But most of the political left sees it differently. When they look at carbon pricing they see a big new revenue stream that can be used to fund all the things they have been unable to get in a period of conservative (or neoliberal) political dominance. They want infrastructure, mass transit, community development projects and environmental restoration, and for them returning the money is unthinkable. So the left in Washington State, including unions, social justice organizations and most of the environmental activist community, opposed 732, denouncing it as a corporate subterfuge. A carbon tax is always going to face headwinds, but with the left as well as much of the right in opposition, it was doomed.
So here we are again, looking at another round of state carbon tax initiatives for 2018. The group that organized the left campaign against 732, the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, is drafting their version, which will surely funnel most of the money to the causes (and in some cases the organizations) of their constituents. But, perhaps in a play to get a bigger voice in the process, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, an umbrella group of 57 tribal governments in the region, has just announced it has begun drafting its own initiative, one that earmarks most of the money for environmental purposes, with a chunk dedicated to the tribes. The prospect is for heated backroom meetings, where the leadership of various organizations push and pull to divvy up the potential carbon cash. Whether the product of this process can survive at the polls is another question.
As I’ve written before here and elsewhere, I’m appalled at this deformation of carbon politics. It doesn’t take into account who pays the carbon tax and the effect higher energy prices will have on living standards. It naively assumes that governments will spend carbon money only on new projects and not shift existing spending in order to free up more funds for whatever they really want to finance. There is no pretense of democracy in the way it establishes its earmarks. And it puts the fight to get a piece of carbon revenues ahead of the urgent need to address the climate crisis, with predictable political consequences. Revenue recycling in the simplest, most transparent fashion is the way to go, but if there are to be earmarks they should be decided democratically.
The politics of carbon activism are tangled in knots, and year after year goes by without serious action to avert an almost unimaginable climate catastrophe.
Peter,
Why is a regressive Carbon tax any different than the regressive sales taxes and gasoline taxes? Not that I favor the fact that all these texes are regressive, among many others, but why pick on the regressvive carbon tax and not the others?
For that matter a reduction in the progressiveness of income tax is just as much an increase in the regressiveness of that tax… e.g. Reagan’s tax cuts on earned and unearned income for the wealthy as one example..
While I realize the carbon tax proposals are new and therefor a reason to highlight their regressiveness and propose rebates, or other features to make them less regressive, I can’t help but ask why not make the other taxes less regressive as well….
Indeed, what are the objective measures of the regressiveness of sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and carbon taxis with respect to one another? Is one any more or less regressive than another, and if so then what are the differences in regressivenss of each? I can’t see the difference in one to the other — they all tax according to proportional use.
Or is it that perhaps you place a greater priority on regressive carbon taxes for some reason than you do on regressive sales and gasoline taxes?
Peter,
You also stated:
“The prospect is for heated backroom meetings, where the leadership of various organizations push and pull to divvy up the potential carbon cash. Whether the product of this process can survive at the polls is another question.”
Isn’t this just the ‘democratic process’ at work, precisely as it was designed to and has always worked?
Are you suggesting another way and if so what is it? Or is this just a complaint of one of thousands of faults with democracies? : Perhaps a committee of unaffiliated non-political experts should be appointed… but then we’re back to how these people get appointed ion the first place and I’m not sure how this is done without introducing political biases and ideologies int othe process of selection.. not to mention having to then pass muster in congress … unless of course this committed has dictatorial power… in which case then we’re not discussing a democratic form of gov’t but a change n the form of gov’t …. which is another ball of wax.t
“….most of the political left sees it differently. When they look at carbon pricing they see a big new revenue stream that can be used to fund all the things they have been unable to get”
“The prospect is for heated backroom meetings, where the leadership of various organizations push and pull to divvy up the potential carbon cash. ”
“It naively assumes that governments will spend carbon money only on new projects and not shift existing spending in order to free up more funds for whatever they really want”
I applaud Peter Dorman for his insight and honesty. Global Warming (TM) is nothing but a big scam, and people are on to it. It will go down in history as the greatest hoax of all time.
Sammy,
I will probably die before I get to hear you reverse your beliefs on anthropomorphic global warming., but I’m hopeful that the latter will occur before the former. However I also think it’s possible that you will incant “god did it .. so it wasn’t caused by humans” to avoid admission of your error in belief that science is wrong.
I’m reminded that if humans had followed your belief systems then we would still think the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. therefore North America wouldn’t been discover yet and thus not produced the U.S. and we’d still think that anybody who isn’t white is racially an inferior human species or perhaps even still not human…. and this would also mean we’d still have slavery since the industrial revolution wouldn’t have occurred, .. no cell phones, TV’s cars, or computers… but we’d still have beer (mead), wine, and pot to keep us happy I suppose living in our peasant huts..
LT,
5, max 10 years before the canard is fully revealed. Hopefully you’ll make it that far 🙂
As far as my scientific prowess is concerned, maybe you could throw some shade at Richard Linzden, whose views are exactly the same as mine:
“Lindzen’s pioneering research in atmospheric dynamics has led to his conclusion that the sensitivity of surface temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is considerably below that necessary to generate disastrous climate change.” https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen
For a full list of his scientific credentials see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Another Major Study Confirms The IPCC’s Climate Models Were Wrong
“The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, provides more confirmation the climate models are running too hot and could not predict the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/18/another-major-study-confirms-the-ipccs-climate-models-were-wrong/
Sammy, this isn’t the forum to discuss and debate credible and incredible information on Climate change issues. But in case you want to use sources besides CATO and Daily Caler or and What’s Up with That, I offer this for your enlightenment.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-major-global-defended.html
With that I’ll leave this topic for a more appropiante forum..
LT,
The point is that most of these carbon taxes, etc. will fail is because large numbers of people don’t believe in AGW. They can do their own research on the issue, thanks to the internet, and don’t have to be sheeple ready to be shorn.
Lindzen is a lying ah.
Everyone knows it.