Coons, Flake Introduce National Carbon Tax

They say that it will raise the incomes of working Americans by sending them a government check

If Coons wants to lead, when will he give up his own use of fossil fuels and make his life carbon neutral? Oh, right, right, he’s rich, and can afford to keep living his life the same. He’ll just pay a small penalty or carbon offset for his own bad behavior.

From Coon’s webpage

U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) today introduced bipartisan legislation to pay a monthly dividend to every American family.  The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act places an increasing price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, designed to drive down pollution, address climate change, and encourage market-driven innovation in clean energy technologies.  Revenues received will be returned directly to the American people in the form of a monthly dividend, protecting energy consumers and low- and middle-income households.  The legislation aims to help accelerate American innovation to advance clean energy solutions, incentivize our trading partners to lower emissions, and prevent thousands of pollution-related deaths annually. A related bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), John Delaney (D-Md.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), and Charlie Christ (D-Fla.).

“Climate change is a serious threat to our economy, our security, and our way of life, and we need leadership from all parts of our society and government to tackle it,” said Senator Coons.  “Putting an economy-wide price on carbon and other greenhouse gases is a comprehensive way to reduce emissions, spur innovation, and create jobs.  I am proud to introduce this legislation with my good friend Jeff Flake, who has long been a champion of market-based climate legislation since his days in the House.  I am hopeful that we will continue to have bipartisan conversations about addressing this issue.” (snip)

A one-pager on the bill is available here.

The bill text is available here.

Let’s take a quick look at that one pager

Carbon Dividend – The legislation rebates 100% of net revenues from the carbon fee to the American people as a monthly dividend. This protects consumers and the economy, maintains revenue neutrality, and offsets cost increases for most Americans, including low- and middle income Americans. An equal share is provided to all adults with a Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number and a half share is provided on account of children. Additionally, the first payment is made one month in advance so that families and households are able to cover any increased energy costs.

In essence, he and the others are admitting that this will drastically skyrocket the cost of living for low and middle income Americans. So Government gives money to citizens, which makes them more reliant to Government, and more under the thumb of Government. Funny how that works.

Apparently, getting serious about ‘climate change’ means artificially increasing the cost of living, hosing the middle and lower classes, and increasing the power and scope of the federal government.

This will, of course, never see the light of day in the GOP run US Senate.

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

56 Responses to “Coons, Flake Introduce National Carbon Tax”

  1. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear William:

    I think you could do the world a great service especially Canada if you could use your influence to start a petition signed by Climatoligists or equvilant equivalent credentials who do not believe in AGW.

    This petition needs to be circulated by yourself and those who endorse it and others, to let the general public know that there is not a consensus on this topic and to refute the massive propaganda to the contrary and “The science is settled” narrative.
    Until someone like you does this, the pro AGW supporters will control the narrative and millions of carbon tax dollars will be sheared from the people of the world to no end but to enrich those behind this disgusting fraud.

    The petition could have words to the effect of the following:

    “There is no valid, replicable, scientific evidence that humans or fossil fuel emissions have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always governed Earth’s complex, frequently changing climate and weather systems.
    There is no evidence that humans can control those systems by tweaking the concentration of molecules that together represent roughly 0.042% of Earth’s atmosphere. There is no evidence that expensive, unpredictable, pseudo-renewable energy can replace the 80% fossil fuel energy that currently powers the US and world economies – certainly not without severe consequences for people and planet. Computer models, hype, hysteria, headlines and zealotry are no substitute for honest, fact-based, replicable science.”

    In the meantime, I want to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and thank you for this great resourse that you provide.
    It means a lot to me and to others.

    • Jethro says:

      It’s been done – Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition.

      31,487 “scientists” concluded:

      The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

      There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

      Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

      who do not believe in AGW

      Scientific theories are not “believed” but accepted when the evidence in toto becomes convincing. That’s when a scientific consensus forms, as is now the case with the theory of global warming.

      • formwiz says:

        There was a scientific consensus on phlogistin, too.

        Consensus mean zip without proof and there is no proof if the books are cooked (you’d think he’d get this, but he is a Lefty).

        • Jethro says:

          You keep telling the same lie over and over and over… there’s nothing to get.

          The phlogiston theory of combustion was invalidated by experiments by Lavoisier and Elizabeth Fulhame in the late 1700s.

          Since scientific theories are rarely “proven”, it’s still possible that an enterprising climate scientist will conduct experiments (or make observations) that invalidate the theory of man-made global warming. That’s why there is no “settled science”.

          • formwiz says:

            You keep telling the same lie over and over and over

            You’re telling the lie. Some nonsense about theories are not proven, so we have to go with consensus. I keep bringing up stuff that consensus said was so and then was pushed aside by a theory that invalidated it and was proven factual, and you keep saying it’s a lie

            And scientific theories must be proven if they are to be accepted as fact. Fact is something the global warmers fear since facts prove them wrong, so they give us this consensus bull we’re supposed to buy.

      • Except, all you Warmists yammer on about consensus and believing and stuff, and are unable to provide rock solid proof using the Scientific Method that the climatic changes are mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

        • Jethro says:

          Ahem… Again, what “proof” would you find convincing?

          Fact: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation warming the lower atmosphere, surface and oceans.

          Fact: The increase in atmospheric CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuels.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff
            You have to provide proof. Your causation arguments are crap.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Fact: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation warming the lower atmosphere, surface and oceans.

            Correct. As does H2O.

            Fact: The increase in atmospheric CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuels.

            Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature increase not the other way around.
            Nignorant.
            https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            Fact: The thermometers used to measure this “warmth” have been wrong because glass traps the IR.

            Fact: CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis. If we had as much as Jeffery claims, Manitoba would look like the Amazon.

            Fact: Jeffery wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit him.

          • Jethro says:

            Let’s make sure we get your point straight: Your claim is that thermometer technology is flawed and overestimates temperatures? Sunlight passes through the glass, is absorbed and re-emitted as IR, just like a mini-greenhouse? Interesting. How about a shaded thermometer? Or an electronic temperature device? Or satellites? How about a thermometer lowered into the ocean?

            Is Arctic ice also fooled by the flawed thermometers? Greenland? Antarctica? Glaciers?

            Oceans – maybe the sea surface also acts like a sheet of glass, allowing the passage of sunlight but preventing the escape of heat! You could explain the warming oceans based on either the surface becoming more glass-like or the Sun getting hotter the past few decades! You may be the scientist who explodes the global warming hoax!!

      • Phil Taylor says:

        Dear Jethro:

        Thank you for making me aware of this. I will check it out. It is important that they are Climatologists or equivalent for this to hold water.
        This Petition needs to be promoted more.
        No Politician should vote on a carbon tax without knowing the current world temperature, the 20th century average temperature or name three climatologists that believe in AGW.

        Again thank you for taking the time to bring this to my and others attention.

        • Phil Taylor says:

          Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition

          I checked this out, and I am advocating something a little better than this petition with a petition with verified Climatologists signing it with a clear statement that is defended against slander and ridicule.
          Ask any “believer” of AGW what the current global temperature is this year, last year or the year before, and they will not know.
          They also do not know by how much the world had warmed or cooled since 1948 when Co2 started to rise.
          What is worse is either do their politicians who voted in a carbon tax, that has robbed millions of dollars from a trusting public and put into the hands of the nonproductive and undeserving.

      • StillAlive says:

        Did you even read this petition. This is a petition against AGW not for.

        Scientific theories are not “believed” but accepted when the evidence in toto becomes convincing. That’s when a scientific consensus forms, as is now the case with the theory of global warming.

        So despite 32000 scientists saying their is no consensus you say their is a consensus. Amazing.

        When you look deep into this you will find hundreds of NOAA, NASA and IPCC ex executives who have come to the conclusions that the modeling is so far off base, the figures cooked that it is inconceivable to even think about reaching a consensus based upon their research.

        In addition Roger Pielke a chief leader of the AGW movement a couple years ago said their is no proof to support the AGW claims only slowly mounting evidence. In fact he said their is no evidence at all to suggest storms are worse, damages are more or that there is any reason to believe weather is more intense than in the past. In fact hurricanes…his words not mine…HAVE DECREASED SINCE 1900, not increased.

        • Jethro says:

          Did I read it?? I extracted and posted part of it. The 32,000 signatories have been shown to be a collection of non-scientists, complete frauds, made up names, with a few legitimate climate scientists sprinkled in.

          Dr. Pielke is right. Of course there is no proof for the theory of global warming, only mounting evidence. That’s the way science works!

          He also said: “I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax.”

          • formwiz says:

            there is no proof for the theory of global warming, only mounting evidence. That’s the way science works!

            Did you even go to school or just to Commie camp?

        • formwiz says:

          If there is no proof, then it does not exist.

          Come back in a few centuries. Maybe there will be proof by then.

          And the word is there, not the possessive.

  2. Professor Hale says:

    Senators who retired and only have a few days left in office should not be “introducing” anything. He has zero political capital at this point.

  3. Kye says:

    Any American legislator who proposes any carbon related tax or rebate should be taken out to Pennsylvania Ave. and hanged for treason.

    • Jethro says:

      We assume you’re being dramatic, but most Trump supporters agree with you.

      It’s what any fascist worth his or her salt would support.

      • formwiz says:

        It’s not treason.

        However, turned loose among people trying to find the money to heat their homes would be justice in kind.

        PS Jeffery supports mob rule, but only if the Lefties do the hanging.

        • Phil Taylor says:

          Facists are left wing. Nazis are left wing. (stands for national socialism)
          Massive propaganda managed to rebrand them as right wing.
          They are still ideologies that promote the use of government to enforce it’s agenda.

  4. Formerlib says:

    One word: France.

  5. ns says:

    Did Coons and Flake get this from Canada? (Link: https://www.thepiratescove.us/2018/10/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-scheme-that-will-give-canadians-more-of-their-own-money-or-something/)
    There are many things problematic with this, one of which is that I don’t believe them when they say it won’t hurt the consumer/taxpayer. Even with a rebate check, there will be other costs that will be incurred. The fuel companies that collect the tax have keep records, adding a cost that is passed on to the consumer and not rebated by anyone. Government bureaucrats also have to track this, incurring another cost. And how is the size of the rebate calculated? The taxpayer may have another form to fill out.

    Much of this was covered in the other discussion. I’m always amazed that these ideas keep buzzing around like mosquitos.

    • Kye says:

      It’s all about control, ns. The left just loves control. It’s an historical fact. And they never give up because they don’t have to. It costs them nothing to advance their agenda but costs us time and money just to slow it down. Hell, they now have a movie about that communist moron Ruth Bader Ginsberg coming out making her some sort of American hero instead of the filthy anti-American traitor she is. Plus this week on “Madam Secretary” it’s all about “separating children from their parents” like we haven’t been doing that with prisoners since time immemorial. They just keep it up, keep it up. It’s a constant din of leftism and if anyone to the right of Stalin says something they are doxed, deplatformed or “renounced” like they are under Pol Pot or Mao.

      • Jethro says:

        The left just loves control.

        From the commenter who just recommended hanging legislators who propose carbon taxes.

        Ruth Bader Ginsburg… filthy anti-American traitor

        Should she also be hanged for being a traitor?

        if anyone to the right of Stalin says something they are doxed, deplatformed or “renounced”

        Not true, but even if so they’re not hanged. There is no right against being criticized.

        “Madam Secretary”… about “separating children from their parents”

        Do you recommend conservative control of television programming?

        Overall, it seems like you support Stalinist, Pol Pot, Maoist ideology more than any liberal does.

        What should we do with gays and the transgendered? Should we have mandatory Christian prayer in school? Ban the teaching of evolution and global warming?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Doubt the little negro fella will get it…

          https://tinyurl.com/yb6bp4v9

          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • formwiz says:

          What she’s done isn’t treason, but she’s an accessory in the murders of millions of children, especially black children.

          Kye wants to hang her for murder, you can make a very good case.

          Actually, the Lefties dox a lot of people just out of their own hatred (these are the people who have nothing but hate BTW); if it’s anyone to the right of Stalin, so be it.

          Do you recommend conservative control of television programming?

          I certainly do, if only because TV was better back in the 50s when the Commies lived in fear.

          It seems like you support Stalinist, Pol Pot, Maoist ideology more than any liberal does

          Go up on Twat some time or look at the comment boards on any Lefty blog. We’d all be in Dach-on-the-Brazos if people like you had their way.

          What should we do with gays and the transgendered? Should we have mandatory Christian prayer in school? Ban the teaching of evolution and global warming?

          What we did with them before, nothing. And prayer in school was never a bad thing. The atheist who demanded it ended up murdered, no there’s something to conjure.

          And evolution was taught in school the last 80 years, so your Lefty talking points are off.

          • Jethro says:

            Abortion isn’t murder. It’s a legal and regulated procedure. Do you think all supporters of legal abortion should be charged with murder and hanged?

            Do you think “doxing” is a bad thing?

            I don’t read comments on liberal blogs, but I’ll take your word for it that some advocate violence. We see it on con blogs too. (see above).

            The atheist who demanded it ended up murdered, no there’s something to conjure.

            Not sure what your implication is. O’Hare, her son and granddaughter were kidnapped, robbed, murdered and dismembered by a career criminal and gun nut. The murderer died in prison.

            Are you suggesting that good conservative, Christians might be provoked to murder atheists?

            In 1960, Murray filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore City Public School System (Murray v. Curlett), naming her son William as plaintiff. She challenged the city school system’s practice of requiring students to participate in Bible readings at the city’s public schools. She said her son’s refusal to participate had resulted in bullying by classmates and that administrators condoned this behavior. After consolidation with Abington School District v. Schempp, the lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1963. The Court voted 8–1 in Schempp’s favor, saying that mandatory public Bible readings by students were unconstitutional. Prayer in schools other than Bible-readings had been ruled as unconstitutional the year before by the Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962).

            Do you think (and hope) that the new SC will reverse these rulings?

            Cons opposed gay marriage and work overtime to make life difficult for the transgendered. That’s not ‘nothing’.

            Would you prefer that evolution not be taught? How about the Red states that now leave it out of textbooks?

  6. Jl says:

    This must be Flake’s final audition for that CNN job after he retires….He’ll be paraded around as a “conservative”.

  7. formwiz says:

    Let’s make sure we get your point straight: Your claim is that thermometer technology is flawed and overestimates temperatures?

    If you want it that way, but it’s more like the physics. Glass holds the rads.

    Sorry.

    Another lie shot to Hell.

    • Jethro says:

      You type a lot of breathtaking nonsense, but that’s the most breathtaking evah!!

      Glass holds the rads.

      And that’s the reason it ‘appears’ the Earth is warming?

      Also, did you ever admit that TEACH actually did type his support for expanded background checks?

      • david7134 says:

        Jeff,
        It does not matter about warming or CO2. Your solution was high tax destruction of the western economy and global communism. Europe ended that dream. Winnimg, MAGA.

      • formwiz says:

        No, that’s science.

        It’s been measured and proven. It doesn’t appear the Earth is warming, because it isn’t.

        And link the post where teach agreed with you.

        • Jethro says:

          I didn’t say TEACH agreed with me, I said he typed that he supported expanded background checks even for private transactions.

          You can search for on your own, or TEACH can just verify it.

          TEACH also claims the Earth is warming. Do you disagree with him?

  8. Dana says:

    Mr Bodine wrote:

    Do you think all supporters of legal abortion should be charged with murder and hanged?

    Not the supporters, but everyone who participates in an abortion, from the woman who has it, to the man who drives her to the clinic, to the ‘doctor’ who performs the murder, to the nurse who assists, to the clerk who bills for the procedure, should be charged with premeditated murder and imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. The only exception should be in the very few cases in which continuation of the pregnancy poses a near-immediate threat to the life of the mother, since if the pregnancy kills the mother, it will kill her unborn child along with her. Even in those cases, the child should be delivered alive if possible.

    • Jethro says:

      In the US, abortion is not murder.

      No exceptions for rape or incest? You would force a 14 year old impregnated by her Uncle Porter to go to term?

      How would you differentiate between natural abortion (miscarriage) and induced abortion? After all, 1/4th to 1/3rd of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most very early. And millions of fertilized ova never implant and are flushed without the woman even knowing she had been fertilized.

      How would you regulate misoprostol and mifepristone? Morning after pills?

      • formwiz says:

        Rape and incest consist of less than 1% of abortions.

        And, just because some old guys in black dresses had an emanation, doesn’t keep abortion from being murder.

        A few other old guys in black dresses said slavery was cool.

        That didn’t stop a lot of people from saying, “Up yours”.

        And also did something about it

        1/4th to 1/3rd of all pregnancies end in miscarriage

        Sure, more of your global warming data, no doubt. Again, I see no data to back it up.

        Wotta surprise!

        • Jethro says:

          Rape and incest consist of less than 1% of abortions.

          So you would make exceptions for rape and incest?

          • gitarcarver says:

            So you would make exceptions for rape and incest?

            So if an exception for rape and incest is made, you would be willing to say that abortion should be illegal in other cases?

          • gitarcarver says:

            No.

            Of course not.

            So the ploy of “incest and rape” is just that – a ploy. It is not part of a serious discussion on abortion.

            All the left has is hate.

          • Jethro says:

            So the ploy of “incest and rape” is just that – a ploy. It is not part of a serious discussion on abortion.

            non sequitir…

            Would you force rape and incest victims to give birth under threat of imprisonment? We’re just trying to plumb the depths of depravity of the hateful anti-abortionists.

          • gitarcarver says:

            By the way Jeffery, here is a short list of people whose lives you would have gleefully ended because of the circumstances in which they were conceived:

            Eartha Kitt.
            Zahara Jolie-Pitt
            Jesse Jeckson
            Layne Beachley
            Kelly Wright
            Faith Daniels
            Janet Sheen
            Ethel Waters
            Valerie Gatto

            All of the above people were conceived by a rape.

            You would have killed them all and made the world a lesser place.

            THAT’S the depth of your depravity.

            THAT’S the depth of your hate.

            That’s all the left has – hate.

          • Jethro says:

            Supporting legal abortions forces no one to have an abortion.

            If a woman is impregnated by a rapist she can choose to have the baby. It’s a choice. I’m sure some women choose just that.

            It’s likely too that 14 year old girls have been forced to have their father’s, their brother’s, their uncle’s child.

            Would you prefer these women and girls have no choice?

          • gitarcarver says:

            Supporting legal abortions forces no one to have an abortion.

            Except on the aborted child, which in your zeal for more blood, you are happy to kill.

            If a woman is impregnated by a rapist she can choose to have the baby. It’s a choice. I’m sure some women choose just that.

            So you believe that people have the right or ability to say which innocent life has value and which innocent life should be killed.

            As I said, you would have supported the killing of many people who have made this country and this world a better place.

            That’s the result of hate.

            You look at a child and hate them.

            All the left has is hate.

            That’s really what this comes down to. You believe that life and children have no value. Pro-life people know that innocent lives do have value.

          • Jethro says:

            Thanks for the discussion. Happy Holidays…

  9. gitarcarver says:

    non sequitir…

    It is a logical conclusion based on your own statement.

    Would you force rape and incest victims to give birth under threat of imprisonment?

    Well, here we go again. Those are those on the that left feel that they have the right to decide who lives and dies. Instead of each life being unique and precious, the left feels they have the right to say “you’re not worth anything as a human being so we think you should die, ending your innocent life.” They want to kill an child based on a value sick “value judgement” that only some children had the right to live.

    We’re just trying to plumb the depths of depravity of the hateful anti-abortionists.

    If you want to look at depravity, look at those who, like yourself, think that only certain lives are worth anything. Look in the mirror and see the person who in that depravity supports the killing of innocent children.

    The fact of the matter is that the so called “argument” of “would you support abortion in the case of rape and incest” don’t care about the answer one bit. To them, (to you), there is no difference between ending the life of a child conceived in less than ideal situations and a child that is conceived in perfect “loving” conditions.

    You hate life. You hate children. All the left has is hate.

    • Jethro says:

      I feel bad for you. It’s clear you have strong feelings driving your hatred of those who disagree with you.

      Is there some constructive way you can channel your rage? Foster a child? Volunteer work? Advocate for children?

      You’re clearly not going to change any minds. It is possible that your movement will succeed and outlaw most abortions. Of course many will still take place, even if illegal.

      “Less than ideal” conditions is how you describe rape and incest?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    I feel bad for you. It’s clear you have strong feelings driving your hatred of those who disagree with you.

    Project much?

    I don’t hate anyone Jeffery. Certainly not like you hate all the people with whom you disagree. That is clear from your many postings on this blog.

    Is there some constructive way you can channel your rage? Foster a child? Volunteer work? Advocate for children?

    I am advocating for children in opposing those who would kill them. You know, people like you.

    As for volunteering, it’s not a competition, but I know my resume on this is longer than yours.

    You’re clearly not going to change any minds.

    Clearly you are wrong as I have in the past. What I may not change is your mind and your desire for the blood of innocents. That, however, is on you and not me.

    We all get it, Jeffery, you would kill even your own kids who were conceived by a self admitted rapist. Maybe that is why you hate kids so much,

    Or maybe it is just because all you have is hate.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6265 access attempts in the last 7 days.