Carbon caper: Bogus policy
Published: Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012, 8:56 p.m.
A new federal carbon tax being advocated by leftists and environmentalists would not curb man-made emissions enough to possibly affect climate. But it would hinder commerce and America's drive for energy independence enough to drag down the economy.
Steve Milloy, the publisher of JunkScience.com , writing for Investor's Business Daily, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Christopher C. Horner, writing in California's Orange County Register, point out that a carbon tax:
• Would not significantly cut atmospheric carbon dioxide or affect climate
• Would raise prices of goods and services produced by burning fossil fuels
• Would give Washington more revenue to squander, even in “revenue-neutral” or “deficit hawk” guise, as some misguided voices on the right propose
• Would really be about establishing a huge, new revenue source to fund Big Government, a la Europe.
Clearly, a U.S. carbon tax would hurt far more people than it would help. It also would discourage greater reliance on increasingly abundant conventional energy sources at home. And if it would include trading of carbon credits or permits, government would just be artificially creating a bogus “market.”
When all ramifications are taken into account, a carbon tax would be a losing proposition — and one to avoid.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare: HIT’s hit
- On regulatory ‘autopilot’: Anchors on the economy
- The Thursday wrap
- ‘China City’
- Saturday essay: A special tinsel
- Christmas in Connellsville: Catch the spirit
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes