Ten dollars a YEAR? What if it takes twenty, thirty, forty years to reach that 80% level? That's the worst idea I've ever heard. If he thinks his constituents are hurting due to high gas prices now, just wait. To say nothing of the inflationary effects those taxes will cause. This bill would cause a serious recession.

Any changes in our energy use will have to come from the bottom-up. From consumers. This top-down approach is, frankly, tyranny.

In this case, everybody loses. Taking away more of my money with taxes means that I cannot afford to buy those more energy efficient products that would themselves be more expensive as a result of these taxes. If my electricity rates double in five years, if I'm paying north of $5-$6 for gasoline, all as the direct result of this bill, I simply cannot afford to buy a Prius. I cannot afford to move closer to work.

Any carbon tax initiative that I might possibly support must be revenue-neutral and implemented in an economically realistic manner. This is just insanity.

Cervus: you know very well that the cost of gas is going to go up anyway, why not have it go up in a more orderly manner so that people can plan ahead and move off of it now rather than continue to hope that they will find a trillion barrels of light sweet under central park. If the tax changes are revenue neutral (reduce income tax at the low end so that the poor can still pay their heating bills) then you don't have to worry about inflation. Renewables will become more competitive and you will wind up with more energy security and diversity. Consumers won't change their habits unless there is a reason to.

People aren't going to change their CO2 habits without some government intervention because at the moment those habits don't come with any immediate cost (externalities). I know you don't buy into climate change (how about acidification of the ocean?), but the US will go bankrupt if it doesn't get off oil soon, and when unpredictable peak hits, it will be a major shock as opposed to a gradual and predictable increase.
Don't you think a little nudge would be useful.

Alleluia!!

This doesn't have a snowball's chance but it is a move in the right direction.

If you want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, this is the most logical way to do it. The implementation rate is probably too steep-the market place can't really react that fast without profoundly hurting people.

I would suggest a full refund of the tax for any sequestered CO2 (up to 1/2 the total revenue collected). The rest of the revenue should be evenly divided between all citizens-that would more than compensate for the price increases associated with this tax.

Yes, this would be wealth redistribution. Personally, I don't have a problem with the poor getting a better shake in this country.
Cervus-I agree with you, a tax like this should be revenue neutral.

David-

If you are going to permit exemptions for plastics and such, the way our political system works(?) all sorts of loopholes will be created and the power of the legislation will be gutted. Look what they did to CAFE standards. The loopholes go where the lobbies want them and the poor don't have an effective lobby.

If you want to help the poor, subsidize geothermal heatpump conversions, residential solar and mass transit. How about 0% loans for anyone below 150% of the poverty line to buy a hybrid or a nev? We don't want to subsidize and perpetuate energy intensive behaviors by the poor.

Neil:

Having reviewed the science, I've changed my thinking. The skeptics sound very shrill lately, and qualified though they are, after the latest IPCC report, intellectual honesty dictates that I concede defeat, barring some major discovery (such as previously unknown solar influences). I still think that we're enhancing a natural process, but that's just opinion.

The problem is that the louder people ring the alarm bells, the louder people shout that We're All Doomed, the more I'm repelled. And you have to admit that there's a lot of that on the climate change front recently. What the head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said last October bears me out (ie: "Climate Porn"). Whipping people into a panic is the worst way to go about doing this. Irrational people do not make good decisions.

I have reluctantly started to think that some kind of carbon tax might be necessary, since it seems to be the most technologically-neutral method. But Rep. Stark's plan will cause far more harm than good. It's not a "nudge", but an uppercut to the jaw.

Also, I find Bill's proposal to redistribute half of it is simply a non-starter that I cannot support. If we consent to giving the government our money, they need to do something useful with it rather than just handing it right back. Alternative energy R&D, tax credits for efficiency, upkeep or redevelopment of our transportation infrastructure, etc..

The incompetence of our government--in both parties--does not give me much faith that they will go about this in an economically feasible way.

Bill:

You're talking to someone who was dirt poor as a child, but whose family never, ever went on welfare or any other kind of government assistance. But that kind of political argument is for a different forum. However, the fact is that I will not support any carbon tax scheme whose purpose seems to be wealth redistribution, which yours is.

Harvey:

One big problem with tax schemes like this.

Since the intent is to reduce CO2 emissions, as the program becomes effective, tax revenues will decrease. You will not be able to fund such a scheme in the long term, but given the level of handouts that you propose, it will be very hard to discontinue the program. In fact, if it's very popular the govermnent would expand it in order to get more votes.

Witness what happened with the hybrid HOV sticker program here in California. They were originally going to issue only 10,000 of them. That was upped to 85,000. So many that HOV lanes started becoming almost as congested as normal ones, defeating the purpose. And an unintended consequence.

Cervus:

Strict credit limits and sunset clauses have to be used for these programs to stay within useful intended confines and budget.

Of course, application has to accelerate and decellerate progressively over a 20 to 30 years time span to give time for industry and people to adjust.

Both, the carbon tax and GHG/pollution reduction credits should be reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis by a appropriate board similar to the Feds. The regulation board should have strict guidelines to follow.

Cervus,

In my distribution scheme, I did not say just give the money to the poor. In no way is this welfare. I said EQUALLY distribute the revenue. Donald Trump would get the same check as the beggar in the street.

Because Donald Trump would pay more under a blanket carbon tax than the beggar, it is, in effect, wealth redistribution.

Derek,

This would not be a tax on gasoline as much as a tax on coal. ($10/ton of carbon is equal to approximately $0.025 per gallon on gas.)

A tax like this, even if it started out at $1 a ton and went up $1/year would have profound implications for the power industry. The important feature for the power industry is seeing a predictable, high and rising tax on fossil fuel at the end of life of a new power plant (~50 years).

Because Donald Trump would pay more under a blanket carbon tax than the beggar, it is, in effect, wealth redistribution.

You'll never get me to support that. Sorry. You'll just have to come up with something else. You're not going to take my money just to give it back to me again. What would end up happening is that people would complaint that Trump is getting any money at all, and the beggar should get that share. You can't tell me that isn't a form of welfare. No.

Keep in mind that each gallon of gas produces 16 pounds of CO2. THe taxof $10/ton would raise the price of gas by 8 cents/gallon each year.