A Carbon Tax Hail Mary?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On both the left and the right, there are mutterings that the Senate should ditch cap-and-trade legislation in favor of a carbon tax. But is a carbon tax the silver bullet its supporters claim, or simply a product of wishful thinking? 

At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on climate policy this week, Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska  and Bob Corker of Tennessee repeatedly suggested that a carbon tax would be simpler and more transparent than a cap-and-trade scheme. Corker has also argued that a tax could return the revenues to consumers via rebates.

For carbon tax fans, these kinds of remarks are signals that their favored policy isn’t a lost cause. That’s the case made by the US Climate Task Force, a project founded by former Clinton administration officials Robert Shapiro and Elaine Kamarck.

 

Earlier this week, the group unveiled new polling data this week commissioned from Hart Research Associates, which it says shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer a carbon tax to other forms of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of respondents reported that they have not heard of either the carbon tax or cap and trade. Without hearing an explanation of the concepts, 29 percent had a negative view of cap-and-trade, while 36 percent said they have a negative view of a carbon tax. But after some explanation, 58 percent said they liked the idea of a carbon tax, compared to 27 percent who favored cap-and-trade.

These results aren’t exactly convincing. The respondents only picked the tax once they received a personal explanation of two very complex policy options. It seems like unrealistic to expect that this type of comparative explanation could be undertaken for the population at large.

And the idea that the carbon tax is suddenly politically viable seems similarly naïve. Apart from the recent comments from Corker and Murkowski, very few senators have indicated that they would vote for a carbon tax. Proposals offered by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House, and a tax-like bill  introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in the Senate have gone nowhere. For all the difficulties that cap and trade is experiencing in Congress, it has been able to attract enough votes to pass the House. The carbon tax hasn’t even come close to winning that measure of support.

Advocates of a carbon tax argue that it’s better because its simpler, and so it wouldn’t encourage the giveaways and concessions over allocations and subsidies that have watered down the cap-and-trade bills. But if lawmakers suddenly launched a carbon tax bill tomorrow, there would be the same scramble by industry groups to carve out loopholes and exceptions. “Coal interests would have the same reaction to a tax that they would be to cap-and trade,” said David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center, at the hearing. “They would be looking for exceptions. A tax approach sounds simple when your talking about it from a theoretical standpoint, but you’re going to confront exactly the same considerations that you’re talking about with a cap.” The biggest problem here isn’t with cap and trade. Its with the special interest-driven politics of the US Congress.

 

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT:

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't find elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't find elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate