Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again

We’ve already touched on this plan by so-called Republicans and a few liberals, who are essentially pushing a Big Government solution to a problem that cannot be proven. Now we have George P. Shultz and Lawrence Sanders pushing the pimp

This is the one climate solution that’s best for the environment — and for business

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord has induced a fateful pessimism about what can be expected of the country on this critical issue. Yet our long experience in Washington has taught us that the transition from the inconceivable to the inevitable can sometimes be very rapid.

The pressure on the administration to find an alternative to Paris will only mount, and its foundations have already been laid in the reasons the president cited for withdrawing. That is, any viable climate solution must promote growth and jobs, be fair to ordinary Americans and prevent other economies from taking advantage of us. It must also meet the broader test of American politics: the ability to appeal to the general public, corporate America and leaders in both parties.

Such a climate plan is not only feasible but is now gaining traction. On Tuesday, the Climate Leadership Council announced its founding members, a group of companies, opinion leaders and nongovernmental organizations who have joined forces to promote a consensus climate solution based on carbon dividends. We are proud to be part of this distinguished group.

The interesting part here is that most Warmists refuse to voluntarily purchase carbon offsets (nor give up their own big carbon footprint ways, but, that’s a different story). The Rich folks who are Warmists purchase offsets rather than give up their own Bad Behavior. And the want Everyone Else to be forced to join in on this little plan of marching up and down the square investing more power and money in the hands of the Federal Government. Constitution schmonstitution!

Our carbon dividend strategy has four interrelated elements that account for its strength: a gradually rising and revenue-neutral carbon tax; carbon dividend payments made equally to all Americans, to be funded using all the carbon-tax revenue; rollback of costly command-and-control regulations that were implemented because the environmental costs of carbon fuels have not been incorporated into their price; and border adjustment to ensure a level playing field and U.S. competitiveness.

Each and every one of these things gives the Central Government more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and the economy. Furthermore, it makes citizens more reliant and dependent on government, because the Helpful Hand of Government will refund some of the money lost to the taxes, fees, and cost of living increases.

A carbon tax set at $40 per ton would achieve substantially greater reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions than all of the regulation now on the table.

First, remember that is the starting point. Second, the average American has a carbon footprint of around 19 metric tons per year. So, another $760 a year lost to government directly, which doesn’t account for all the higher costs associated with all businesses having to pay more and passing the costs to the consumers. Guess who gets hurt the most? The middle class and lower class.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again”

  1. Dana says:

    My eidetic memory can clearly recall a meeting, in 2002, in which some cockamamie group was attempting to sign up our company to sell carbon credits. Because ready-mixed concrete companies like to use pozzolans like flyash, we gain carbon credits by replacing some Portland cement with pozzolan. The company could then sell those carbon credits to industries which are over some imaginary limit in carbon emissions.

    Now, I will admit to being an [insert slang term for the rectum here], and thinking politically incorrect thoughts, but the first thing that came to my mind was that this was a scam designed to allow industries over that imaginary limit to avoid coming into compliance by spending less money than they would to come into compliance; ’twas nothing more than payola. The esteemed Al Gore has made a substantial fortune through that racket. Carbon emissions are not reduced, but money does change hands, and that was the only thing that mattered.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7227 access attempts in the last 7 days.