Rep. Dingell proposes tax on fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Rep. John Dingell (D-Dearborn, MI) has created a legislative proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as by 60 to 80 percent in 2050. How? By creating a tax on fuels and CO2 emissions. The amount: $50 per ton of CO2 and 50 cents a gallon for gasoline. It will include the elimination of tax exemptions for large homes as well. Dingell also supports the Hill-Terry initiative that is trying to raise mileage standards by 40 percent in 2022."In order to reduce greenhouse gases and make the planet safe and healthy for future generations it will take a significant investment from all of us," Dingell said. "A fee on carbon emissions requires a tithe from all citizens and industries, but no one entity will be unfairly leveled with a devastating burden. More importantly, it provides an incentive for change in our economy and our way of life. I welcome public input on how this policy proposal can best balance our environmental and economic concerns and I look forward to receiving feedback."
Citizens can add their feedback on his Congress webpage (follow the Read link). However, the question is how this initiative will move ahead as next year elections approach?
Related:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Peter 7:31PM (9/27/2007)
A great idea from a very surprising source.
Reply
SRVfan 7:56PM (9/27/2007)
Leave to the Dems, especially Rep. Dingell(berry) to try and solve a (supposed) problem the only way they know.... by taxes! He's obviously took a drink of the Kool Aid by believing in human-caused Global warming (recently changed to "climate change" so no matter which way it goes, the greenie-weenies will say they were right.) He says it right in his article that: "it provides an incentive for change in our economy and our way of life." Yep.... sure will! And, of course, he won't change HIS way of life, but he sure thinks that he (and others) think of ways YOU have to change YOUR life.
Reply
mike 9:18PM (9/27/2007)
So, SVR, I suppose your position is 6.7 BILLION people, and the coal pollution of China have Nothing to Do with it?
What Crack Pipe are You Smoking.
Reply
GoodCheer 11:41PM (9/27/2007)
My impression is that he floated this proposal to illustrate the opposition it would face. Does somebody have some background on this?
I for one think it's a great idea. There are real costs to society for the crap we nonchalantly pour into the air (I believe economists call them 'externalities' or some such). The arctic is melting and the oceans are getting warmer, fresher, and more acidic as atmospheric CO2 skyrockets. Such a meaningful tax on 'carbon' would have the double benefit of making consumers think more about efficiency, and it would serve as a subsidy for any form of renewable energy.
Reply
benny_brad 9:25AM (9/28/2007)
Oh, Democrats, why do you hate your country so much?
Reply
Golden Boy 9:33AM (9/28/2007)
I'd be open to it if his proposal was revenue neutral, perhaps a cut in marginal tax rates to roughly equal out the increase. But no, it's just another Democrat looking to raise taxes to fritter away on pennywhistles and moonpies.
Reply
Snark 10:06AM (9/28/2007)
"Oh, Democrats, why do you hate your country so much?"
Oh, conservatives, why do you so avidly search for ways to continue crapping on everybody?
Reply
bill 10:26AM (9/28/2007)
The race is on between the rapidly crumbling global warming platform and the opportunities to fleece the American public of even more tax dollars to combat a bogus problem. It is funny how the flow of money to solve a problem must go from tax payers to government instead of from government to tax payers via lower tax rates. Somehow we need to come up with a way to hold politician criminally responsible for fiscal boondoggles.
Reply
Benny Bradshaw 10:23AM (9/28/2007)
This kind of tax will harm the American economy, American jobs, and what is left of American inductry without doing anything to stop Chinese, Central American, and Indian pollution.
If the tax were solely dedicated to acheiving American energy independence like building nuclear power plants in the US and installing solar power panels on every roof in the US, then I could agree to it. American energy independence is the first step to stopping global warming. Once the US is not dependent on energy from 3rd world theocracies and dictatorships, then the lower oil prices will starve out those leaders, stop terrorism, and allow the US to aid their people, and stop wasting money on wars.
Unfortunately the Democrats will probably spend the money on benefits for illegal immigrants.
Reply
bill 10:27AM (9/28/2007)
Oh Snark, how can you be so miserably misinformed. Your best friends are conservatives unless your idea of living is receiving as many government handouts as possible so you can sit on your sorry rearend all the live long day.
Reply
MikeW 11:24AM (9/28/2007)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241&q=global+governance&total=119&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
interesting take.
Reply
Kevin 12:34PM (9/28/2007)
The United States needs to be energy independent. We need conservation and new technologies to do this, and one of the fastest ways to do this is to have a strong disincentive for energy waste. I love the idea of a carbon tax. This would immediately spur energy conservation (you couldn’t afford not to). It would also place very strong incentives on energy efficient products and technologies in the market place. Like it or not the free market is the bet place for this to happen. Government regulations always have loopholes some place and they tend to discourage innovation. I mean who thinks the government does anything well?
The conservative in me wants to see this new tax as revenue neutral and replacing the current arcane tax structure. However, I would be willing to see a small tax increase just to get this thing off the ground. Start the tax at $25 a ton. Take the first $10-20 a ton to fund new technologies. Increase the tax by $25 each year, and use the increase in the carbon tax to replace the current income tax structure, and continue to increase the carbon tax annually at least until energy independence is reached. I would not mind paying $20 a gallon for gasoline if I had no income tax to pay and I new the US was energy independent.
I firmly believe it is my patriotic duty to help this country become energy independent. I drive a hybrid, I’m saving for a wind turbine, and I can’t wait for a plug in biodiesel hybrid.
Reply
gnoble 12:53PM (9/28/2007)
The problem with these sorts of taxes is that they marginalize lower income groups. A lot of people right now can barely afford to drive (it is one of the biggest expenses for households) and making it 17% more expensive each time you fill up is going to make it even more of a burden.
Although less people should be driving around, a lot of people need their cars to get to and from work. Lower income groups also tend to have to travel farther to work and live in places where transit is far less accessible.
And since when did autobloggreen turn into such a conservative hangout??!
Reply
gsolman6 1:24PM (9/28/2007)
I would support it especially if they scrap CAFE in the process.
As for low income people it will effect them more but there are so many places where individuals can reduce their energy consumption that aren't being looked at.
Reply
Kevin 5:31PM (9/28/2007)
Just because you conservative you don,t want to save money (energy) or the environment? Give us some credit.
Reply
Kevin J 5:39PM (9/28/2007)
Just because your conservative you don't want to save money (energy) or the environment? Give us some credit.
Reply
Tim 9:22AM (9/29/2007)
Silly tax & spend Repulicrats or are they Democans? Are there no TRUE conservatives left or is everyone in Washington drunk on money & power?
Reply
mike 9:31PM (9/28/2007)
As for the Chinese,
we can sit back and wait for Peking( or what ever it's called ) to flood. The communist government will be overthrown and then the next government will shut down the coal plants.
There's also a water and clean air shortage in China right now. You can simply place your bets about when that government will be overthrown.
But, no, we don't have to wait for the Chinese.
Reply
Chris M 1:02AM (9/29/2007)
Look, government provides many essential services, including maintaining roads, bridges levees, etc. That requires money, either from taxes or from borrowing. You may gripe about "tax and spend liberals", but considering the huge debt and the substantial interest payments to be made on that debt, it's obvious that "borrow and spend conservatives" are far far worse than any "taxer" could be.
Reply