With Democrats now in control of the U.S. House, the likelihood of a carbon tax is being pushed more and more. But in 2012, remember what U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said about a carbon tax?
“A carbon tax will mean consumers will pay more at the pump and more for energy in their homes. An energy tax is the last thing that Congress should be considering,” stated the Senator in an announcement about the filing by Democrats of a National Energy Tax.
The filing of the tax plan came a year after Inhofe had filed S.482, the Energy tax Prevention Act of 2011. While California Democratic congressman Henry Waxman called it the “Big Polluter Protection Act”, Sen. Inhofe in his book “The Big Hoax” defended the act, saying it left all the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. He explained it would only prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases which are not harmful to human health.
“We’ve been through this debate for years and the American public has rejected an energy tax every time. It’s time for my friends on the other side of the aisle finally to get through the grieving process on cap-and-trade, move on from these failed, dead policies, and begin to embrace the enormous potential of America’s abundant energy resources; in doing so we can turn this economy around, achieve energy independence from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for years to come,” said the Senator in fighting the 2012 effort.
Seven and 8 years later and the carbon tax issue is still with us but with Democrats in power in the House, they have more oomph in pushing it.
Here’s how Amy Harder of Axios wrote about it on Monday:
What to do with the money raised from a carbon tax looms as the biggest sticking point to the policy as it slowly emerges from political purgatory in Washington.
The big picture: I know, we’re talking about a fantasy here because Republicans controlling most of Washington right now, including President Trump, categorically oppose carbon taxes.
But the policy is slowly gaining support in pockets across the political spectrum, which could pick up momentum after the 2020 elections. So let’s suspend our disbelief and look at this tussle over the cash, which is central to everything.
Driving the news: After a decade of stasis, some lawmakers, think tanks and advocacy groups are beginning to push policies with various prices per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, as well as different uses for the money.
- One proposal pushed by oil companies and former GOP politicians that starts at $40 a ton of carbon dioxide emitted would raise $200 billion a year. A $20 per ton tax would raise more than a trillion dollars over about a decade.
- Putting aside conservative opposition to creating any new taxes, divisions are emerging over how to use carbon-tax revenue, like sending it back to consumers or investing in renewable energy.
- This tension gets at the heart of the challenge of addressing climate change: Make fossil fuels more expensive without hitting pocketbooks too much, and/or make cleaner energy technologies cheaper.
Here’s a glimpse of the money options — and the fault lines….
1. Among the public, the most popular use of money raised from a carbon tax is to restore the environment, according to a recent poll by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute and the AP–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
2. The most high-profile proposal at the moment, and the one that has the most support among economists, is to rebate most or all of the money back to consumers in dividend checks.
3. Former GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, who just lost a re-election, introduced carbon tax legislation last summer that would have repealed the federal gasoline tax and used the money mainly to fund infrastructure.
- Rep. Francis Rooney (R.-Fla.), who is the only sitting Republican supporting recently introduced carbon tax legislation rebating the money, prefers using it to either reduce the payroll tax or replace the gas tax.
4. Some conservatives say a carbon tax should be used to address fiscal woes, like looming insolvent funds.