Carbon Tax

Carbon Tax or Obama's Clean Power Plan?

Calculating cost of regulations in terms of carbon taxes

|

CarbonTax
dreamstime

The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to roll out the final regulations for the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan in August. Under the CPP, electric power generators are supposed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly carbon dioxide) by 30 percent by 2030—that's about 730 million metric tonnes of carbon emissions. Given that each state has a different mixture of power generation plants, there will be differences in how each will have to abate their emissions. Individual states will have to figure out a mix of regulations, market mechanisms, and subsidies to achieve the goals set them by the EPA.

The Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank the Niskanen Center, which generally favors the adoption of a revenue neutral carbon tax, asks the question: "How High Would a Carbon Tax Need to Be to Hit CPP Emission Reductions?" From the Niskanen Center:

So, presuming that states are stuck with having to deal with the CPP's regulatory morass, what would it take to replace the CPP with a carbon tax? How much would such a tax—applied only to power plants—have to be to produce the same emission reductions as EPA proposes, and thereby be a viable alternative?

Fortunately, EPA has done the work for us, and even better, it is shown in the map below, courtesy of Stanford's Michael Wara. The data (technically the "CO2 Constraint shadow price") is carefully buried in a model output file on EPA's website. The "shadow price" is technically defined as the allowance price a cap and trade system would require for a cap equaling the emissions the CPP requires in each year for the rate-based (as opposed to mass-based) option. Or, more simply, the price EPA believes would generate the same results as the CPP for that state.

CPPTaxEquivalent
Niskanen Center

The Niskanen Center report notes that taxes range from zero in Vermont—where the CPP sets no target because there is no coal fired power generation—to a high of $101/ton CO2 in West Virginia, with Utah ($63) and Colorado, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (all $47) next highest. Using the EPA's figures, the Center's analsysts further estimate that a national carbon tax would average  about $29 per ton in 2030.

For reference, Resources for the Future estimated that a $25 per ton carbon tax would boost electricity rates by 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now the price of residential electricity in the contiguous U.S. averages 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranging from a high of 22.1 cents in Massachusetts to a low of 6.8 cents in Washington State.

Overall, Niskanen Center analysts point out that implementing a carbon tax even at state level would be a far simpler and less costly option than complying with EPA's impending CPP regulations.

Advertisement

NEXT: Teen Recruits Friend for Sex Work With Her, Gets Slapped With Federal Sex-Trafficking Charges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.workweb40.com

  2. I don’t understand why we are at the point where we have to decide between higher electricity costs or higher taxes.

    And ENOUGH with the whole “revenue neutral” lie that keeps being passed around in regards to a Carbon Tax. There is NO FUCKING WAY that either state or federal coffers will somehow offset this newly found source of revenue by lowering taxes somewhere else. Not to mention the fact that this will have approximately zero effect on the world wide carbon concentration levels.

    That’s not rain on your neck Ron, that’s piss.

    1. Thankfully low natural gas prices are doing more to do in the coal industry than the EPA is.

      http://seekingalpha.com/articl…..ar-on-coal

      1. Yep. I see PA at $39 in the map above–I’m sure it was more before Marcellus Shale gas started flowing 10 years ago. We’ve got a bucketload of gas and are converting our power plants to it.

    2. This. Any revenue from a carbon tax will be used for more goodies to buy votes. Then they’ll increase the carbon tax.

    3. Exactly. You can be a libertarian think tank, or you can support a carbon tax.

      I don’t think you can do both.

  3. Fuck everybody who burns coal. We’ll make sure your power production costs just as much as ours.

    Love,

    California.

    1. Dear California,

      Be careful what you wish for, given we provide 30% of your power. It’s cold in the dark.

      [smiles]

  4. The Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank the Niskanen Center, which generally favors the adoption of a revenue neutral carbon tax

    What?

    According to Peanuts you can’t be a true libertarian unless you deny that human activity is effecting climate!

    1. Oh, Tulpy-Poo. You’re even more pathetic than normal today, aren’t you.

      1. Dude, Tulpa is sentient. Shriek is not. No way can they be the same human.

        1. Maybe Shreek is Tulpa’s dark side. Maybe it is how he copes on days when he forgets to take his meds?

        2. Shreek has been around for a long time. The only evidence of Shreek = Tulpa is that he was in the same thread whenever Tulpa may have outed himself as Bo.

          I have a hard time believing Tulpa is competent enough to pull Bo off for as long as he did anyway.

          *Goes into the backroom to run some tests*

          1. Why can you not believe Tulpa could not carry off being a petty fogging asshat like Bo? That is just Tulpa being himself. Of all of the sockpuppet theories on this board, Tulpa being Bo always struck me as the most believable one.

            1. I don’t hang around on the weekends, but from the threads I see Tulpa fucks up his secret handle within 5 posts or so. Unless Bo was his masterpiece.

              Still, there are enough assholes in the world for it to be plausible enough that Bo, Shreek, and Tulpa are all different people.

              1. Yeah., Betting on stupid and asshole is never a bad bet.

      2. Get down, bitch. Go doink around on your game console.

      3. And Joe has crawled back too. He was more lurking. Today he is getting brave and pretending anyone gives a shit what the smug little midget has to say.

        1. Yeah, trolls come out for a Presidential campaign like worms after a rain.

    2. Palin’s Buttplug|6.16.15 @ 12:55PM|#
      “According to Peanuts you can’t be a true libertarian unless you deny that human activity is effecting climate!”

      According to turd, he’s a libertarian!

    3. Re: Peter Caca,

      According to Peanuts you can’t be a true libertarian unless you deny that human activity is effecting climate!

      I deny that human activity is effecting climate.

      I don’t deny human activity may be affecting climate in some way.

  5. I don’t get it? How does stealing from me make the earth cooler?

    1. Cause you can’t afford gas in your pickup, so you drive less, which reduces carbon dioxide, which MAGICK and then the Erf cools.

      #SCIENCE

      1. So I should stop driving to work and the grocery store?

  6. “Under the CPP, electric power generators are supposed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly carbon dioxide) by 30 percent by 2030 – that’s about 730 million metric tonnes of carbon emissions.”

    And what impact will this have on global warming precisely?

    I mean, we wouldn’t make these kinds of sacrifices if we didn’t know what the benefits were, right?

    1. The market is moving to natural gas, dude. Get your head out of the fucking coal bucket just because you hate Obama.

      1. One of the reasons natural gas is so cheap is because there are relatively fewer consumers for it. As more people continue to migrate to natural gas, the demand for it will increase along with its cost relative to coal.

        And the question of what the benefits will be relative to the cost of the sacrifices we’re making will still be relevant. Anyone who claims we should make sacrifices without any idea of whether they’ll have an impact on the problem and a benefit can’t make any claims to objectivity or rationality.

        The very worst outcome is when we make painful sacrifices that don’t have any benefits, and if you’re telling me you have no idea if there will be any benefits to this or how to quantify them, then you should address that. Not make economically ignorant arguments based on the hope that switching to substitutes en mass won’t have any impact on the future price of the substitute.

        1. Ken, I am worried about you.

          You seem to have a desire to argue with morons and creatures dumber than morons.

          It’s earnest, and thus cute. It’s a total waste of time, making you miss out on more interesting conversations with people who are worth interacting with, and thus kind of sad. 🙁

          People won’t think less of you if you are more choosy as to who you interact with.

          1. When I deal with these people, I’ll sometimes address what they say if I think what they’re saying is emblematic or typical of what other lurkers might be thinking.

            The logic behind that is consistent with a conversation we had on another site, recently, where I was talking about the impact we have on the debate, the politics, and the culture with what we say–we have influence far beyond what I think most people realize.

            Anyway, it isn’t really Shrike I’m responding to. It’s all the people who have heard the stuff Shrike is regurgitating that may be lurking, here. It’s other legit commenters who may have something to add or subtract to what I wrote. I’ll still tell Shrike to go pluck a duck–but it isn’t really about Shrike.

        2. Any economist will tell you that plentiful substitutes drag prices down in general. And as technology advances we will have even more substitutes becoming readily available.

          1. Re: Peter Caca,

            Any economist will tell you that plentiful substitutes drag prices down in general.

            There are no substitutes to coal, gas or oil or even nuclear. That is why the other forms of energy extraction (solar, wind, geothermal) are called alternatives, and not substitutes.

            Logic is NOT strong with this one.

            1. Coal demand is falling.

              Why?

              The answer is not difficult, young fool. I have told you why twice.

              1. Re: Peter Caca,

                Coal demand is falling.

                You’re addressing the wrong point:

                “And as technology advances we will have even more substitutes becoming readily available”

                There are NO other substitutes for oil, gas, coal or even nuclear.

                1. It thinks barry is responsible for the shale boom. It isn’t rational.

        3. One of the reasons natural gas is so cheap in this country is that the supply is bottled up without a lot paths to export it to other countries where the price is much higher. That is going to change with the build out of LNG terminals.

          Sooner or later, natural gas will become as much a transportable global commodity as oil is and the world price will start to equalize. Which will mean higher prices for natural gas in this country.

    2. According to their most optomistic models, the ones that predict gt 5 deg C warming for each doubling of CO2, it will avert 0.0005 degrees temperatrue rise.

      REMEMBER!!!!!!!! IT’S NOT A SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGION! IT’S INSISTENCE ON INEFFECTIVE AND THUS RITUAL SELF MORTIFICATION IS ENTIRELY RATIONAL!!!!!!!!!

      1. The Gods are angry. Sacrifices must be made.

        See? The science is settled.

  7. “Now the price of residential electricity in the contiguous U.S. averages 12.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranging from a high of 22.1 cents in Massachusetts to a low of 6.8 cents in Washington State.”

    And it isn’t just how much the electricity costs in different places; its also how many warming and cooling degree days there are in various places.

    It takes a lot more electricity every year to keep the temperature at 74 degrees in Buffalo than it does in San Diego.

  8. How’s neither? Is neither good for you?

  9. So the solutions for a problem not shown to exist we are have
    1. More money extracted from us by threat of violence and prison
    2. More regulatory interference in our lives and economy

    How about
    3. Fuck off, slaver

  10. Interesting how the very same people who applaud taxing energy because artificially raising the price will result in people buying less of it are the first to appeal for a higher minimum wage.

    1. How much is The Goracle worth these days?

    2. THAT’S DIFFERENT AND YOU KNOW IT.

  11. Listening to Donald Trump’s – what – I think he’s announcing he’s running for President? This is way more fun than it should be. President Trump would be even more awesome than President Biden. I’m almost certain.

    1. I’d vote for his rug!

  12. Just as long as the punitive tax on efficient fuels goes to subsidize more of those ultra-clean batteries and solar panels, who could object?

  13. Mulching results in the production of methane.

    I don’t see anyone asking the really important questions here.

  14. Good to see some libertarians talking about solutions, rather than fantastical conspiracy theories.

    I actually like how Niskanin Center takes fellow libertarians to task on climate change, particularly their “inability to believe something that they just don’t want to believe.”

    http://niskanencenter.org/blog…..te-change/

    1. Fuck off Joe. No one gives a shit about what you think about anything.

    2. By the way, that libertarian think tank just called you all deniers, rather than skeptic, because not believing something just because you don’t want to is in fact nothing more than denial

      1. So how is unemployment treating you?

        1. Tell it to Niskanin

          1. Re: Jackass Ass,

            We are.

            Niskanin,

            FUCK YOU! You’re no libertarian think tank.

      2. Considering the fact that the US has reduced carbon emissions to pre-Kyoto levels, maybe it’s time we tell the rest of the world to fuck off and reduce their own before instituting an economy crushing tax?

        No, that’s just crazy talk, we must be the leader in taking the world back to the 1800’s.

        1. Jackand Ace is excited about the return of chattel slavery.

          1. Funnily enough, he and Tony seem to think they won’t be on the chattel side of that particular equation.

    3. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Good to see some libertarians talking about solutions

      What problem are we talking about here, Jackass?

      I actually like how Niskanin Center takes fellow libertarians to task on climate change particularly their “inability to believe something that they just don’t want to believe.”

      So this is about religion, then?

      I don’t “believe” anything. I trust the data or the cogency of an argument. If you want to believe in climate change, that is your problem ?not mine.

      So far the data does not pan out. Climate changes ALL the time. What scientists are talking about is Antrhopogenic Global Warming, which is pretty much happening. Climate Change and Global Warming are NOT the same thing.

    4. I’m a libertarian, and I believe in climate change. I just think the solutions being put on the table by the left are so retarded that a lot of people–quite rationally–would rather ignore the problem than shoot themselves in the stomach.

      I’d even support some kind of carbon tax under a few conditions. For one, we need to eliminate most of the other forms of taxation. We need to get rid of the income tax, the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, the inheritance tax, among others, and replace them all with a carbon tax that acts more or less like a sales tax.

      If people and businesses conducted themselves in such a way as to avoid throwing greenhouse gases in the air–the way they conduct themselves now in such as way as to avoid paying as much tax as possible, we’d have a free market economy without taxing away profits, capital gains, and personal income without redistributing other people’s productive output either. Think of all the jobs we’d have if only the government stopped artificially inflating the price of hiring unemployed people by way of an income tax alone!

      Unfortunately, most of the people on the left are even more irrational about how the economy thingy works than climate change “denialists” are about global warming. For most of the people on the left, it seems, if saving the environment means embracing capitalist solutions, then they’d rather the environment went to hell.

      1. “For most of the people on the left, it seems, if saving the environment means embracing capitalist solutions, then they’d rather the environment went to hell.”

        I think this is a clue.

      2. And who knows, maybe you’re right. The debate over solutions is valuable and worthwhile. Niskanin and Bailey know that, and don’t want the wrong solutions implemented. Fair enough. But as you, Bailey, and even Niskanin realize, among many libertarians, we don’t even have recognition of a problem. And that is Niskanin saying that.

        1. Jack, I’m still waiting for the uproar over that study that proved fracking causes earthquakes. I know you were orgasmic in the hopes humanity would have to revert to the neolithic, but it just doesn’t seem to have happened.

        2. Jackand Ace|6.16.15 @ 1:38PM|#
          “[…]we[…]”

          Turd in your pocket?

        3. But if people’s “denialism” is based on the obtuseness of the solutions on offer, then you’re never going to get the support for the solutions that will actually fix the problem until you drop the obtuse ones. It’ll get even worse for environmentalist if they actually manage to get carbon taxes piled onto the economy without slashing taxes elsewhere.

          Did you see what happened to the carbon tax in Australia? It had plenty of popular support–right up until the day it was implemented and the bills started showing up in the mail.

          That chased their entire green coalition out of government–probably for a generation. Not only did they lose their carbon tax, they completely lost their credibility with the Australian people. There are a couple of facts every true environmentalist should embrace:

          1) Taxes large enough to fix the problem of global warming–on top of our current level of taxation–would crush the economy and people’s support for solutions with it.

          2) If people’s support for environmental solutions is contingent on economic growth, then economic growth may be the single most important environmental issue.

          Unfortunately, listening to people on the left talking about what makes economies grow is like listening to Southern Baptists talk about evolution.

          1. This is the reality…people with obtuse ideas just don’t drop them. You have to defeat them in public opinion, and that is how it is always done. It’s why Reason exists.

            What Niskanin is saying, and maybe Bailey, is that turning a blind eye to it just because you don’t want to believe it, insures the victory of obtuse ideas.

            As you said above, and I agree, carbon tax might be the best option. I would think the conditions that you and Niskanin would want could be accomplished.

            1. Re: Jackass Ass,

              What Niskanin is saying, and maybe Bailey, is that turning a blind eye to it just because you don’t want to believe it, insures the victory of obtuse ideas.

              Again with the religious undertones. “All you have to do is believe! Believe!

              As you said above, and I agree, carbon tax might be the best option.

              I say let’s throw a few virgins to the Angry Volcano God. That’ll have the exact same effect on Climatey Changey than your carbon tax and I can assure you it will be much less costly.

            2. I appreciate that, and I’m pulling my end.

              I just wish more people on the left understood that ridiculing people on the right because they don’t believe in “science” gets them exactly as much support for fixing the environment as they have right now–which isn’t enough to solve the problem.

              The best thing that could happen for the environmentalist movement is if the phony environmentalists would stop using their cause as an excuse to attack capitalism.

              There are tons of people on the right who are just as legitimately concerned about the environment as anyone on the left. It’s just that they go to Bass Pro Shops instead of REI. They call themselves conservationists rather than environmentalists. Most of that stuff is cosmetic bullshit fueled by the culture war.

              1. No doubt true. But it seems more and more that we are headed toward at least an attempt at arriving with solutions, including from the right (Faison). I know like you Niskanin is trying. One of the organizers of the Paris conference was saying there is no way to deal with climate change unless private enterprise is engaged.

                Let’s hope that all happens.

                1. Re: Jackass Ass,

                  But it seems more and more that we are headed toward at least an attempt at arriving with solutions

                  You keep repeating the same statement ad nauseam as if there was a problem.

                  What IS the problem? Climate Change? Meaningless term, because the climate changes ALL THE TIME. The term presumes a BASELINE climate, not unlike a line in your thermostat.

                  One of the organizers of the Paris conference was saying there is no way to deal with climate change unless private enterprise is engaged.

                  Exxon already threw the gauntlet. They’re one of the first not to commit to this nonsense. More will follow. The whole charade is unraveling, Jackass Ass.

            3. You do know that you don’t “believe” science right?

              Science is about knowledge. It’s about observable facts and reproducible testing and results.

              None of which describes CAGW.

              1. “You do know that you don’t “believe” science right?”

                Every scientific “fact” is revisable given new and previously unavailable data that contradicts what was known in the past.

                Scientists are required to revise and abandon their beliefs if and when new data becomes available that requires them to alter or abandon their previous beliefs.

                If new and compelling data becomes available tomorrow proving that the sun orbits the earth after all, the beliefs scientists hold now about how the earth orbits the sun will need to be discarded.

                Science is not truth. Science is a method for discovery and scrutinizing our discoveries, but it is not truth itself. When all the available data should point you to believe something that isn’t true, then a good scientist must believe something that isn’t true. That is why science is a consensus.

                But it is not the truth.

                When Bailey threw in the towel because new data showed that his former beliefs were wrong, he was thinking like a scientist. If his new beliefs are being scrutinized and revised as new data becomes available, he is thinking like a scientist. If he readopts the beliefs he once discarded because even newer data supports that, then he is acting like a scientist.

                Science isn’t about your beliefs being right or wrong relative to the truth. A scientist is right so long as his beliefs are consistent with the available data–even if the available data leads him to believe something that turns out not to be true.

        4. Re: Jackass Ass,

          And who knows, maybe you’re right. The debate over solutions is valuable and worthwhile.

          What is valuable is talking about the great scam that is being perpetrated by a bunch of cronies and the different governments. Who gets to benefit from this carbon tax scheme is something with which you don’t seem to preoccupy your time.

          Also, there is absolutely NOTHING libertarian about taxation, Jackass Ass. Taxation is theft, it is an act of naked aggression against people and their property.

          1. I think it’s important that we couch our arguments about global warming in ways that can agreed with regardless of whether people agree with everything else we say, too.

            If we’re going to have an impact on what the general public does or doesn’t do about global warming, we’re going to have to persuade people that don’t believe taxation is theft, too, right?

            1. Re: Ken Shultz,

              I think it’s important that we couch our arguments about global warming in ways that can agreed with regardless of whether people agree with everything else we say, too.

              Ken, people are suckers for idealistic bromides to appear enlightened but they’re not really serious about changing their lives. The notion that we need to convince people of the wrongness of their folly is a waste of time because, deep down, they’re all talk and no substance. They don’t really trust this shit enough to commit, which is why they always ask the government to do it for them, which is a losing proposition because the government is beholden to VOTERS and to the BANKS, none of which are willing to make any changes either.

              Only idiots like Joe and Tony think that what some crooked scientists say makes any difference. Of COURSE it won’t.

              1. We’re going to have a big climate conference in Paris in December.

                Obama has promised to adopt some polices at that meeting.

                Whether our politicians in Congress oppose those policies will have a lot to do with what average American think.

                I think it’s of vital importance what average people think about this stuff.

        5. The debate over solutions is valuable and worthwhile.

          Solutions presuppose a solvable problem.

          Whether there is a problem is the first question, and one that is a very long way from being resolved.

          1. Exactly what Niskanin attempted to address…that line of thought, anyway.

    5. If you really believed it was such a problem, you could always opt for helping Gaia out.

      Possibly with a woodchipper.

    6. Why would I want to “fix” a problem that is making the planet better? What is the perfect temperature of the earth, pangloss? The planet is greener now than 30 years ago thanks to co2 fertilization. Cold kills far more ppl annyally than hot. The true price of carbon given where we are now is negative.

      1. Damnit, there is an optimal temperature for the entire planet and people like Jack should be able to set the thermostat!

  15. There is no such thing as a “revenue neutral” carbon tax. The tax necessarily makes energy artificially more expensive and the country and economy poorer as a result. Any carbon tax is going to make the country poorer or it won’t serve the purpose of reducing carbon emissions.

    Any think tank that endorses such a thing, has no right to be taken seriously. Sorry to play no true Scottsman but belief in the AGW nonsense and especially believing in the US unilaterally making itself poorer by reducing its carbon output when it knows that doing so will not back a single bit of difference even if the religion turns out to be right, should disqualify you from being taken seriously.

    1. Sadly, there is a lot of wishful thinking for AGW to be true, and it’s fascinating watching people deny that observations have disproved CAGW and are essentially only consistent with a 1 degree per doubling of CO2 (which frankly means no global mitigation required).

      EVen the IPCC, with its thumb on the scale, admits in Physical Science portion of AR5 that catastrophe is not in our future with unconstrained emissions.

      This whole exercise is superstitious nonsense, like someone with OCD that is convinced that if they don’t wash their hands every few minutes, their mother will die of syphilis.

      1. I think there is something instinctual in people that causes them to want to believe in a higher power and higher purpose. No matter how hard they try to suppress it, it always comes out. If not in the form of theism, then in the form of believing in things like AGW.

        1. *bites tongue*

    2. But it’s good for the cocktail party circuit.

  16. “Overall, Niskanen Center analysts point out that implementing a carbon tax even at state level would be a far simpler and less costly option than complying with EPA’s impending CPP regulations.”

    I can think of an even less costly option than that – forget the whole thing and do nothing.

    1. There is always that. Ron just can’t help himself. He wants to believe in this nonsense so badly.

      1. That may not be true John.

        I see a lot of people in Science going along with this horseshit because it furthers their career. So yeah, cocktail parties.

        1. S: Please do send along the address and times of the cocktail parties to which you allude. 🙂

          1. I believe it was Rio De Janeiro last year- and Paris this year… Will you be rowing your own boat, or flying in?

    2. I agree with Gilbert Martin Johnson!

  17. Not all substitutes are perfect substitutes.
    Would it make sense for households to switch to coal heat? Absolutely not, but burning coal in large scale concentrated facilities, where the (actual pollutant) emissions can be scrubbed efficiently makes sense. There’s plenty of coal. It’s not like we’re going to run out.

    1. Or you could burn clean coal instead of burning dirty coal and cleaning scrubbers.

      But then, dirty coal comes from West Virginia, home of Robert Byrd.

  18. It will all be moot anyway after Lockheed starts supplying every house with it’s very own nuclear fusion power plant.

    1. The AGW crowd will shit their pants if that ever comes to pass. They will fight it tooth and nail, bet on it.

      1. Of course they will because what they are all about is the same thing they’ve always been about – increasing their own power over others lives, property and wealth. AGW is merely another rationalization for it.

      2. The ecoterrorusts at greenpeace are already on record against fusion. And lockmart’s announcement is all hat no cattle.

  19. The Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank the Niskanen Center, which generally favors the adoption of a revenue neutral carbon tax, asks the question: “How High Would a Carbon Tax Need to Be to Hit CPP Emission Reductions?”

    I’m still scratching my head thinking how could you say “libertarian think tank” with a straight face, when at the same time you concede this organization favors stealing from people at gunpoint ?what you might call (with a very sick sense of humor) “taxes”.

    The Niskanen Center report notes that taxes range from zero in Vermont[…]to a high of $101/ton CO2 in West Virginia[…]

    And the fact that West Virginia is a much poorer state than Vermont and with an economy dependent prominently in coal extraction is a never-mind to you, I guess.

    In other words, this “libertarian think tank” is talking gleefully about a tax so regressive it leaves alone the paradises populated by rich people while it castigates those places that need this energy more.

    1. The Niskanen Center report notes that taxes range from zero in Vermont[…]to a high of $101/ton CO2 in West Virginia[…]

      West Virginia averages 52 metric tons of CO2 per capita (per the EIA, linky too long).

      So they are calling for each person in West Virginia to pay an extra $5K/year in carbon taxes.

      Fuck them. With a woodchipper.

  20. that libertarian think tank just called you all deniers, rather than skeptic, because not believing something just because you don’t want to is in fact nothing more than denial

    That’s nice.
    Being a libertarian means never saying, “Everybody agrees with me.”
    The idiot “libertarian” Poole wants to put tracking devices on my cars. He can kiss my ass, too.

  21. Overall, Niskanen Center analysts point out that implementing a carbon tax even at state level would be a far simpler and less costly option than complying with EPA’s impending CPP regulations.

    Not unlike being asked “Do you want to get fucked in the ass or do you want to be beaten to death?”

    I love how there are people who presume to know the cost of something OUTSIDE the market. A cost is the next best option forgone, not what YOU think it is but what a person actually FACES when making a decision.

  22. What about a tax on wood chippers?

  23. “Listen, Jimmy; this would be a lot simpler if you’d just give me your lunch money, instead of making me beat it out of you every day.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.