At Last, It Begins: Real, Substantive Debate on 2009 Climate Legislation
Before President-elect Obama's cabinet is named -- even before we know who the next Senators from Minnesota or Georgia will be -- jockeying for position on 2009 climate legislation is well underway on Capitol Hill. Detailed intellectual cases and functioning coalitions are getting built now, not just for the idea that we need robust climate legislation fast - that's already widely accepted and anticipated in Washington - but for which specific mechanisms will deliver the biggest, fastest impact on carbon emissions and the economy.
Significantly, these discussions aren't all taking place behind closed doors, but in full public view, for example at a public Hill briefing December 9 with carbon tax supporters like NASA scientist James Hansen, economists Gilbert Metcalf and Robert Shapiro, Canadian public affairs expert James Hoggan, and Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn., 1st district), who has just been elected chair of the House Democratic Caucus, and who introduced an early piece of carbon tax legislation into the House. The public can attend, along with Congressional members and staff -- details here.
If introducing a new tax on carbon seems like a quixotic political battle in a time of historic economic and fiscal crisis, then you're out of touch. The economic crisis has in fact given it a big boost, and in this crisis-ridden political environment, the carbon tax is an increasingly formidable competitor to cap-and-trade schemes.
The latter work by creating trillions of dollars' worth of complex, tradeable instruments, and public faith in market gurus to make such trading efficient, or in government agencies to regulate them, is at an all-time low.
Critics point out lots of places to hide in the cumbersome trading scheme, witness 800-pages of special interest potlatches in the DOA Warner Lieberman bill, whereas a carbon tax is as inexorable as... taxes.
Crisis-driven volatility in oil prices has proven what advocates of gasoline taxes and energy taxes have said all along: price spikes may come and go, but if we don't somehow tax wasteful use of carbon fuels, the highs will just put windfalls in the pockets of oil producers and do nothing for American interests, either for energy independence or for getting control of our emissions. A carbon tax would put an effective floor under the price of gas, help smooth volatility, cut into the windfall profits of producers during price spikes, and as prices fall off the highs, keep oil consumers from going, as President-elect Obama recently said, from shock back into trance.
Perhaps most appealing of all amid the economic crisis is the fact that a carbon tax could be kept revenue-neutral. That would allow us to pay as we go to curb emissions; and wouldn't entail any huge government outlays or bureaucracies to get addicted to the revenue. Along with the increase in energy prices, carbon tax revenues would be big, but the money would be given right back to taxpayers, whether in the form of direct payments like Alaskans get for oil production, or in the form of a progressive tax cuts like cutting or eliminating payroll taxes, as progressives like Al Gore and even conservatives like T. Boone Pickens have proposed.
Payroll taxes are the biggest, most regressive taxes 80% of Americans pay, and a big drag on employment since they artificially raise hiring costs. Cutting them would both put money back into the pockets of middle-class and working-class families, and take the self-imposed brakes off job creation.
If you're President-elect Obama and you've promised to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011, and to lower taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year, while finding the means for a meaningful economic stimulus and major reductions in carbon emissions, that has got to sound good.
If you're a concerned citizen who has been waiting for years for the political static to clear, and some real, productive grappling with meaningful climate legislation to begin, this is your moment. You can weigh in, sign petitions, write letters to Congress, attend that Hill briefing, and generally be part of substantive, small-d democratic debate about serious climate legislation at the Price Carbon Campaign.
Dan Rosenblum is the co-director of the Carbon Tax Center, www.carbontax.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, I will retire to other endeavors now. It was fun. Less a debate and more of a- I don't know exactly.
MG, we tried to convince Michale, but I think it would be easier to convince a lion to become a vegetarian.
Anyway, Mike, if I am wrong about warming then it will be the first time I was wrong about anything. And after all, it is all about you, buddy!
No way I could be wrong! No way! If I am wrong than God does not exist! I wrote the IPCC report after all and am a member in good standing of the vast global warming conspiracy!
Michale, where's your evidence?
It is rather warm outside right now. That fact alone proves man-made warming. Ha!
It was 27 degrees here in Florida a couple days ago..
That fact alone disproves Global Warming..
You see the point??
Michale.....
Only I was kidding!
Michale, there is no way I could be wrong about warming. I am a seer!
That's my point..
Your beliefs are based on faith, not science..
You're like the group long ago that knew for a fact the earth was flat...
Michale.....
No, my beliefs are not based on religion, but I read the tea leaves and make pronouncements about the future.
@Michale,"your beliefs are based on faith, not science" !! What???? With that statement, you just destroyed the last shred of credibility you had left. Answer me this, do you believe in evolution, or creationism?
Actually, your right, my beliefs are based on faith.... in the scientists. Riddle me this,how can you argue the science when don't believe the scientists?
Al Gore did not make the global warming movement about God. He is god!
@realpolitic
}}}
Yes, Michale, let's hear some evidence and from a legitimate scientific source and not some blog!
{{{
Well, why not start with the SCIENCE that shows Arctic Sea Ice is on the increase...
Start with that and we'll go from there...
Michale.....
Yes, Michale the ice tends to increase in winter. Does that dispute warming?
It does if it's 2 years running...
30% more ice this year than last year....
Michale...
@realpolitic
}}}}
You want a simple yes or no answer! OK, yes or no! More likely, yes!
{{{{
OK.. FINALLY..
You said.. YES.. You COULD be wrong about Human Caused Global Warming...
OK Great.
So, you concede that the science IS in dispute....
And that has been my whole point all along..
The science IS in dispute..
So, doesn't it make sense to determine FIRST if there IS actually a problem before implementing solutions on how to "fix" the alleged problem????
Michale.....
No, I did not mean yes I may be wrong. I meant yes I am likely right!
Who disputes warming besides you and that blog you keep referencing?
@realpolitic
Why are you afraid of answering the question??
I wasn't....
I can tell you why... Because your "religion" is based on one thing and one thing only.. Faith.. And your faith-based "religion" won't allow any doubts...
Now, REAL science is all about doubt. REAL science is all about questioning the accepted, the status quo and striving for more information, more data, more understanding...
But, like the religious fanatic, you don't drive for understanding. Your fanatical belief in the status quo is what drives you.
Hence, you simply CANNOT say that there is doubt... Your "religion" requires blind obedience...
That explains why you cannot answer a simple YES or NO question with a simple YES or NO..
Michale....
Yes, my belief in global warming is based on religion and volumes of scientific evidence and thousands of studies that are a source for the IPCC Synthesis Report.
Believing in religion is not necessarily believing n the status quo. Scientists worked really hard to arrive at a consensus, in the face of well-funded industry campaigns to discredit the science. If there are studies which contradict the current scientific consensus and undermine tthen let them be published. Any scientist that can prove disprove human induced warming will doubtles be famous historically.
For now, enough evidence is in that it is a much greater use of resources to figure out how to slow warming. In the meantime, the scientific studies continue.
And really, as MG says you really have been the one arguing like a religious fanatic and not me. You have not offered anything at all to prove your point except a misinterpreted graph and that the ice extent is slightly higher this year than last.
That's the difference between you and I..
You are trying like hell to prove that you are right..
I am simply showing, by providing countering evidence, that you COULD be wrong..
That's why you can never win this debate...
Because, like a religious fanatic arguing their belief in god, there will always be sound scientific evidence that shows they might be wrong..
But it's evidence that they refuse to accept. Much as you refuse to accept any evidence that shows your "faith" is misplaced...
Michale.....
@MGhamma
I wonder if you can possibly see the delicious irony in these two statements..
}}}}
I use you to point out how empty the denier arguement is.
{{{{
and
}}}
It really isn't all about you.
{{{
So, on the one hand, you claim to "use" me, but on the other, you claim it's not about me. :D
Michale.....
And next up to play grasping at straws, Michale.
I rest my case...
Michale.....
Michale, realpolitic tries to stick to the science, you on the other hand, keep trying to make it about religion. BTW, religion is about believing that which has no evidence to support it. Much like the denier arguement.
Yes, Michale, let's hear some evidence and from a legitimate scientific source and not some blog!
Actually, it was Al Gore who made the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory all about religion..
Not I....
Michale......
You're the one who keeps bringing up religion on this thread. I haven't seen a post from Al Gore on this thread yet. Unless I missed it.
@realpolitic
}}}
I would have to give a percentage answer. I would say the probability that I am right is 90% or greater and the probability that I am wrong is less than 10%.
{{{
The fact that you cannot answer a simple question simply shows the fanaticism of your arguments..
I gave a perfectly straightforward answer when MGhamma posed the question.
The fact that you cannot simply proves my point..
You are fanatical in your beliefs and simply REFUSE to postulate a scenario in which you are wrong.
Just like a religious fanatic and their belief in god..
Michale.....
I postulated a 10% scenario where I may be wrong. That is the Fox News style of argumentation limiting people to one word answers. And why are you always trying to make this about me?
Because it is you who has this fanatical belief in the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion..
Why can't you answer a simple YES or NO question with with a simple YES or NO..
Could you be wrong about your belief in the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion..
YES or NO???
Michale.....
@realpolitic
}}}}
Good point! You should be a psychologist! I'll need one too after going round amd round a thousand times with MIchale.
{{{{
Once again, we see how your point is to make things about me, rather than about the science.
Just like a religious fanatic who attacks the people who show PROOF that there is no god.. You simply refuse to concede that your "god" might not exist.
Once again, another example of how the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion is like any other religion. It requires blind obedience and unquestioning servile servitude..
Michale.....
So believing in global warming confirms my belief in god?
No... Believing in Human Caused Global warming in the fanatical manner that you do is akin to a religious fanatic who believes in their god and refuses to accept the possibility that they could be wrong..
Michale.....
@MGhamma
}}}}
Yes, there's room for rational, objective and logical dissent. I'm still waiting to see some.
{{{{
Check out all the links I have posted.
But you refuse to see it because it casts doubt on the existence of your "god". It's easier to simply convince yourself that there IS no dissent..
Michale.....
He is really hang up on this God thing. Michale, did you see the recent Bill Maher movie about his satirizing religion?
Once again, we see you trying to make the discussion about me...
Why do you constantly do that???
Michale.....
@MGhamma
}}}}}
Michale, it's not all about you, but as much as you post on the GW threads, you're certainly trying to make it all about you.
{{{{{
No, it's YOU who is trying to make it all about me..
I discuss the science and you discuss how "Michales opinion on MMGW is clearly preconceived, and all he's trying to do now is rationalize it"
So, tell me.. Who is actually making the commentaries about me??
It's obvious.. You are...
Michale......
Michale, you're representative of all deniers, and since you're the only denier commenting on the GW threads, I use you to point out how empty the denier arguement is. It really isn't all about you.
Yes, most of the deniers who post here are very similar in their thinking and rigidity. They are all so similar, even the ones who can make scientific arguments.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
