Pirate's Cove

And it is totally bipartisan, you guys!

How to Cut U.S. Carbon Pollution by Nearly 40 Percent in 10 Years

In Washington, the immaculate solution to climate change has a name: a bipartisan, revenue-neutral carbon tax.

The idea should have wide appeal. Under the plan, the government would charge companies for every ton of greenhouse gas they emit. Instead of spending that money, the government would immediately send it back to Americans as a tax cut or check. Over time, Americans would make greener choices (a win for Democrats) without growing the size of the government (a win for Republicans). And so climate change would slow (a win for everyone).

The research is promising. Last week, a study from economists at Columbia University found that the tax plan with the most support in Congress would slash American carbon pollution by almost 40 percent within a decade. It would outperform any Obama-era climate policy and go well beyond the United States’ 2015 commitment under the Paris Agreement.

There’s only one hitch: the politics. There is a popular, revenue-neutral carbon-tax bill in Congress, but it is only “bipartisan” on a technicality. Dozens of Democrats support the plan. Its sole GOP backer is planning to leave politics.

So…….not so bipartisan?

That bill is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA), the subject of the recent Columbia analysis. Of its 71 co-sponsors, 70 are Democrats. Representative Francis Rooney of Florida, its only Republican co-sponsor, said in October that he would retire from Congress after the current term. His announcement came several days after he refused to rule out voting to impeach President Donald Trump. (He says the two events are unrelated.)

Is anyone shocked that Democrats are super excited about a tax? Let’s be clear, again, how this type works. Certain industries will be hit with carbon taxes, and this will cause the cost of living of citizens to skyrocket. The federal government totally promises to “refund” a portion of that rise, usually the number is 4/5ths, back to citizens from what is gained from the taxes. So, the problem that government creates they will partially solve, thereby making citizens more dependent for money from the very government that caused the problem.

The article, and the study, attempt to downplay the skyrocketing cost of living

There is one big benefit associated with high taxes: bigger checks. In 2020, every adult with a Social Security number would receive a monthly check for $50, the study projects. But after a decade, those same checks would come to roughly $275 a month, or $3,300 a year. Children with a Social Security number would receive a check half that size.

And while household energy costs would also rise under the plan, they would not grow as quickly as the checks. Most families would come out ahead. “It’s a very progressive policy, because rich people spend so much more in aggregate terms on energy than lower-income people,” Kaufman said.

That’s all great in theory, but, in practice, we know that the costs will exceed the checks, because higher energy costs and the cost of those taxes will drastically increase the cost of living well beyond those checks, and you know that government is not going to give up all that money. And, it will mean mass layoffs, people out of work, and so much more. How many businesses just leave? This is what has happened in California.

Yet look around and you’ll notice: The idea has faltered in practice. There’s still not an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States. Washington State has twice rejected a carbon tax by ballot referendum. And the “yellow vest” protests in France have been blamed on increases in fuel taxes.

That’s right, in far left Washington the taxes were shot down twice, and their governor, Jay Inslee, obtained exactly zero traction while running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with ‘climate change’ as his almost only focus. Few really care in practice. Remember, almost 70% say they will not pay even $10 a month to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry.