moostraks
04-29-2011, 07:14 AM
"...The best way to drive energy innovation would be an emissions charge of $5 per ton of greenhouse gases beginning in 2012, rising to $100 per ton by 2032. The low initial charge, starting next year, would make the short-term burden on consumers and businesses almost negligible.
An emissions charge is not a radical idea; making people pay for the harm they cause lies at the heart of property rights...
Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included. Coal-burning power plants would pay based on the emissions measured at their smokestacks. Oil companies would pay for every gallon of gas or oil delivered. Yes, these costs would be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments...
But the ballooning federal deficit has created a new political imperative. A modest emissions charge will look attractive compared with raising individual income taxes or burdening the economy with new corporate or payroll taxes.
Let’s be clear: the main goal is not to raise revenue..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/opinion/28esty.html
You have to love the logic that every overreach by government is a double tax, one for the program and one for the deficit. So the high price of fuel isn't enough to spark innovation, they need to pile on some more? Well then you will also be pushing the poorest consumers under the bus so then they will increase funding of social welfare programs.
An emissions charge is not a radical idea; making people pay for the harm they cause lies at the heart of property rights...
Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included. Coal-burning power plants would pay based on the emissions measured at their smokestacks. Oil companies would pay for every gallon of gas or oil delivered. Yes, these costs would be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments...
But the ballooning federal deficit has created a new political imperative. A modest emissions charge will look attractive compared with raising individual income taxes or burdening the economy with new corporate or payroll taxes.
Let’s be clear: the main goal is not to raise revenue..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/opinion/28esty.html
You have to love the logic that every overreach by government is a double tax, one for the program and one for the deficit. So the high price of fuel isn't enough to spark innovation, they need to pile on some more? Well then you will also be pushing the poorest consumers under the bus so then they will increase funding of social welfare programs.