (at best) an incomplete concept that was poorly introduced. I blogged “Dingell: A dingbat proposal re Global Warming” (http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/dingell-a-dingbat-proposal-re-global-warming/). From my conclusion:
Here are the comments that I posted to Dingell:
Congressman Dingell,
Thank you for enriching the discussion with this proposal and opening it for comment. Here are a few of my initial reactions.
1. I do not believe that we should call this a “tax”. Polluters should pay a FEE (or a royalty) for the privilege of polluting. Just as one pays the local dump a “fee” for dumping trash.
2. I am concerned that this summary does not discuss, in any meaningful way, the positive benefits that would come from reduced CO2 (and related) pollution. Such as improved health from reduced coal-fired particulates in the air, etc … This “summary” is not placing a very difficult issue in a good context.
Also on benefits, there should be discussion as to the economic benefits (jobs, reduced imports, etc …) and security (reduced need to protect oil) and … benefits of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and going to energy efficiency/renewable energy as cornerstones to the economy.
3. The summary understates the science, the target is not strong enough, and the threat/benefit (as above) is not clearly/strongly enough stated.
4. The proposal only talks to carbon … not methane and other GHG. Just wondering.
5. I disagree with the targeted use of funding. (a) should be much (MUCH) more heavily focused on making the nation more ENERGY SMART — help poorer people flatten their total energy bills by rapidly helping them be more energy efficient (thus reducing the carbon fee’s impact). Foster overall energy efficiency (thus enabling shutting down coal-fired electricity plants). Help government at ALL levels be more energy efficient (which would reduce the citizen’s burden for paying for government). Too many of the items within the list are items that should be funded (through other means). And, for example, national health care will end up lowering the nation’s total health care bills (as would aggressive energy efficiency.
6. I disagree with so much of the gasoline tax money going to roads and airports, reinforcing the polluting systems — for example, why not use the money for improving rail, electrifying it, and increasing its reach/extent to reduce demand for road/air travel. Why not use “gasoline tax” to help people pay for PHEVs (plug-in electric vehicles)?
&. There is nothing here about how to capture the Chinese / Indians / anyone else who does not undertake something similiar. (Why not cooperate with the Europeans and Japan to impose import duties on imports from any country that does institute a carbon fee and use those resources to create a Prosperous, Climate Friendly Economy based on energy efficiency and renewable (or nuclear) energy?
Sir, there has been much discussion that this is being floated solely to help kill the potential for passage of critically needed legislation to help change the nation’s reckless path toward energy and Global Warming disaster. I hope that is not the case. At this time, however, I find that your summary significantly understates the threat re Global Warming (and doesn’t mention Peak Oil, cost of oil imports, etc); does not discuss the significant benefits from a changed path re energy and pollution; and proposes a use of money that will engender criticism of this as massive “tax and spend Democrat Party” concepts to hurt the economy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Jimmy,
Would you be more comfortable if a carbon fee’s revenues were more directly attributable as income to citizens?
For example, what if 50% of the funds were to be sent out as ‘royalty’ checks to all American citizens (living in the US?)? After all, it is our common property (the atmosphere, water, etc) that is getting polluted? Why not charge a fee and pay each of us in the US for that polluting of our common property?
And, well, the other 50% to spur along the move toward a lower carbon economy? Efficiency assistance, renewable fuels, Research & Development, aiding businesses in moving to new technologies, etc …
And, finally, a carbon fee is not a tax on prosperity / “a tax on Capitalism”. It is a financial measure that would help move the economy / society toward a different energy use basis for economic activity. By your definition, I guess, any tax is a “tax on Capitalism”, perhaps, and any revenue to government is an evil. Yet, how about all the things that government does that enables business/capitalism to operate: roads/justice system/contracts law/etc …
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
A Siegel,
Awesome to find you here on GO! I’ve got a meeting to attend right now but I’ll return with a comment sometime this afternoon!