Dingell Is Right About 'No Free Lunch'

Rep. John Dingell has talked recently about proposing a startling piece of legislation to address the risk of climate change. He has suggested:

* A 50-cent tax increase on gasoline, jet fuel, and kerosene.
* A $50 per ton tax on carbon from coal and natural gas.
* A phase out of the sacred home mortgage deduction for homes over 3,000 square feet.

The carbon and fuel taxes would directly impact everything from the cost of electricity to the price of food. In Washington, he has been accused of being either crazy or intent on proposing legislation that can never pass. Given the history of the debate, I think he is, instead, doing something constructive and admirable. He is being honest with the public about "no free lunch" when it comes to climate change.

A number of political leaders, including presidential candidates, have proposed "cap-and-trade" systems and new taxes on "big corporations" and "the wealthy." This is done in an attempt to convince the general public that climate change can be addressed in ways that are free. Don't believe it! Huge hidden taxes would be paid by every consumer, every family, and every business. And for what benefit? Among the EU countries that participate in a greenhouse gas emissions trading system, only two--the UK and Sweden--are likely to meet their 2010 targets.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is skeptical of new taxes--both hidden and direct. But as we examine policy options, let's follow Chairman Dingell's lead and at least have an intellectually honest debate, with a focus on the real costs and benefits of each choice. If the government is going to impose taxes and costs, they should be fair, efficient, and transparent. And let's make sure that the money captured is used to solve core problems that benefit society, our economy, and the environment--among other things, support for new technologies, and a range of infrastructure improvements.

Successfully addressing climate change requires several elements--a global approach, the development of clean technologies, and a recognition that continued economic growth is essential to improving both the human condition and the physical environment. Solutions begin with an honest discussion--and we should all thank Chairman Dingell for taking the lead. www.uschamber.com

Comments

[hippymichele]

How about a proposal that all state and federal buildings move to zero energy (as much as some would retrofit). Think of all those rooftops for solar and parks & large government lawns for wind and geothermal. A pleasant byproduct would be that the government's inventment into alternative energy would help foster innovation and create pricing drops.

[nomoredead]

The sad reality is if pushed some of these companies will move overseas. Some already have and with corporate jets and the internet it would not be that inconvenient. I'm sure most of the executives would still spend most of their time in the US at " Meetings ". Jim Rogers, Fox contributor and co=founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros has already moved his family to Singapore and said america is not the place to be in the next decade.

[joebaggadonuts]

Tom. Thanks for showing your position to us here over and over, so that we can remember your name as global warming comes home to roost.

[Potomacker]

If there is a call for a serious and honest debate about the cost of combatting climate change, there must also be a discussion about the costs associated with maintaining the status quo. And how can anybody suggest that there are hidden taxes when taxes are being pushed forward upon succeeding generations. Yes, there are hidden taxes, like the birth tax that straddles every newborn with his share of the debt from day one, and like the hidden gasoline taxes used to fund wars that are about maintaining corporate control of oil resources and to prop up illegitimate regimes friendly to US business interests.

[SamEllison]

The Cheney tax on gas is at $2.00 right now and you lose your mortgage deduction when you pay the AMT. Fix those two problems and we have a net tax decrease. Yeah that's the ticket!

[mmckinl]

All these taxes can be phased in , faster for those who can afford them , slower for those that can't.

The important first step is to let people know , in law , that these taxes are coming so that they can make adjustments.

The most important tool will be that of an electric car that can do 55mph and has a range of 100 miles for under $10,000. The $10,000 electric car has far fewer moving parts and operates at less than 20% of the cost of a combustion engine. The technology is there and for starters taxes on combustion engines and fuel should be used to reduce the price of these vehicles. Alllowances should be made for reduced car insurance given these vehicles are less powerful and less likely to get into severe collisions.

With a cheaper vehicle operating at a fraction of cost the savings can be used to defray higher prices for other goods.

Tom Donohue is all about scare tactics. The US Chamber of Commerce has been nothing if not an enemy of the middle class and the environment.

Try this : Who killed the Electric Car ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=who+killed+the+electric+car+google+videos&btnG=Search

[zaneblue]

Manmade global warming is as proven as anything in science, and scientists are saying that human civilization will end during our children's lifetimes if something is not done immediately.

I think this is an excellent and immediate step and I pray that it is successful. I would happily pay the money, and I am lower-middle-class with a very long commute.

[Wilson33]

You are all out of your minds! Yeah, let's tax gas more and heating oil. Yeah, that's just great. And let me guess, the poor who can't afford this now will have it paid for by me, right? So now not only will my taxes go up for all of your "courageous" climate change initiatives, but it will also go up more so we can give it to the poor who wouldn't be able to live with more taxes on essentials. This would make everything go up, mostly food and we would have to subsidize that too for the poor.

Do you liberals think things through or are all of your decisions based on knee jerk reactions? What are you going to do in 10 years when we all realize that climate change was yet another attempt by the left to control peoples' lives?

How dare you even THINK about taxing people when climate change has not yet been proven to be caused by humans? THAT is where we should be honest.

[gwage]

Maybe Mr Dingell should do more to take on the big auto makers in his state then to worry about mortgage deductions and taxes on gas etc. He's been defending the auto industry long enough!

[ceu]

He may be being honest, but raising the gasoline tax on those people least able to afford it shouldn't be the way to achieve his goal. People who make minimum - or even double minimum - wage have already been hard hit by the price increases, which have resulted in massive profits for the oil companies. Given the number of people losing their homes to forclosure, many are already having to make that difficult choice of whether to have heat in cold weather, food on the table, electricity in their homes, or gas in their cars so they can earn their weekly pittance. (forget going to the doctor, that's totally unaffordable for many!)
Perhaps the proper people to be taught the "no free lunch" lesson are the CEOs and other company officials who make millions of dollars in compensation and bonuses. How about a WINDFALL PROFITS tax??
But no...that wouldn't be popular with the lobbists and donors, would it?!