Posted on 02/08/2013 6:07:57 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
In his recent inaugural address, President Obama promised that “we will respond to the threat of climate change, ..... But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet…” When pressed on the specifics of what the president means to do on climate, his spokesperson replied: “We have not proposed and have no intention of proposing a carbon tax.”
The president has a problem, and he’s not alone. Many policymakers who are compelled by the consensus of scientists on the risk of global climate disruption seem willfully oblivious to the peer-reviewed economic research on what to do about it. Indeed, they completely ignore the remarkable consensus of economists – a group that often isn’t unanimous on important policy options, ..... In this case, though, economists nearly universally agree that, while basic energy research and development remain an important role of government, a price on carbon would minimize the cost of steering economic activity away from the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten the climate. .....
In fact, in a survey of about 40 prominent economists from across the profession, 90% agreed with this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.”[1] When weighted by the level confidence the respondents had in their answers, the agreement rose to 95%.
(Excerpt) Read more at brookings.edu ...
(More from the article) "Another survey of the same prominent economists referred to a Brookings Institution description of a U.S. carbon tax of $20 per ton, increasing at 4% per year, which would raise an estimated $150 billion per year in federal revenues over the next decade.[2] A remarkable 98% of the surveyed economists, again weighted by confidence, agreed with this statement: “Given the negative externalities created by carbon dioxide emissions, a federal carbon tax at this rate would involve fewer harmful net distortions to the U.S. economy than a tax increase that generated the same revenue by raising marginal tax rates on labor income across the board.”[3] In other words, using a carbon tax to reduce the budget deficit or reduce other, more burdensome, taxes makes all the economic sense in the world. .... This pro-growth, pro-environment strategy would also obviate more costly regulations, subsidies, and mandates to reduce emissions and give the United States standing to call for equivalent measures abroad."
"The president and others should recognize the strong consensus of experts whose life’s work is to understand markets: the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is through a permanent and predictable price on carbon and responsible management of the revenue. Policymakers globally should not deny the overwhelming judgment of economists, even as they respect the overwhelming judgment of climate scientists. On this issue, we’re nearly all one-handed. "
Is there anything that taxes won’t fix??? That is their go-to solution for everything.
Patent 6904336 on Carbon Credits is held by Fannie Mae and the DNC.
another bad joke in this article. The carbon dioxide tax would filter down to everybody even the poor folks who can't afford it but the government would spend the money more responsibly? BS.
California enacted the CARB tax this year. Stay tuned...
Monetizing thin air.
Just think how easily that could be manipulated and used against those who step out of line.
So, just how does taking the lifeblood of the economy promote growth of that economy?
What a misleading title by the source. I was getting ready to bad mouth economists, then I saw that they were forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
In related News: HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan released a study proving that holding your breath improves athletic performance.
>>> Is there anything that taxes won’t fix???
That is only one half of the solution, the other half is to have public trust in gubmint handling the ‘solution’ part.
...economists are highly skeptical that clean energy subsidies and mandates will create jobs on net over the long run. New technology that involves more jobs than the technology it replaces is likely to be more expensive. So in the absence of a tax on carbon emissions, cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels will require persistent federal subsidies, money that has to come from somewhere. And even if energy technologies become export strengths of the United States, international trade tends to reallocate rather than add or subtract overall jobs in the economy.
Gee, let's see... Taxing carbon will increase prices on EVERYTHING!!! The only thing that will grow will be poverty!
Frankly, there may be some increase in tax revenues as people have to pay more in taxes on everything they need. On the other hand, it could potentially wreck the economy, as people cut back on EVERYTHING ELSE! If they don't absolutely NEED it now, they won't buy it.
I wonder what segments of the economy this will wreck, and how many businesses will be put out of business?
Mark
If you want more of something, growth for instance, the last thing you would do is tax it.
The same oddness as ‘new revenue’?
Mark
Good observation. Nowhere in the column does the author provide evidence to support the headline. All he does is provide surveys of economists that say that a carbon tax would be less harmful than raising other taxes. Not the same as a “Pro-Growth Plan”.
Orwell would be proud of these clowns... It’s simply amazing to watch their manipulation of the language and people buy into it. Scratch that. It’s scary as hell to watch.
Take a look at the founding of Brookings. Frederic A. Delano was one of the incorporators. Financed by the foundations from the get go. Brookings was a tycoon and the right hand man of Baruch on the War Industries Board during WWI. Brookings merged it with the Institute for Government Research and the Institute of Economics in 1927. IGR’s first project had been to push for a Federal budget, in which it was successful.
Hoover still produces a report, Setting National Priorities, which analyzes the President’s Budget.
Look all over the web and you’ll find people lamenting that Brookings was once “liberal” and now it’s increasingly “conservative”, which is laughable.
Brookings was and is yet another front for new world order of international banking whose original and current goal is passing commands from new world order to US politicians.
But the same thing could be said of National Review, for example, or similar mag/rag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.