The Oil Drum | Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell's carbon-tax proposal

77 comments on Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell's carbon-tax proposal

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

dtbks on September 28, 2007 - 11:06am

A flat carbon tax is utterly immoral. And if you're considering it, you should be ashamed whoever you are. Who suffers from more expensive energy? The poor people. Who can afford to pay an extra $1 for their gasoline? The rich people. There are only two morally acceptable ways to cap carbon emissions that I see: 1. Tax luxury activities (flying for example), or 2. institute a carbon ration as George Monbiot and others have suggested. Sorry, but that needed to be said.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Gail the Actuary on September 28, 2007 - 11:14am

The intent of Dingall is to use the funds from the gas tax to disproportionately help the poor, so they are less affected (Expand the earned income tax credit and fund a low income home energy assistance program). I'm not sure how successful this strategy will be.

Of course, if this strategy works, the decline in usage will be much less.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Petroleo on September 28, 2007 - 11:19am

I don't think there is any morality or immorality involved. A carbon molecule in the air is a carbon molecule in the air, and physically it doesn't matter whether it comes from the tailpipe of a 2007 Porsche Cayenne S or that of a 1991 Toyota. If you want to reduce overall energy usage (and thereby emissions) fast, then taxing is the way to go. That Porsche Cayenne owner will indeed be able to pay 1$ extra for his gallon of gas, but he will also be able to pay 3$ extra. Even after implementing a non-linear carbon tax scheme, the rich will still be rich, and the poor will still be poor.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Petropest on September 28, 2007 - 11:35am

The poor should get to sell carbon credits to the rich on ebay. Until that happens we will live in a fascist state.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LarryCO on September 28, 2007 - 12:19pm

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So exactly what about a carbon tax == fascism. Or are you just spouting nonsense?

Sadly no matter how you try to finagle it, there will always be poor. Humans breed until they stew in their own wastes. We are no smarter than yeast. Except, maybe yeast know the definition of fascist.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Petropest on September 28, 2007 - 12:27pm

The truly wealthy in this country get that way because they game the system. Some day the sheep will wake up and drag the maggots down into the sewer. Until then I will complain about the imperial capitalist pig printing press mofos. You are a pig.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Squalish on September 28, 2007 - 6:17pm

Communist trolls make baby jesus cry.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SacredCowTipper on September 29, 2007 - 1:51am

The Bush administration have achieved nine of the ten required steps towards fascism here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/15474/3677

Carbon credit trading? Tell me with a straight face that isn't a feel good gambit that will accomplish nothing at the end of the day except shifting the unsustainable CO2 emission location from one place to another.

Humans are going to zero carbon emissions. We can do it ourselves or mother nature can take us out of the picture. Pretty simple, eh?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Petropest on September 28, 2007 - 11:30am

I agree, rationing. First three gallons, no tax, the next three some tax, the next, more. Same way with electricity, the first 500 KwH, the next, the next. A fair carbon law is impossible with the criminal gubbermint we have. Viva la revolucion!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SunnyvaleCA on September 28, 2007 - 2:27pm

Rationing is a very inefficient means of helping the poor. Instead, just give everyone a lump-sum $500 at the beginning of the year and then let them pay for as much fuel as they want. If gasoline had a $2/gallon tax on it that means that your $500 pays for the tax on the first 250 gallons you buy. Obviously, the numbers I used were merely an example.

My problem with the proposed bill is that the tax should be more and there should be no exemptions or special double-taxes. For example, why should farmers get an exemption; instead, let them try to produce food efficiently and give everyone who eats food a $500 bonus at the beginning of the year to make up the difference. On the flip side, removing the home mortgage deduction on large houses seems pointless, as the carbon tax on heating and electricity should be penalty enough. If the tax isn't penalty enough, then raise the taxes to a higher level.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Petropest on September 28, 2007 - 10:40pm

Well, if you give them money then you in essence give gubbermint money to the oil companies. If you give them rationing coupons they can sell them to the rich, or the rich can by god cut back on consumption. There should be a payoff for riding a bike or taking the bus.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Squalish on September 29, 2007 - 12:27am

Transferrable, fixed issue rationing coupons are far different from the type of rationing you proposed, and they're subject to market mechanisms in a similar way to other proposals we make. The net effect is the same: different sectors of the consumer sphere compete with each other to lower their energy usage. The one who changes their life enough that they're self sufficient, gets a significant portion of a welfare-level income simply by virtue of having a small energy footprint.

If prices are not raised artificially by the government and redistributed to the middle class and the poor... the middle class and poor will be priced out of driving anyway eventually, and the oil companies will be the sole beneficiaries. The supply/demand curve is going to raise the price, one way or another.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SacredCowTipper on September 29, 2007 - 1:30am

Increase the gas tax $0.25 a month ... and the minimum wage $0.25/hour on the same date. Do that for a year and it fixes all sorts of problems. We have to have inflation with the conditions we face and some wage inflation benefiting everyone else would be nice after so many years of asset inflation benefiting the wealthy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.