[dohboi]

http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/free-mark ... d-climate/

Many points to ponder here in the full article. I'll just pull out a few for now:

A carbon tax is one way of reducing carbon pollution but is “tax” the best term. After the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Telegraph reported BP faces up to $18bn fines after Gulf of Mexico ‘gross negligence’ ruling. The oil spill pollution was fined not taxed. Carbon emissions are similarly pollution. A better word to use here is “fine” not “tax”.

The Kaya identity predicts global CO2 emissions in relation to population,energy and world economic output. An important term in the identity is the one that relates CO2 emissions and energy (CO2/energy). This term may be reducing but this is not reducing fast enough to offset the effect of increased world economic output.

Economic growth is causing increased carbon emissions.

If we are to curb carbon emissions quickly we must almost certainly have a period of significantly reduced economic activity (as measured by conventional means) i.e. a recession.

Need a recession increase unemployment?

A high enough carbon tax will cut carbon emissions and a high enough tax rebate will reduce unemployment – for the low-paid at least.

In my view the big bonus of less consumption (in its current form) is that it increases the chance of the world surviving catastrophic climate change. Do take a quick look at Last Hours and if you have a hour to spend watch the presentation by John Jackson, Common Hour: Ocean Apocalypse Now.

I think it is time to place more emphasis on policies that can cut consumption and still maintain good levels of employment.

Briefly Tax carbon and subsidise jobs but if the carbon tax isn’t enough under the CVR scheme the nominal rate of VAT can be increased to pay for the subsidies.

[AgentR11]

dohboi... to pass Hansen's tax and rebate plan, you'd need somewhere close to a 70/30 Dem/Rep split in both houses. Did you note the direction of political movement this last cycle?

This is what infuriates me so much about Hansen. A Carbon tax *is* the right answer, but then his advocates absolutely destroy any chance it has of ever becoming reality by attaching it to this insane rebate/subsidy idea. The right approach, one that is hard, but could pass and could work, is to use a carbon tax as a drop in replacement for a different tax. Swap carbon for income; set the rates to collect about the same amount overall, good odds that most people would end up paying about the same amount, but their economic incentives to produce value and conserve resources gets seriously tweaked in the right direction.

In the end, they need to ask themselves, do they want policy, or do they want a fund raising issue that they can use for "preaching the good news". Friggin revival tent mentality is what they have right now.

[basil_hayden]

Money's the problem, not the solution.

Carbon taxes will just become the new stock market for the rich.

[Plantagenet]

The way to institute a carbon tax is to couple it with tax cuts.

YES, institute a carbon tax to cut carbon emissions. BUT use the carbon tax money to reduce middle class income taxes.

How to institute a carbon tax that republicans and democrats can both support

[Timo]

Agent, i like your idea, but i do have one small problem with it, and that's (again) income inequality. The carbon/income tax swap would hurt lower income people more than upper income people. I can't afford a Tesla. I can barely afford a Leaf, but add to that the cost of installing a home charger for my car, and i don't have the income to enable myself to reduce my CO2 enough to lower my carbon tax. Cars are just one example of my point. The technologies that reduce CO2 also cost money, and as cars are currently demonstrating, the early adapters are the ones with the money to offset their carbon contributions. Poorer people can't afford to buy those same technologies. If you'd (correctly) suggest that the poorer people reduce their carbon taxes by using public means, like public transit, then that only serves to further seperate the haves from the have nots.

Don't get me wrong. I do like your idea. Quite a bit, in fact, but putting that plan into practice would require quite a numberr of caveats to avoid the scenario i just pointed out. It's also possible that i'm exaggerating the effect of a carbon tax too much. It might not be as bad as i initially think. Certainly, it would be the proper direction for the planet, as a whole.

[AgentR11]

Plant.. Timo.. This is the problem. The lower and middle classes do not pay enough in taxes, period, to offset against any substantial carbon tax. Its just the reality of things. Most tax revenue comes from the upper 20%.

OTOH, a carbon tax does not hurt lower income people at all, since lower income people aren't spending any MONEY to begin with. thus low income. no money, da? If you want to help poor people, fine, increase EBT payments, increase housing subsidies, but keep it the heck out of the carbon tax issue.

Unless of course, you never want to see a carbon tax in law, and just want the issue. Its OK to just want the issue, its a great pitch, rally the masses, mail a check to one and all, free money, save the earth. WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN.

The instant you wrap the carbon tax thing in a social justice blanket, you kill it. Unless of course, you can bring the aforementioned 70/30 majority to both houses, in which case, you got a shot; but anything less than that will turn the carbon tax into cap'n'trade bailout; not unlike an opportunity for National Health Service got turned into the ACA insurance company bailout.

The only realistic chance a carbon tax has, is if you ditch that social justice pitch, and focus on productivity and tax incentives of behavior. An income tax is actually dumb, it penalizes the desire for producing greater value; a carbon tax is brilliant, in that it penalizes inefficient expenditure of energy. A carbon tax plays to all of America's strengths; but you have to use it to kill the other revenue streams into the Federal government, dollar for dollar; or what could be a great boon, will sink us like a brick.

[GHung]

AgentR11 said: "OTOH, a carbon tax does not hurt lower income people at all, since lower income people aren't spending any MONEY to begin with. thus low income. no money, da?"

Wow, talk about pretzel logic. Most 'lower income' people spend all of their money, just surviving. Perhaps you mean they don't have any discretionary income, which means they have no ability to cut their consumption much; fewer choices, and why they pay fewer taxes to begin with.

[Timo]

Thank you, GHung. R11 does have some excellent points in his argument, but eliminating the human component from the financial component just isn't humanely possible. I wish reality was different. Don't we all? As is, though, the carbon tax, being an absolutely great idea if it replaced or minimized the income tax, is much easier said than done.

[dohboi]

"Most tax revenue comes from the upper 20%."

Umm, and that would be because they have about 90% of the wealth, right?

So you're going to go after the 80%, who only have about 10% of the wealth, to pay for everything, right??

Sound fair (not).

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[AgentR11]

It is possible, but difficult to sell the carbon tax as a drop in replacement for another tax within the US political system.

You know what is more difficult? Selling a carbon tax with a fee/dividend model. That is *impossible* under any realistic political permutation of the US for the foreseeable future. You can not get the numbers required to achieve that goal.

So... do you want a carbon tax. Or do you want the issue to talk about in perpetuity.

As I said, I understand if yall can be content with just the talking point issue with the social justice addons to rile up the crowd. Just do not kid yourself.

As to poor folks; I already made the point; if you think they need improved benefits to deal with the additional expenses incurred via a carbon tax; then raise the benefits openly and directly. Real cost matched to real benefit. Don't hide social benefit payments inside a great metric for allocating tax burden. Yall generally love the European model; VAT plays a huge role. Poor folks don't get a special exception to VAT payments; rather, whatever social insurance outlays are made, are made with the VAT cost assumed. Carbon tax should work exactly the same. If it drives up the cost of food $30 a month, then increase the EBT payout $30 a month; etc.

[AgentR11]

"Most tax revenue comes from the upper 20%."
Umm, and that would be because they have about 90% of the wealth, right?
So you're going to go after the 80%, who only have about 10% of the wealth, to pay for everything, right??

I'm going after carbon.

The upper 20% will still continue to pay most of the tax burden under a carbon scheme. The only thing that changes is the metric used to allocate that burden. Unless you believe some poor guy in a one bedroom apartment has the same carbon footprint as the guy living in the 4k sqft home... No. Under a carbon tax scheme; that poor guy in the small apartment will pay next to nothing in tax, just as he does now. The guy in the big home, he'll still be paying his $15k /yr; it'll just get picked up differently, some in his gas bill, some in his light bill; gasoline in the car, cost of the lumber; all assessed just like a VAT when value is added/carbon used.

Now, if you feel that the poor guy's income is insufficient to whether the change; then FIX THE INCOME. That's the problem. Not the tax.

[Loki]

So... do you want a carbon tax. Or do you want the issue to talk about in perpetuity.

Yep.

I don't disagree with the leftists who think there's a problem with maldistribution of wealth in the US (and likely other first world nations). Yes, this is a problem. But I don't think the carbon tax should be used as a tool to address this.

The leftists have done a damn good job of hijacking environmentalism and using it to advance their social agenda. Now it's become a hyperpartisan issue, with conservatives bending over backwards to deny the science not just on climate change, but on all environmental issues (historical revisionism on the ozone layer, for example) because they associate it with the leftist social agenda. And rightly so, unfortunately.

Back in the day, we had environmentalists like Edward Abbey advocating for "conservative" positions like reducing immigration. Now such things are verboten among the politically correct "environmentalists," who are mostly just watermelons (green on the outside, but all red inside).

The "rebate" should be eliminated entirely from the conversation. The carbon tax should simply be used to supplant other taxes. Period. The conversation should be:

(1) Carbon tax in lieu of income/property taxes
(2) If you want to reduce your taxes, reduce your carbon

Simple, and has a lot better chance of appealing to both left and right.

[americandream]

Speaking as a hard leftist of the communist persuasion, unless you change the social relations that underpin growth, globalisation of capitalism and its consumer machine will take its course.

[dohboi]

There is essentially no effective left and precious little real environmentalism in the US, so I'm not sure how one could hijack the other.

Hijacking this thread is another matter.

I would invite Agent, P and others to start a thread to present their proposal for distributing even more wealth to the super rich than they already have (A, at least, used to be a bit more honest about this being his goal).

Can we keep the discussion here to the proposal noted in the title and in the article by the same title linked to at the top, please?

[AgentR11]

I am keeping the discussion on the proposal. I'm adamantly opposed. Pursuing it instead of a real carbon tax is a guarantee of no legislative action on climate change, all the way to the point that every glacier on the planet has melted and alligators roam the foothills of the brooks range.

[americandream]

There is essentially no effective left and precious little real environmentalism in the US, so I'm not sure how one could hijack the other.

Hijacking this thread is another matter.

I would invite Agent, P and others to start a thread to present their proposal for distributing even more wealth to the super rich than they already have (A, at least, used to be a bit more honest about this being his goal).

Can we keep the discussion here to the proposal noted in the title and in the article by the same title linked to at the top, please?

What is the title? The pursuit of unworkeable solutions? If that is where you are are at db, you have lost the plot.

[Timo]

Now, if you feel that the poor guy's income is insufficient to whether the change; then FIX THE INCOME. That's the problem. Not the tax.

On this, i whole heartedly agree with you. On the carbon tax idea, i also agree with you, but as i said, it's easier said than done. You've already pointed out a number of details that would need to be worked out to make it functional. Concept and reality are two very different things, but if some member of Congress actually proposed this legislation, i'd support that legislation. The devil is always in the details. Getting it talked about by TPTB would be a major accomplishment, in and of itself.

[GHung]

dohboi: "Can we keep the discussion here to the proposal noted in the title and in the article by the same title linked to at the top, please?"

That seems impossible these days. My earlier comment was from a purely pragmatic standpoint which others 'hijacked' as being political/ideological. I wonder how much time/energy we waste on partisan thinking. The point of highlighting the income disparity issue isn't out of concern for lower income folks so much as it is about concern for society as a whole. Societies with increasing economic divisions tend to fail eventually; often spectacularly. Where will your carbon tax be then? Where the climate?

From a purely logical standpoint, reducing carbon emissions will necessarily be a collective process; from each according to his ability to sacrifice consumption/income. Failure to address this reality will mean failure of the process.

[dohboi]

"From a purely logical standpoint, reducing carbon emissions will necessarily be a collective process; from each according to his ability to sacrifice consumption/income. Failure to address this reality will mean failure of the process."

Nicely put, GH.