Editor’s note: This commentary is by Todd Levy, who is a member of Citizens Climate Lobby. He lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.
[T]his is a response to John McClaughry’s article “Are you ready for a carbon tax” published on Dec. 23.
Yes, John McClaughry, I am ready for a carbon tax. And, in some ways, I’m surprised you’re not. Renewable energy will inherently be more distributed than traditional fossil fuels. In the future, Vermonters could have solar panels to charge their electric cars instead of paying one of a handful of fossil fuel companies for gasoline. You should also find a market-based mechanism to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions preferable to command-and-control regulations. Who wants strict government rules?! Let’s account for the negative externality in the market and give citizens a choice. If they want to use their rebate from 90 percent of the tax revenue to purchase a more expensive product, that’s their prerogative.
You seem to view the carbon tax as unfair based on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming isn’t real. Given this assumption, it wouldn’t be justified to favor a policy that would hurt the fossil fuel industry in favor of the renewable industry. But wouldn’t it also be unfair to deprive residents of Vermont from the economic prosperity that the carbon tax would bring them: 1,000-2,500 new jobs and $60-$175 million in additional real disposable personal income by 2030? You, however, choose to invent reasons why the report showing the benefits of the carbon tax is suspect.
Your comment that environmentalists want to make “climate pollution” illegal is absurd. No one in the mainstream thinks that. There would be serious economic and social implications for abruptly relinquishing the use of fossil fuels. The carbon tax will help us switch from fossil fuels to renewables gradually, and we’ll all be better off in the long run for it.
As a former Vermont politician, you should know that Vermonters pride themselves on the environment.
Most Americans aren’t yet familiar with the concept of a carbon tax, and your article attempts to prime readers into forming a negative opinion of it. It’s your First Amendment right to do this, but it hardly seems ethical.
A couple of your suggestions can be viewed from different angles. Today’s $3/gallon gasoline will cost as much as $4.35 with a carbon tax. Gas was $4 in 2011. What better time to enact this policy than when gas prices are already low. Peter Shumlin’s comment that gas would be cheaper in New Hampshire and consumers would cross the border to fill up their tanks was taken out of context. This is a reason why Mr. Shumlin is hopeful that New Hampshire and other states will also adopt carbon taxes.
As a former Vermont politician, you should know that Vermonters pride themselves on the environment. Time will tell, but I have a feeling Vermonters won’t buy into your propaganda. They’ll skim the report, “The Economic, Fiscal, Emissions, and Demographic Implications from a Carbon Price Policy in Vermont,” and also take note that carbon taxes are gaining bipartisan support. Prominent Republican supporters include former Rep. Bob Inglis, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State George Schultz, and George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to name a few.
It’s my opinion that a carbon tax is the common ground on which environmentalists and climate change dismissives can work together to mitigate emissions and grow the economy simultaneously. The only losers in this game are the oil tycoons and their lobbyists who would rather fight change than adapt to it.
