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 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
You’ve thought this out a lot A Siegel and I really respect the fact that you put logic over emotion on the issue. I guess it comes down to how much you trust the government. In my mind less is most often better. I guess I like the idea of an oil tax because it indexes known costs to the resource. There are many intangibles related to a generic Carbon Tax and I see it as a way for government to basically get into everyone’s business creating greater inefficiencies for compliance and increasing costs to consumers. And once a tax is in it almost never goes away. We’ve paid for the Spanish American war via phone excise taxes up until 2006.
Oil has intangible costs that are subsidized by the income taxes. A tax on oil discourages use and encourages alternatives and I think the revenues should go toward real costs of oil.
Even the suggested zero-revenue rebate schemes are loaded because they serve to redistribute wealth and buy political favor with money other people went to the trouble to earn.
If it takes tax money to defend our oil interests and to address the environmental impact of oil then stick the tax on the cost of a gallon of oil. Allowing politically motivated congressmen and bureaucrats jerk around with some omnibus carbon energy legislation is insane.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I’ll check out their website, Dan. The whole redistribution aspect, arbitrated by an inefficient, often corrupt and politically motivated bureaucracy is troublesome though.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Good points there Jeff.
I think any conversation about a carbon tax should include energy independence or else you’ve left out a large number of potential supporters of your plan.
I see the logic on reduction of payroll taxes and I could possibly be convinced of a version of this plan. It would effectively make the overall tax system more progressive though (with higher earners likely consuming more energy) so I would need to think it through.
We already are in a position where a minority of people pay the majority of taxes in this country and that’s a dangerous tipping point for a democracy. What happens when the vast majority of voters have no vested interest in the cost of government?
Also would such a tax place a disproportionate importance on Global warming at the expense of other very important social and altruistic priorities? And too, we must be careful not to depress the economic cycle upon which all of our environmental, altruistic and social priorities depend. It’s a delicate balance that must be maintained.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
A Siegel, I like your idea … a very interesting approach. You’re right, too, that it’s the commons being harmed by pollution; unfortunately, the very idea of the commons seems to be under daily attack (the whole concept of turning water into a commercial commodity, for example).
Oh Jimmy, I had SO many things to say in response to your Patriot Act comments, but — after much trouble trying to add a new post — I’ve decided to save them for later. I’m sure we’ll face off on that subject again one of these days! : )
By the way, an interesting development out of Canada, where Quebec has instituted its first carbon tax on energy companies … and business leaders there are urging the government to do more. Canada, what a country, eh?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I submitted something to this thread yesterday, but it was never posted.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Sorry about that Mark — for some reason, it got pulled into the approval queue. It should be published now.
Jeff
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
October 4th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Shirley, injustice permeates every endeavor. It’s a tragedy though that the exceptions of Gitmo, Patriot and the like are exaggerated to the extent they are for political purpose while everyday average citizens in this country are abused daily by our for-profit enforcement, prosecution and incarceration system.
A good book on the subject is Joel Dyer’s “The Perpetual Prisoner Machine”; but in his zeal against corporations he misses the bigger point of how municipalities have turned minor improprieties into a cottage fine and incarceration industry.
As you said though, back to the carbon topic. I am on board with a huge carbon tax in the form of oil… this from a very fiscally conservative person. Why not take the gain rather than focus on our differences? Is it because my heart is not in the right place about CO2?
October 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Jimmy, I’m in complete agreement with you about the virtues of a carbon tax indexed to the cost of oil — no problem there, and it’s got nothing to do with your stance on CO2. All I’m saying is that, since no one is proposing such a tax, at least Dingell’s proposal is a step in the right direction. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got so far.
Did you see the story on the Quebec tax, by the way?
October 4th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I did read that Shirley. It would seem that CO2 is trumping most everything now politically, worldwide. Time will be the arbiter about how wise these decisions turn out to be.
Again, Senator Byrd will make sure this bill is DOA anyway so it’s probably moot. Hopefully the next round will look for synergies with energy independence, national security and environmental impact. I’m not holding my breath though because I don’t think congress has enough collective intelligence to change a CF light bulb; much less positively affect economic and environmental policy.
October 7th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
But is Dingell even serious about his own bill? To be it sounds like he’s trying to make a point with it that a carbon tax is unpopular. From the Wall Street Journal:
"Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.) is expected to introduce one this fall, though he has said the bill is an attempt to show how unpopular such a tax would be. ‘I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them,’ he said in a cable-television interview."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118955082446224332.html