Some Republicans have seized on the idea that a carbon tax could serve as a free market alternative to sweeping environmental regulations and reforms such as those in the Green New Deal. This is troubling: If enough Republicans are beguiled into striking a deal with Democrats who favor restrictions on the use of fossil fuels, they could become complicit in an exercise that greatly expands the power of the government while reducing America’s economic output.
After all, a carbon tax is a tax on energy, and a tax on energy is a tax on human freedom. Energy figures prominently into the price of all kinds of consumer goods, services, and transportation.
But what about the climate? Wouldn’t the costs of a carbon tax at least dissuade energy producers and consumers from using fossil fuel resources, resulting in lower emissions? And couldn’t a carbon tax be used as a substitute for painful, Green New Deal-type regulations?
No, and no.
First, let’s assume there is some human contribution to climate change in the form of CO2 emissions. In that case, wouldn’t the upfront costs of a carbon tax produce long-term benefits?
Not really. A study, commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research, models six different carbon tax scenarios that elected officials could potentially bring before Congress. None of the modeled scenarios shows that a carbon tax would come anywhere close to producing emissions reductions in line with the requirements of the United Nations’ Paris Agreement.
“Over 22 years, the carbon taxes we study would achieve cumulative reductions in fuel-based emissions of between 10 and 27 billion tons of CO2,” the study says. “Yet no carbon tax we model is consistent with meeting long-term U.S. obligations under the Paris Agreement as a standalone policy.” The studied scenarios also show the “average annual burden on the states and local government during the first 10 years of the tax would range from $18.9 to $30.6 billion in constant 2015 dollars.”
Any benefits to the climate would be negligible, but the costs would be severe. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has produced a video that describes how the costs of a carbon tax would get passed along to American families. Voters realize this, and so far, the concept of a carbon tax has not been a political winner for anyone in either major party.
On the Republican side, former Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida who led the charge for a proposal last summer, lost his bid for reelection. On the Democratic side, Washington state governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee has made climate change a centerpiece of his campaign. Yet, Inslee’s own constituents voted down a ballot measure he favored last November that would have imposed fees on carbon emissions.
At least Curbelo’s proposal would have supposedly put a freeze on environmental regulations in exchange for a carbon tax. But the political class being what it is, it would be sure to stick the public with new taxes on top of existing regulations at the first opportunity.
That’s likely why a strong majority of the Republican Party voted in favor of an anti-carbon tax resolution in July 2018. Yet the final vote tally of 229 to 180 is telling, because there were six Republicans, including Curbelo, who expressed support for a carbon tax by voting down the resolution.
Although Curbelo is no longer in Congress, the other House Republicans who joined with him last year to push for a carbon tax continue to advance their own versions of the proposal. The list of pro-carbon tax House Republicans includes Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida, who both voted against the anti-carbon tax resolution.
Before Republicans go down the road of making conventional energy sources more expensive, they may want to take a hard look at what “renewable” energy will cost their constituents. The Institute for Energy Research, the free market advocacy group that commissioned the carbon tax study, has produced another report that finds that wind and solar power generation are both two to three more times more than the costs of existing resources.
It’s not hard to figure out why consumers benefiting from affordable energy sources vote down the carbon tax. Climate hawk Republicans should get with the program before consumers vote them out too.
Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a freelancer and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.
