Finally a media outlet crunches the numbers on the two competing methods to reduce carbon emissions: a tax on carbon emissions, or a cap-and-trade proposals to compel action from business. I prefer the former because (if it included give-backs to the poor, who would suffer the most) a carbon tax would do the best job of asking for sacrifice from everyone.
But unsurprisingly, it’s not popular with politicians or, most likely, the people. Heck, back in l992, the Clinton-Gore administration proposed a carbon tax of approximately 4 cents a gallon, which was unanimously rejected by Republicans as "inflationary." Ah, the good old days.
I also like this story from the Wall Street Journal because it includes solid stats, and gets to the heart of the insincerity of John Dingell, the Democratic representative from Detroit, who has proposed a carbon tax, but mostly to drive a stake through it’s heart.
Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.) is expected to introduce one this fall,
though he has said the bill is an attempt to show how unpopular such a
tax would be. "I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing
to pay what this is really going to cost them," he said in a
cable-television interview.
Tomorrow I’m off to the southern Sierra, out of range of the Internet, believe it or don’t. But I’ll leave some posts behind, because I’m addicted to blogging. Wish me beauty…
Kit Stolz 