{"id":15743,"date":"2017-02-28T15:25:02","date_gmt":"2017-02-28T20:25:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/?p=15743"},"modified":"2017-02-28T15:25:02","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T20:25:02","slug":"crossing-the-welfare-state-with-the-carbon-tax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/2017\/02\/28\/crossing-the-welfare-state-with-the-carbon-tax\/","title":{"rendered":"Crossing the Welfare State With the Carbon Tax"},"content":{"rendered":"

Crossing the Welfare State With the Carbon Tax<\/h2>\n

I don\u2019t have strong views on global warming. Or climate change, or whatever it\u2019s being called today.<\/p>\n

But I\u2019ve generally been skeptical about government action for the simple reason that the people making the most noise are statists who would use any excuse to increase the size and power of government<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

To be blunt, I simply don\u2019t trust them<\/a>. In Washington, they\u2019re called watermelons \u2013 green on the outside (identifying as environmentalists) but red on the inside (pushing a statist agenda<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But there are some sensible people who think some sort of government involvement is necessary and appropriate.<\/p>\n

The Carbon Tax<\/strong><\/p>\n

George Schultz and James Baker, two former Secretaries of State, argue for a new carbon tax in a Wall Street Journal<\/em> column<\/a> as part of an agenda that also makes changes to regulation and government spending.<\/p>\n

\u2026there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore. \u2026The responsible and conservative response should be to take out an insurance policy. Doing so need not rely on heavy-handed, growth-inhibiting government regulations. Instead, a climate solution should be based on a sound economic analysis that embodies the conservative principles of free markets and limited government. We suggest\u2026creating a gradually increasing carbon tax\u2026, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. And\u2026rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A multi-author column<\/a> in the New York Times<\/em>, including Professors Greg Mankiw and Martin Feldstein from Harvard, also puts for the argument for this plan.<\/p>\n

On-again-off-again regulation is a poor way to protect the environment. And by creating needless uncertainty for businesses that are planning long-term capital investments, it is also a poor way to promote robust economic growth. By contrast, an ideal climate policy would reduce carbon emissions, limit regulatory intrusion, promote economic growth, help working-class Americans and prove durable when the political winds change. \u2026Our plan is\u2026the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions. It might begin at $40 per ton and increase steadily. This tax would send a powerful signal to businesses and consumers to reduce their carbon footprints. \u2026the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments. \u2026regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax would be eliminated, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They perceive this plan as being very popular.<\/p>\n

Environmentalists should like the long-overdue commitment to carbon pricing. Growth advocates should embrace the reduced regulation and increased policy certainty, which would encourage long-term investments, especially in clean technologies. Libertarians should applaud a plan premised on getting the incentives right and government out of the way.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not So Fast<\/strong><\/p>\n

I hate to be the skunk at the party, but I\u2019m a libertarian and I\u2019m not applauding. I explain some of my concerns about the general concept in this interview.<\/p>\n