Why Is Al Gore Backing A Carbon Tax?
I'm just not seeing it. Al Gore recently came out in favor of a carbon tax, presumably over cap-and-trade. The two schemes are essentially in competition with each other, so supporting one often means opposing the other. And while I'm sure Al Gore would be happy to see any solution get implemented, I'm left wondering why he chose to throw his weight behind the lesser of the two.
At this point it's pretty clear that we're going to get one or the other, and which one we should end up with is the subject of intense debate. But at the moment, all signs point to cap-and-trade being the superior and more politically acceptable plan. With both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporting aggressive cap-and-trade plans and the Senate already debating a cap-and-trade plan of their own, it looks like we could have it if we wanted it.
But a carbon tax would be a mistake. Instead of fixing the problem at the source by directly changing industry, we'd have "personal responsibility" with a cattle prod.
A carbon tax is, quite simply, a political non-starter. Unlike cap-and-trade, where businesses can make money by cleaning up, there's no upside to a carbon tax. Consumers would be hit with added taxes on food and transportation, creating a new form of regressive taxation, especially if we were to replace income and payroll taxes as Al Gore is proposing. Even the Carbon Tax Center admits that a carbon tax is regressive, before going on to propose a Rube Goldberg maze of rebates and dividends to balance it out. (They also go on to claim that higher income people use more fuel, which is true, but that doesn't make the tax less regressive. Lower income people would still pay a higher percentage of their income to pay a tax on basic survival needs that they can't cut out, while the wealthier would simply take the same number of vacations and pay slightly more for them.)
In effect we'd be granting conservatives their wet dream of replacing progressive income tax with a sales tax. Any attempt to balance it out with dividends would be shot down as wealth redistribution, as if it had been proposed by Karl Marx himself.
But that's just the politics. Assuming we could get a carbon tax passed, would it work? It's hard to say. Even as gas prices have gone through the roof, gas consumption has only dropped by 1%. A carbon tax would have to be significant enough to be felt over the noise of fuel price fluctuations. And a carbon tax doesn't set any targets or caps, so if people keep consuming no matter what the price (until it turns a corner and becomes unaffordable to the point of grinding society to a halt), we're screwed.
But let's say the carbon tax is a success. How will government get funded as carbon revenues decline? We'd either have to phase in income taxes all over again, or failing that, government would be forced to encourage brand new pollution just to keep operating!
Cap-and-trade, on the other hand, is tested, and it works. It was good enough to cut sulfur emissions in the 80s, it was good enough as a basis for Kyoto, and it's good enough to be the centerpiece of our next president's energy plan. It doesn't rely on consumers to make choices that run against their own interests, and it would foster innovation by allowing the private sector to do what it does best (innovate and compete), while allowing the government to do what it does best (enforce standards and targets). I'm not seeing the downside.
[Greentech Media via Treehugger]
Comments
Olivia said on Friday, March 21 2008 at 3:35pm
What the hell, Gore. Don't make me come down there.
ross said on Sunday, March 30 2008 at 8:32pm
I don't believe that it's a "conservative's wet dream" as the perception that most conservatives are rich is absolutely false (besides, there are studies that show that lefties as a whole are more affluent than the right at this point in time). I'm a die hard conservative and hate the idea of either one of the systems proposed. It's all a money grabbing scheme that will do nothing but hurt the bulk of working class America that is both red and blue. Most people want to take care of their environment, but making them poor(er) in the process is not acceptable.
I also think it's more than coincidental that Mr. Gore pays his carbon credits to a company that he just-so-happens to be a founder/chairperson of, who then takes the money and invests it in order to turn profit.......so Gore is paying HIMSELF!!! Look, I'm for reducing emissions and taking care of the environment in a logical and responsible fashion, but when that involves taking money from me and giving it to someone else who will pocket it...I'm completely against it. If, like many of the left say, government is the answer...then let government develop the perfect engine and do it in conjunction with the automakers. They've got enough money to blow on spy planes that don't work.....they should have enough to do this. We all pay MORE than enough taxes already, it's time the government give us something for our wages.
Lastly, on a final note; how come those who argue against man made climate change aren't allowed to be heard? If you don't worship Mr. Gore and accept his "truth" as the gospel, then you're labeled a dirty conservative who doesn't care about the environment. All arguments should be heard and all mode of research should be done before we lock ourselves into more poverty. Read the reports from the NASA "Aqua" satellite, it's findings are directly contrary to Mr. Gore. Anyone who is peddling his ideas to save the world, yet who would directly profit from it should be questioned.