Another carbon credit scheme
Attempting to cash in on climate change, a Maryland lawmaker is proposing federal auctions of carbon permits, the revenue from which will be redistributed “to everyone equally.”
It's the same “carbon credit” caper as in years past but with a new liberal twist.
As proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, the measure would auction carbon pollution permits to so-called “first sellers” of oil, coal and natural gas. It would return “100 percent” of the proceeds “to every American with a valid Social Security number.”
“(T)his ‘Cap and Dividend' approach achieves necessary greenhouse gas reductions while boosting the purchasing power of families across the country,” Mr. Van Hollen says.
If all this rosiness sounds similar to what slots proceeds were supposed to do for property taxes in Pennsylvania, go to the head of the class. Except what's proposed here is closer to a street game of three-card monte.
As Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute points out, atmospheric and surface warming began in the late 1970s and ended in the mid-to-late 1990s. In effect, the “Great Carbon Chase” is a nonstarter.
And even less likely than any environmental benefits from this carbon tax retread is that revenues would be equally distributed — as if yet another government-hatched wealth-redistribution scheme is a noble goal to begin with.
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.
- Sunday pops
- The Solyndra scandal: Government culpability
- The Box
- Ford City facts: Blaming the messenger
- Elephants & the Pittsburgh Zoo: Who knows best?
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The markets: Easy money’s slap
- Hogtying a terrorist: Heroes step up
- U.N. Watch: What travel ban?
- ‘Climate resilience’?: More eco-pablum