Adam,

A carbon tax can be denominated on either a contained carbon basis or an emitted CO2 basis. This bill is denominated in contained carbon. I believe your $0.08 per gallon would be the tax rate if it were denominated in tons of CO2.

Bill

The FUN will be when certain states and cities that rail about subsidized oil and such find out the only reason thier econs stay standing is cheap gas.

As gas goes up tourism pluummets. As gas goes up everything s[rcialy cheap items gets more spendy. As gas goes up people MOVE.

Many seem to miss the fact that without cheap gas we could see alot of older xities tax bases fail. Even many states.

BCD:

I live about 30 miles from work, and due to the expensive apartment rental rates here in San Diego, I simply cannot afford to live closer on my salary. Two years ago I traded my 22mpg RAV4 for a new 35mpg Corolla and bought a Honda Reflex scooter (65-70mpg) in order to further use less gas. I ride the scooter two days per week. I'd ride more but night on the freeway is simply a harrowing experience for me. I've replaced my most-used bulbs with CFLs. I'm likely not flying anywhere for my upcoming vacation.

I've basically done everything I can realistically afford at this point.

Bill:

If you believe that the poor are poor because they choose to be and don't deserve to be cut any slack, then to the rich go the spoils.

Believe it or not, Libertarian economist Milton Friedman was a proponent of a Negative income tax. I don't think the poor are poor because they choose to be, but it is their responsibility to do better. I know firsthand how hard it is to get out. Our history is replete with people who started in very humble circumstances reaching the highest height.

The intent of a fossil carbon tax is to mitigate AGW. Conflating other issues (general tax policy, etc.) only muddles the discussion, but then that may be the intent of some posters here.

Increasing the tax by $10 each year is probably the wrong schedule, too fast initially and too slow later on. Better to double it every eight years or so; that would both give the market enough time to move to alternatives and approximately index it for inflation.

Let's tax all GHGs, including methane while we're at it, it's only fair. Methane is more destructive in the atmosphere than CO2. Levy it per cow and per acre of landfill. Meat prices would go up, sorry, but hey, gardenburgers are delicious, so don't come crying to me.

Of course as some have pointed out, we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels first, so I'd add let's stop subsidizing meat, dairy, ranchlands, etc. as well.

Idiots! Is there nothing that cannot be solved by a tax? These fools in washington think only of ONE thing, money. I suppose that in their smug affluent lifestyle they have forgotton how this country came to be. It is long past time for another tea party. We are becoming peasants again.

A majority of economists think that a carbon tax is the best way to slow global warming, plus it's the best way to protect consumers. But don't take my word for it, take a look at reports put out by two conservative groups: The American Consumer Institute and the American Enterprise Institute (see www.carbontax.org for links to both reports).

Also, visit our website www.calcarbontax.org for an outline of a proposed Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax for California.

Mike-
Consider the source. I don't regard their proposal as credible. The UK has a very high tax on gasoline, far higher than anything proposed or likely to pass in the US. It hasn't reduced petrol usage there at all. It continues to climb. The point is to reduce emissions, not introduce an ineffective tax. (That also explains why CEI pushes this)

Larger stationary CO2 sources can be controlled by cap-and-trade system, if the cap is set correctly and everyone knows the price will gradually rise.
(note to EU - get that right next time. But I give them a pass as they are trying and troubleshooting a new system)

Auto emissions can be reduced by higher CAFE standards and a fee-bate program to nudge consumers toward more efficient cars.

Personally I think this is a great idea if you want to completely bankrupt Americans. Look around you. People can't afford to drive to work. Truckers can't put fuel in there trucks. A gallon of milk is nearly $7. people can't afford to feed there families. You act like this is going to hit the companies but those companies pass on these costs back to you. When you electrical bill is $900/month in May then the CO2 production levels will fall and so will our economy. This bill is giong to increase taxes on this contry by an exstimated $3.6 TRILLION and cut our GNP by 10%. Since 70% of our GNP is your purchasing power that means that you have less money. I am all about saving the world. But instead of punishing CO2 producers why don't we say reward those that go green with real tax incentives?

Excuss me that is 6 TRILLION not 3.6 Trillion.