some republicans push carbon tax

The place for general political discussion.

some republicans push carbon tax

Postby John Galt » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:44 am

a $40/metric ton tax on carbon would lead to 40 dollars on roughly 112 gallons of gas, or roughly a 36 cent increase on each gallon of gasoline. of course this also would impact other things, energy production. according to some green website the annual production of co2/kwh in the us is 7.03 x 10-4 metric tons. so this would mean that for every 1422 kwh there would be a 40 dollar tax, or a 2.8 cent price increase on each kilowatt hour (on average).


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... egulations

A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders, including former Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and James Baker, will meet with some of President Donald Trump’s top advisers at the White House Wednesday to push a plan to tax carbon dioxide in exchange for lifting a slew of environmental regulations.

“Unlike the current cumbersome regulatory approach, a levy on emissions would free companies to find the most efficient way to reduce their carbon footprint,” Baker and former Secretary of State George Shultz wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion article posted online late Tuesday. “A sensibly priced, gradually rising tax would send a powerful market signal to businesses that want certainty when planning for the future.”

The proponents are set to formally announce their proposal Wednesday at the National Press Club, lending their stature to an approach for addressing climate change that mirrors an idea already advanced by Exxon Mobil Corp. The self-dubbed Climate Leadership Council pushing the framework says a carbon tax is necessary to respond to "mounting evidence of climate change" that is "growing too strong to ignore."

The plan faces strong political headwinds; both Trump and a majority of the House of Representatives have come out against a carbon tax in the past year. Trump also has pledged to do away with environmental regulations limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that exacerbate climate change.

But the idea of a carbon tax, long favored by economists as the most straightforward way to address climate change, could gain traction as part of a broad tax overhaul on Capitol Hill.

The blueprint involves a $40 tax on every metric ton of carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels, with the price climbing over time. To avoid an undue burden on the poor from the higher energy bills that would result, the projected $200 billion to $300 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to households in the form of quarterly checks from the Social Security Administration. Families of four would see an average annual payout of $2,000 under the plan.

The proposal also calls for border adjustments that would act to hike the costs of products imported from countries that do not put a price on carbon.

Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney described the proposal in a tweet as a "thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy and confront climate risks."

Paulson, who served as Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush, previously has advocated a carbon tax through his eponymous think tank, the Paulson Institute. Joining Paulson in the push is Baker, who served as secretary of state and Treasury secretary under two Republican administrations, as well as Shultz, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. founder Rob Walton and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC partner Thomas Stephenson, among others. Economic advisers to former presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also are involved in the effort.

The group envisions the carbon tax taking the place of an array of Obama-era environmental regulations that raise the cost of fossil fuels. The centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, the Clean Power Plan slashing emissions from electricity, would be immediately repealed, while others would be phased out over time. U.S. companies emitting carbon dioxide also could win liability protections under the deal.

The idea dovetails with an approach advocated by some large integrated oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, which has promoted a revenue-neutral carbon tax instead of a patchwork of environmental regulations. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s former chief executive, previously acknowledged the climate is changing and described a carbon tax as the most efficient means of embedding its cost in economic decisions stretching from oil companies to consumers.

BP Plc has said a well-constructed carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would encourage energy producers and consumers to pare emissions, while Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chairman Charles Holliday has called a carbon tax the most effective and practical way of driving that change.

It is unclear how the new plan will be received by Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

The Republican-led House of Representatives last June approved a non-binding resolution condemning the idea of a carbon tax as "detrimental to American families and businesses." The measure, which passed 237-163, was designed to lock in lawmakers’ positions, making it harder for those who lodged a vote opposing a tax to support one later on.

Trump himself has come out against the idea, rejecting a carbon tax in responses to a survey by the American Energy Alliance last March. Many of the conservative advocates guiding Trump’s energy and environment policy also eschew the idea.

The approach also runs counter to Trump’s campaign promise to help bring back coal mining jobs. Because it generates more carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas and oil, coal would be the fossil fuel hardest hit by a tax on carbon.

But a carbon tax has gained traction in some circles. Republican Bob Inglis, a former representative from South Carolina, has pitched the tax as a free-market solution to climate change. Tesla Motors Inc. founder Elon Musk also has pressed the Trump administration on the issue. It could benefit his electric vehicle business by driving more consumers away from gasoline-fueled automobiles.

The issue divides the oil industry; though Exxon Mobil is just one of several large integrated companies that favor a carbon tax, the idea is opposed by many independent producers that do not own pipeline and refining operations.
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12332
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 576 times
Been thanked: 1283 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby IndependentProfessor » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:56 am

Honest question - will it raise gas prices, though?

The story says passing this would get rid of much current regulation. I'm assuming that the current regulations burden companies somehow, and that these burdens cost money. So, would it be replacing some costs with another cost, but not necessarily more cost?
IndependentProfessor
Congressman
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby Supposn » Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:49 pm

from: ttps://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon- ... -dividend/
Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation puts a fee on the amount of carbon dioxide in fossil fuels. This fee is assessed at the source of the fuel: at the mine, well, or port of entry.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

How feasible or difficult, (i.e. how expensive) would it be monitor the volume of fluid and/or gas pumped from the earth? I suppose the quality of the yield per gallon of liquid or per some standard unit of gas varies to some extent? I suppose it’s of some difficulty to conceal the locations of such wells from the government?

I’m suggesting an alternative of VATs applied to natural carbon materials and products with such materials sufficiently integral to them.
Two separate taxes similar to value-added taxes, (VATs) but based upon the wells quantity and quality yield. Those VATs would be passed on to the raw liquid’s first purchaser or processors and thereafter passed on as a single consolidated VAT upon the sales volumes goods that significantly reflect the carbon materials integral to them. Wouldn’t that be more feasible?

I suppose it’s near impossible to monitor carbon material extracted by mining. The yield of carbon fuel minerals and their quality proportional to gross extraction of earth and stone greatly varies between individual mines. How difficult would it be to conceal smaller mines from the government? I don’t suppose the government could effectively tax coal in any manner superior to a VAT upon coal.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn
Mayor
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:24 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby Supposn » Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:52 pm

Regarding my previous suggested VATs upon goods with significant carbon fuel materials integral to them: it’s tax burden upon lower income families could be reduced by using the VAT's revenue to reduce FICA rates levied upon both employees and employers.

Respectfully, Supposn
Supposn
Mayor
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:24 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby a777pilot » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:07 pm

They are only for a carbon tax because they are tied to the old way of doing things.

The way to reduce carbon emissions is to stop using carbon based energy. We need to invest in and support the massive use of thorium nuclear reactors. They are available, inexpensive to build, very safe, scalable. We should have thousands of them, from sea to shining sea.
To err is human. To forgive divine. Neither of which is Marine Corps policy.

These users thanked the author a777pilot for the post (total 2):
exploitedWinchester
User avatar
a777pilot
Mayor
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times
Political Leaning: Conservative

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby Gus » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:05 pm

There are obviously negative externalities associated with burning carbon. We should be conducting empirical studies to estimate these externalities--was something like this done to propose this tax amount?
Gus
Citizen
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:28 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby spacemonkey » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:13 pm

If everything went solar, there would be a sun tax, wind power, wind tax. No matter what, there is a possible tax for it. How about a robot tax on automated factories?
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby Spider » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:46 pm

spacemonkey wrote:If everything went solar, there would be a sun tax, wind power, wind tax. No matter what, there is a possible tax for it. How about a robot tax on automated factories?


Gates has been suggesting that very thing.

Right now the roads are mostly paid for by taxing the fuel. Because roads don't spontaneously spring into existence from magic. But now we've got electric cars that drive around on the roads and contribute nothing. So what do?

The country is mostly paid for by income taxes. If we cut into income taxes by replacing incomes with robots...we quickly find that magic won't make the country function from nothing any more than it will conjure up roads. Particularly when that former laborer is soaking up benefits and not buying the consumer shit that the robot produces in his stead.

So what do?

And please, please, don't say, "Everyone should be innovators!"
Ernest Shackleton: "Men wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success."

Onward to Mars
User avatar
Spider
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 11545
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Out in the sticks.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 855 times
Been thanked: 1019 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby spacemonkey » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:06 pm

Spider wrote:
spacemonkey wrote:If everything went solar, there would be a sun tax, wind power, wind tax. No matter what, there is a possible tax for it. How about a robot tax on automated factories?


Gates has been suggesting that very thing.

Right now the roads are mostly paid for by taxing the fuel. Because roads don't spontaneously spring into existence from magic. But now we've got electric cars that drive around on the roads and contribute nothing. So what do?

The country is mostly paid for by income taxes. If we cut into income taxes by replacing incomes with robots...we quickly find that magic won't make the country function from nothing any more than it will conjure up roads. Particularly when that former laborer is soaking up benefits and not buying the consumer shit that the robot produces in his stead.

So what do?

And please, please, don't say, "Everyone should be innovators!"

I think its called profit at any cost. Humans can do good things but still be naively stupid at the same time. Today, most don't produce, they receive.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: some republicans push carbon tax

Postby Spider » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:16 pm

spacemonkey wrote:
Spider wrote:
spacemonkey wrote:If everything went solar, there would be a sun tax, wind power, wind tax. No matter what, there is a possible tax for it. How about a robot tax on automated factories?


Gates has been suggesting that very thing.

Right now the roads are mostly paid for by taxing the fuel. Because roads don't spontaneously spring into existence from magic. But now we've got electric cars that drive around on the roads and contribute nothing. So what do?

The country is mostly paid for by income taxes. If we cut into income taxes by replacing incomes with robots...we quickly find that magic won't make the country function from nothing any more than it will conjure up roads. Particularly when that former laborer is soaking up benefits and not buying the consumer shit that the robot produces in his stead.

So what do?

And please, please, don't say, "Everyone should be innovators!"

I think its called profit at any cost. Humans can do good things but still be naively stupid at the same time. Today, most don't produce, they receive.


That was a non-answer.
Ernest Shackleton: "Men wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success."

Onward to Mars
User avatar
Spider
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 11545
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Out in the sticks.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 855 times
Been thanked: 1019 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests