A carbon tax? At our own peril
A new study from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association confirms the absurdity of anti-growth, climate-clucking leftists' claims that a U.S. tax on carbon-dioxide emissions would be good for both the environment and the economy.
The study finds that either a carbon tax starting at $20 per ton and rising 4 percent annually or one reducing CO2 emissions 80 percent would have a “net negative effect on consumption, investment and jobs” nationwide and in Pennsylvania.
The resulting economic slowdown would cost far more in federal revenue than a carbon tax would yield. Higher coal, natural gas and gasoline prices would depress non-energy spending, decrease wages as much as 8.5 percent and reduce manufacturing output as much as 15 percent in energy-intensive sectors, 7.7 percent in non-energy-intensive sectors.
In Pennsylvania, workers would lose income equivalent to 77,000 to 81,000 jobs in 2013, 96,000 to 120,000 jobs by 2023. Natural-gas costs would rise more than 40 percent, average household electricity rates 13 percent, gasoline prices more than 20 cents per gallon — just in 2013. By 2023, coal-sector output would drop 48 to 54 percent, with manufacturing output falling 1.9 percent in energy-intensive sectors, 0.5 to 0.9 percent in non-energy-intensive sectors.
With this study definitively demonstrating devastating effects on the real-world economy, only nonsensically utopian radicals can still portray a carbon tax as a prescription for prosperity.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Another carbon credit scheme
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor