Why are Republicans offering a carbon tax?
posted at 4:00 pm on May 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Conservatives have warned of the disastrous economic effects of Barack Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade system and the massive burdens it will impose on American families. Republicans have derided it as a tax, and a particularly regressive one, that will force working-class earners to choose between heat, lighting, and food. In response, House conservatives have proposed … a carbon tax?
Well this complicates things. Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) have proposed a carbon tax as an alternative to Democrats’ cap-and-trade legislation.
The legislation would tax carbon at the rate or $15/ton, rising to $100/ton over three decades.
For months, House Republicans have been blasting cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a tax on energy, a message which seems weaker now that two very conservative Republicans have proposed a direct tax themselves.
From McClatchy:
Reps. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona on Wednesday became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels.
The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would set a tax of $15 a ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 a ton over three decades.
“The first axiom of economics is if you want less of something, you tax it,” said Flake, a leading fiscal conservative, in an interview. “Obviously, we want less carbon, so we tax it.”
Is it really obvious that we want less carbon? Particulate matter, perhaps, but Republicans have challenged the notion that more carbon dioxide leads to anything other than better plant growth. An EPA memo appears to at least make the argument that the government hasn’t proven any harm from CO2 that doesn’t involve a gas mask and a lot of duct tape.
So why propose a carbon tax as a rebuttal to cap-and-trade? Eric Zimmerman at The Hill postulates that Flake and Inglis hope to use the proposal to give some Democrats cover for breaking away from cap-and-trade. Obama’s proposal is not popular with Rust Belt representatives, who want an excuse to bail on the White House’s pet energy project. The carbon tax will go nowhere, they hope, but will create enough inertia to stop cap-and-trade, too.
I’m not so sure. It sounds as though Flake and Inglis are more or less endorsing the prime motivation behind cap-and-trade while Rust Belters want to reject the notion that CO2 presents any proximate harm at all. I hope the strategy works, but it has a high risk of backfiring.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Totally nuts. The way to combat a tax on a mythical problem is to propose a different way to tax it?
Daggett on May 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM
The road to 2010.
hah
blatantblue on May 14, 2009 at 4:04 PM
This is why we need to primary these appeasers and get rid of em.
suzyk on May 14, 2009 at 4:04 PM
This is a prime example of why all of these turds need to go.
elduende on May 14, 2009 at 4:04 PM
My congressman (Flake) has just lost a lot of credibilty with me.
jgapinoy on May 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Dude.
PBoilermaker on May 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM
*headdesk*
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM
backwards. stupid.
There is no threat from carbon dioxide.
stupid, stupid people.
darwin on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
I think the point here is to end the charade of Cap & Trade as a jobs-creating program. By calling it what it is, a Carbon Tax, it’s much more likely to be defeated.
I’m not a big fan of proposing legislation for the purpose of making a point, to me it’s grandstanding. But it does change the debate from “green jobs creation” which is a pipedream, to “another tax” which is much more accurate.
If the Russians and the solar flare folks are right, then the climate is growing cooler, and we’ll be wishing we emitted a lot more carbon soon, anyway.
hawksruleva on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
So far the libs have ‘talked carbon’ but have failed to put a price tag on it. Flake and Inglis are calling them out on it. Now the libs are going to have to talk ‘costs’. Which they’ve tried to avoid.
GarandFan on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Definitely “Dude” worthy.
Youngs98 on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Or more like….
Dude?
Youngs98 on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
I thought Flake was one of the really good GOP representatives. Maybe this is strategery, but you don’t play politics with something like a carbon tax. It’ll kill a ton of jobs and cost families thousands in energy bills.
Doughboy on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
You want to tax carbon? Tax the hell out of abortions. Fetuses are made of carbon.
daesleeper on May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
If I had a buisness that had to produce this taxable carbon I would move offshore, even if that meant the extraction part of my buisness would be separate from the processing.
This will defeat one of the purposes of the this sort of legislalation( increase revenue), not to mention the loss of jobs. The dems could care less about the loss of jobs though but what is up wthe the two pubs.
My bet is that cap and trade fails to pass
kangjie on May 14, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Again! Time to clean house of the idiots from both parties!!!
capejasmine on May 14, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Once again, the Republicans are playing “Democrat lite” and will once again lose to the genuine article.
CDeb on May 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM
D.C. Republicans = Progressive-lite.
Weebork on May 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM
+10
I’ve been wondering why we don’t hear more from Flake.
Now I know why.
BuckeyeSam on May 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM
RIP,GOP.
Bugler on May 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM
*facepalm*
Well hell, why stop there genius? Let’s tax the crap out of criminals. Then we could let the bad guys finance the police budget.
Tax terrorists too. That way they pay for the wars instead of us.
The way to Utopia. Tax whatever we want less of.
Guardian on May 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Schmucks!
Can I say that?
LibTired on May 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM
This just provided fire to the liberals….. “Hey, even the Republicans believe climate change is real.”
txag92 on May 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Idiocy.
Sugar Land on May 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Maybe if we split the proceeds with the Sun, we’d get some cooperation on this whole sunspot thingy.
JiangxiDad on May 14, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I’m really starting to take a shine to this rebranding of the party. It’s a winner.
LibTired on May 14, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Flake is a flake.
What an idiot.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I USED to think his last name of Flake was ironic…
thecountofincognito on May 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM
So why is stupidity still so prevalent?
Snowed In on May 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM
More proof that there is no difference between a Democrat and a Republican – the only issue is – how deep do you have to scratch, before you find a pig?
Conservative Party – now!
OhEssYouCowboys on May 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Stupidity is only taxing to those who recognize it.
LibTired on May 14, 2009 at 4:15 PM
The first axiom of sane governance is that the federal government should tax only to fund its operations, not for social engineering or any other sort of stupidity.
Can we throw this Flake moron out? Force him to wear a scarlet “D”? Make him wear a dunce cap? Something?
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 4:17 PM
You’re right, Ed. This doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Normally I’d revert to ad hominems at this point, but I’m going to watch and learn on this one…
bluelightbrigade on May 14, 2009 at 4:17 PM
That’s how culture works, though. The debate over climate change is settled, even though the public settled on the wrong answer. Businesses, as usual, decided to roll over rather than fight it. Sadly, our ‘leaders’ in Congress did the same. McCain was widely applauded for his progressive stance on the Environment. So more Congressman abandoned our position, whose only benefit is that it’s more accurate.
Flake is no worse than Dagny Taggert. He may honestly think that, if we agree that the environment is being hurt by carbon, we should approach the problem honestly. He doesn’t realize that playing by the looters’ rules is impossible, because the rules are changed whenever it suits the looters.
hawksruleva on May 14, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Yeah this doesn’t look good… I guess the idea is to split the Dems into two camps… divide and conqueror… but yeah validating the politically based science behind the whole thing seems a dangerous precedent. I hope someone has this thought out better than it sounds from this account.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM
$15/ton is like $0.22/gal on gasoline, which produces about 30 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM
How does the GOP throw away a winning issue? Let me count the ways…
Cicero43 on May 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM
This is what happended with the GOP and the income tax amendment:
Never propose a bill you do not support.
WashJeff on May 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM
More good stuff from the neocons……
/
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I dont agree with it, but you left out an important part:
brirodg on May 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Because they don’t ever want to win a national election again. Politics is hard.
Kensington on May 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Well, yeah. But the thing YOU mention are actually bad. Carbon is the basis for all living organisms, and CO2 is the gas that plants need to survive.
hawksruleva on May 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Flake is a perfect name for this asshole.
echosyst on May 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM
There is nothing “neocon” about this. Neocons are against global warming idiocy and everything associated with it. You’re thinking of the McCain morons.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I think that most people don’t have a clue what the TAX and RATION bill is all about, but know quite clearly what a carbon tax is …
But who knows what is in the minds of the GOP these days.
tarpon on May 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Ed?
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:22 PM
As a carbon-based life form, I say FU to these pandering O-heads.
(O the element, not the O-Barry.)
profitsbeard on May 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM
WTF? Just called Flake’s office and the young man on the hill didn’t seem to like the suggestion that maybe there should be a limit on 2 terms for congresscritters since they seem to lose their soul shortly after being elected.
Also, the young hillrat’s idea was to mail me something about the proposal. When pointed out that besides the fact that this whole ‘climate change’ was a world-wide hoax to confiscate more money and power from people, that his idea was going to emit more carbon and who was going to pay for it. The response, “good point.”
Again, WTF?
Branch Rickey on May 14, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Conservation of matter: Matter is neither created nor destroyed. You cannot be carbon neutral. You cannot reduce carbon by taxing it. Any cap-n-trade or carbon tax is F -ing stupid.
jdkchem on May 14, 2009 at 4:24 PM
McCain (and Lieberman and friends) aren’t neo-conservatives?
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:24 PM
A gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds. How do you get 30 pounds of mass from a 6 pound mass while converting a great deal of the 6 pound mass into energy during the process?
Guardian on May 14, 2009 at 4:25 PM
No kidding! My reaction exactly.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Not in the least bit. Lieberman is strong on defense, but that’s about it. He’s left-wing otherwise. McCain is totally in his own world.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM
The strategy of splitting the dems so they don’t have a chance at a majority… now that is not a bad idea. I hope that kind of thinking is going forward… part of overcoming the party of “no” label by being the party of… what would you call this kind of thing?
Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. Flake is not generally thought of as anything but conservative.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:27 PM
he offered to call 911 on your behalf. Am I right?
radiofreevillage on May 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I guess we can count Flake out for any higher office. He looks like he ought to be on a morning TV talk show with a bimbo co-host.
flyoverland on May 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Why don’t they try this strategy:
Pool their PAC funds and come up with a catchy, well-done hour-long documentary they air on several TV channels to teach the American people what they are increasingly sensing anyway: the whole thing is a lie.
Then tie cap & trade and carbon taxes to the lie. Paint all those who foster this as the liars that they are.
Christian Conservative on May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM
ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY WE WANT LESS CARBON? THAT MEANS LESS ENERGY!!!!!!!
The rep party has LOST ITS FREAKING MIND!
unseen on May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM
He conceded to the hoax of Global Warming (and made an idiotic statement about the purpose of taxes, to boot). What kind of brilliant strategy is that?
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Sorry to say it, dude, but I have thought Flake was a self-promoting nitwit for some time. Is there any other kind of politician?
What a douche.
Jaibones on May 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Taxes worked out really well for George H.W. Bush
D2Boston on May 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Lieberman? The guy who was Gore’s running mate and a Democrat until he lost the Dem primary? The pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, anti-gun, anti-constitutional ban of same-sex marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research Lieberman? He’s further right than fellow Dems on national security and foreign policy, but “conservative” or “neo-conservative” still isn’t the word for him.
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Because they want to lose our votes irrevocably?
obladioblada on May 14, 2009 at 4:33 PM
OK, as usual my suggestion is we try and hold two thoughts in one head.
1) Climate change is real.
2) Democrats’ policies aren’t going to reverse that.
radiofreevillage on May 14, 2009 at 4:33 PM
That joke attempt totally fails.
Haven’t you and your Chicken Little friends been dialing 911 on global warming for decades now?
Moreover, aren’t you the ones who want everything done for you on your behalf?
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Obvious to whom?
mankai on May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Where’s The Onion logo?
SouthernGent on May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM
The problem for most conservatives isn’t believing in climate change. It’s anthropogenic climate change. And facts coming out on a regular basis (EPA report, NASA data revisions, sea temperatures) don’t make it any easier to believe in it.
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 4:35 PM
SouthernGent on May 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I’ve been looking for The Onion logo in almost every news story for the past six months
youngO on May 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM
No, that’s a lie, which I know is for you synonymous to “speech”.
radiofreevillage on May 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Of course Democrat policies won’t reverse climate change! Besides, I don’t believe they actually give a flip about climate change, anymore than they cared about the spotted owl. It’s all about grabbing power and enriching their own coffers.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM
That’s the point. Neoconservatives fully support torture and wars, but not many actual conservative positions in the traditional sense.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Two faces to the same oppressive government.
joshlbetts on May 14, 2009 at 4:37 PM
When will you guys wake up and realize that our government has been overtaken by the private banking cartel?
This whole global warming BS is a way to kill off the remaining US economy.
They are keeping us pitted against each other Republican vs Democrat so we are distracted from what is really going on…
The more you guys yap about Republican this and Democrat that, the more your are distracted from the issues…
They want to “Divide and Conquer”
Research “THE FEDERAL RESERVE” Its a private bank!!!!
Research: The Bilderger Group – Its the ruling international elite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
Constitution1st on May 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM
73% of the ~30 lbs of CO2 that is created exists as oxygen in the atmosphere before combustion. You aren’t converting mass to energy, you are reconfiguring atoms to exist in a lower energy state allowing the remaining energy to be used for more productive things.
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Look, Jeff Flake’s record in DC as the most (non insane) libertarian congressman has bought him a little leeway with me. The idea of a Carbon-tax, offset by payroll tax cuts, is both a political winner, and an economic one. That is the key part of this proposal: the payroll tax cut. More people are going to be affected by the payroll tax, because everyone is affected by the payroll tax. If we are arguing the merits of a tax neutral carbon tax (an idea floated by such liberals as Steve Forbes and Charles Krauthammer) versus cap-and-trade, this is a no-brainer. Read Krauthammer’s piece in the Weekly Standard from last August; it was a pretty persuasive case for a carbon tax, if only for the reason that it lessens the political clout of the Saudis and Russians in the US, because political power is directly correlated with economic power, and if this tax would apply to foreign energy suppliers, it would weaken states we don’t like, and it is a pretty definitive answer to an issue that we’ve been doing very poorly on politically. Ideally, we wouldn’t have to do this, but, given the current state of affairs, a little bold political experimentation is a good thing.
Argue against the proposal, not the proposers.
jlerner on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
And actually, I think it’s closer to 20 lbs of CO2 released (not 30).
DaveS on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Most neoconservatives aren’t only conservative on the issue of national security.
amerpundit on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
This reminds me of my recent car rental reservation with Enterprise.
Their online form asks if you’d like to add in a fee for carbon offsets….I definitely got a laugh out of that one.
I normally rent from Hertz (SoCal AAA member) but their fees have gone through the roof lately.
The Ugly American on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
OOOOOH. That’s rich coming from a Democrat Party flak, you know the Orwellian ones who, for example, call “taking away the secret ballot” the “free choice act”.
Now, how about you back up your idiotic assertion and find one specific “lie”. There are hundreds of blog posts to choose from.
Thanks in advance.
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
My knee jerk reaction is the same as yours…
But Flake is not really known for being a “flake” he’s usually a straight forward guy as politicians go…
But reading what Ed wrote… It is possible they don’t think there is a chance this thing could pass–but it would give cover to Dems who have to be seen as supporting something on carbon emissions… So it keeps the whole thing confused pitting dem against dem, and nothing ever passes…that’s Ed’s take right?
I don’t know about this particular strategy–but I hope someone is thinking of some strategies to deal with the damage that is coming if we just sit around wringing our hands.
If it is a strategy that is better than really supporting carbon taxes.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM
A bit of fuzzy math there. A gallon of gasoline weighs about 5.5 lb, of which about 6/7 is carbon, or 4.7 lb. From the molecular weight ratio, burning 12 lb of carbon generates 44 lb of carbon dioxide, meaning 4.7 lb of carbon in a gallon of gasoline would generate 4.7(44/12) = 17.3 lb of CO2.
A ton (2000 lb) of CO2 would be generated by burning 2000 / 17.3 = 116 gallons of gasoline, so that $15.00 / ton would work out to 15.00 / 116 = 13 cents per gallon.
This wouldn’t affect the demand for gasoline much, although a $100/ton tax would be equivalent to 86 cents a gallon, which could affect gasoline demand.
Flake’s idea is certainly flakey, though. A carbon tax has worse consequences than cap-and-trade, because emission limits with cap-and-trade would probably only be applied to major emitters, such as power plants, refineries, and heavy industry, while emissions from small users like drivers, trucks, and home heating would likely not be capped, unless the Government tried to ration gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.
A carbon TAX would tax the burning of all of these products, and would involve lots of additional costs passed on to the consumer. The price of plane tickets would rise, as taxes on jet fuel are passed on to the consumer. The prices of most retail consumer goods would also rise, as the cost of trucking products to market rises due to taxes on diesel fuel. This might spark a switch from trucks to rail freight (which is more efficient), but it would have a worse economic impact than cap-and-trade.
This is really a dumb move. If the public perceives cap-and-trade as a less costly alternative to a carbon tax, they might gravitate TOWARD cap-and-trade.
By far, the best answer to “global warming” is to do NOTHING–extra CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow faster, and have higher crop yields. It’s a real green gas.
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM
So basically you are saying that Ed missed the point of this?
Ed?
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM
“Obviously.” Another numbskull who’s been trained to think that carbon is a pollutant. And this guy holds himself out as fit to lead.
I wonder if he’s aware that all life on Earth is based on carbon?
Cicero43 on May 14, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I vote one issue above all else. I vote against CO2 taxation in any form.
I’m sorry to see Flake going down this road; it’s dumb to even think of embracing the idea that CO2 is a problem.
JEM on May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM
jlerner on May 14, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Steve Forbes and Charles Krauthammer support this? There is more here than we know right now.
petunia on May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM
A VERY high risk of backfiring.
Steve Z on May 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I’d be inclined, if presented with such an option, to enter a negative fee.
Snowed In on May 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Flake is terrible on the border and immigration. He was a House co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy bill!
The GOP leaders have decided that their philosophy will be, “Tell us what the Democrats want to do, and we’ll just do 75% of it.”
An echo, not a choice.
Thresher on May 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM
“Climate Change”, in the sense that our climate should not change, is real stupid. (That’s poetical license, not a grammatical error) Catastrophic “Global Warming” is even dumber, though it is, at least, named correctly.
2) Democrats’ policies will destroy our nation – as the traitors are hoping. That’s all they ever work towards.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM
First, this is not true. It’s false to say that the “conservatives” as represented on this site, for instance, believe in the climate change but they simply doubt the extent of the anthropogenic contribution to it.
The problem for conservatives is to understand that it’s not a matter of the consensus among their local friends. It’s a matter of scientific research. When you start saying things like “believe in climate change”, you lose any credibility.
I’m not a climatologist myself so I can’t speak from authority. But the titles of talks that I see in elevators suggest anthropogenic contribution is real, too, however its precise extent is anybody’s guess at this point.
Personally, I totally support the notion that in a situation where science seems to register the presence of a problem but yet is nowhere near explaining it perfectly, much less offering a remedy, all these purely political solutions like agricultural subsidies to biofuel producers or cap-n-trade need to be fought.
However, be humble about your own qualifications. Ridiculing scientists may get you elected in Kansas but you will lose all reasonable people.
radiofreevillage on May 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Clearly, he needs to read my blog :)
Buy Danish on May 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Reject the premise.
daesleeper on May 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I’m going to shoot myself in the head now.
MadisonConservative on May 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I patially agree, but almost all of them in Congress are.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM
^partially agree.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM
The point is that the politicians who are extreme pro-war tend to be very liberal on other issues (McCain, Specter) while the noninterventionists who actually believe in a strong defense here at home (Paul, Buchanan) tend to be very conservative on other issues.
The Dean on May 14, 2009 at 4:59 PM
I don’t care what his history is. This proposal is stupid enough to erase anything good he has done. This is a nation killer.
It’s a loser both ways, not mention being an ultimate loser by ceding the argument on global warming, which is as bad as anything gets.
Great. Confusing two issues that have nothing to do with each other. You know what happens when you do stuff like this? You lose both.
Ceding any idiotic argument about “carbon” is a deal-breaker in my book.
Persuasive to whom? Not to me.
Domestic drilling, building nuke plants and other alternatives are the answer. If you really want to get serious, then the gulf states have used oil as a weapon against us and committed acts of war by illegally manipulating the production in collusion. If you want to stop that, then have Congress act on that illegality, or retake the gulf fields, that were stolen in the forced nationalization waves of 50 years ago – which never should have been allowed to occur.
You started this out by arguing FOR the proposer. In any event, the proposal is as stupid as anything I’ve ever heard. I’d throw Flake out of Congress, if I could. He’s a dangerous moron to propose something so ridiculous.
progressoverpeace on May 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM
When is the next GOP hosted Tea Party?
V-rod on May 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »