Would you support a carbon tax?

[Nye Bevan]

A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels.[1] It is a form of carbon pricing. Carbon is present in every hydrocarbon fuel (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and is released as carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are burnt. In contrast, non-combustion energy sources—wind, sunlight, hydropower, and nuclear—do not convert hydrocarbons to CO2. CO2 is a heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas.[2] Scientists have pointed to the potential effects on the climate system of releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere (see scientific opinion on global warming).[2][3][4] Since GHG emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels are closely related to the carbon content of the respective fuels, a tax on these emissions can be levied by taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels at any point in the product cycle of the fuel.[5]

Carbon taxes offer a potentially cost-effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[6] From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax.[7] They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full (social) costs of their actions. Carbon taxes can be a regressive tax, in that they may directly or indirectly affect low-income groups disproportionately . The regressive impact of carbon taxes could be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.[8] However, there are about USD $550 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually worldwide.[9]

A number of countries have implemented carbon taxes or energy taxes that are related to carbon content.[10] Most environmentally related taxes with implications for greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries are levied on energy products and motor vehicles, rather than on CO2 emissions directly.[6]

Opposition to increased environmental regulation such as carbon taxes often centres on concerns that firms might relocate and/or people might lose their jobs.[10] It has been argued, however, that carbon taxes are more efficient than direct regulation and may even lead to higher employment (see footnotes).[10] Many large users of carbon resources in electricity generation, such as the United States, Russia and China, are resisting carbon taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I would support a carbon tax.
	4 (36%)
	No, I would not support a carbon tax.
	7 (64%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Warpy]

1. If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.

It has always been this way.

[Ohio Joe]

11. ^^^ This ^^^

It really is that simple.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I said yes, but with a caveat.

I'd want the money collected to be put directly into renewable research and/or generation. Not simply have it be plugged into the general budget, to be used for anything and everything.

[LWolf]

3. I support a radical carbon tax:

A generous, rich income tax deduction for every childless citizen; a smaller deduction for citizens with only one biological child; no deduction, and no tax, for two biological children, and a carbon tax on every biological child after the 2nd, increasing dramatically with each child.

Add to that fair trade policies that are based on environmental (including carbon emission, which includes birthrate) and labor standards.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Ummmmm..... if everyone stops having kids, there will be nobody to pay our SS when we retire.

Bear in mind that current retirees' Social Security checks come from people who are paying Social Security taxes right now. A drastically falling birthrate would lead to economic disaster.

[LWolf]

5. I don't want everyone to stop having kids.

I want people to have fewer kids, I want the global population to decline, and I want the people having the little carbon emitters to pay the carbon bill.

[Chan790]

14. Continued US fiscal solvency is dependent on population *growth*

If the birth-rate even dropped to 2 children per family, which would be population break-even, we'd be fucked. Population decline would be a global catastrophe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Then that is an unsustainable economy that will itself cause physical catastrophe

Resources are limited; therefore you cannot have permanent population growth. An economy need not be 'fucked' by having a steady or decreasing population. You just have to organise distribution through things like taxes so that the retired still get a decent standard of living.

[LWolf]

17. In the current dysfunctional, destructive economic system

currently running the nation; that, too, needs to change. Real solutions involve complex, interconnected systems.

[RobertEarl]

6. Your idea on SS is false

The SS has funds of over 2 trillion.

As for the birthrate, you think a carbon tax will keep couples from having sex and making babies?

[yeoman6987]

13. What?

The SS has funds of over 2 trillion????? Are you referring to the IOUs that are put in their place? I don't think we have this big money tree that you mentioned at all. If we had 2 trillion to "spare", it would have gone to the debt by now.

[FreeJoe]

22. Ummm...that won't last long

First, the people the trust fund is held by the federal government, so we'll need taxpayers to pay those bonds.

Second, the government pays out something like $800 billion dollars a year in SS benefits. If it had to pay for half of that from the trust fund, the trust fund would last only 5 years. The trust fund is there to smooth over generational bumps, but not to fund a long steady decline in the population of taxpayers.

All that isn't to say that lowering the birthrate wouldn't be a good idea. It just needs to be recognized that it would entail some painful adjustments.

[mike_c]

7. I completely support this idea....

We need stronger disincentives for reproduction, or we need a crash program to increase human living space in this part of the galaxy. There are too many people on this planet already, IMO. Overpopulation, and consequent resource demand, is the root of most environmental problems.

[LWolf]

16. Yes. If we're going to act for the environment,

why not go to the root of the problem?

[pipoman]

8. I am generally against ambiguous taxation

[CFLDem]

9. Oh yay

Another tax... isn't there a way to fund ecoventures with the 73,954 pages of the current tax code?

[Seeking Serenity]

10. You want to add to the poor and working class's misery?

Just make the power to heat and cool their homes and refrigerate their food, and the fuel they need to get to work. more expensive than it already is. Place a stiff tax on power? That'll just drive them further into despair.

[FreeJoe]

19. Rebate it

Rebate the tax on a per-adult basis. Then it will actually be a source of income for low carbon emitting people.

[taught_me_patience]

12. This is DU. You can only tax those making over 250k n/t

[FreeJoe]

18. I think it is critical

We need to reduce our carbon output and a carbon tax is a very economically efficient way to do that. It should be phased in over many years to give people a chance to adjust their behavior (the purpose of the tax) in anticipation of it. To reduce the burden of the tax on the poor, it should be rebated on a per-capita or per-adult basis and be revenue neutral.

[Jesus Malverde]

21. I support an import pollution tarrif.

We cannot hobble the people of the united states while allowing multinationals the right to pollute overseas and then bring their dirty goods into the united states with no penalties. You cannot have free trade without considering the role of pollution. Cheap labor is not the only reason american corporations build factories overseas, environmental regulations play a big part.