Please turn on JavaScript

Brooks Wilson's Economics Blog: The EPA and the Carbon Tax

Monday, April 20, 2009

The EPA and the Carbon Tax

Los Angeles Times reporter, Jim Tankersley, writing in "Obama administration declares greenhouse gases a threat to public health," on April 17, 2009 reports that the Obama administration has declared green house gasses a threat to public health.  A two-year old Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the right to regulate carbon emissions. 
The Obama administration today declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health, marking a major step -- both practically and symbolically -- toward federal limits on the carbon dioxide emissions scientists blame for global warming.

The move by the Environmental Protection Agency was prompted by a 2-year-old Supreme Court decision. It paves the way for the White House to regulate emissions from vehicles and effectively force the U.S. auto fleet to be cleaner and more efficient -- a plan the administration is expected to put in place soon.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said today.
Carbon will probably be regulated through a cap-and-trade system, a tax that will be paid by carbon users.  Knowing that the tax will be impressive, the administration would like the Congress to share the heat by passing new environmental legislation.  Now I will take a cheap shot at all who site every record high temperature as evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  The announcement setting the stage for carbon regulation came as a late spring snow storm dumped up to 24 inches of snow on Boulder, Colorado (Steven Goddard posting for Watts Up With That?), and another storm dusted Los Vegas.

A poll in Rasmussen Reports ("Energy Update: Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming," explains why the Obama administration would like to share the responsibility with Congress (Another HT to Watts Up With That?).
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.
I wonder why a smaller percentage of the population now blames humans for AGW.  Is it that they have read more science and find AGW less likely, or a like touch of cognitive dissonance?  Most people say that they care about the environment and most do not like to pay taxes.  Do some now believe that natural climatic variation is driving warmer temperatures because they want to feel good about themselves?

2 comments:

  1. I think that most Americans want to believe that it is a natural climatic variation that is the main cause of AGW, however, the other side (Democrats) blame the American public to be the main cause of the problem. Even though this is a serious climatic problem to our planet, we have to know that the American public is not the soul reason of the AGW.

    -Hunter Hezmall (microeconomics)
    hh030000@students.mclennan.edu

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like a tax on inflation that we have recently learned about, the tax on carbon emissions is a sneaky way for the government to raise money off of nothing. Point #1: Human beings breath out Carbon Dioxide, considered a greenhouse gas. Point #2: Plants require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to put out oxygen into the atmosphere. Point #3: The tax on inflation uses the human desire of self-preservation(saving and investment for future purposes)to increase the government's revenue like the bodily function of a human breathing would be taxed for carbon emissions.

    Chelsea Schermerhorn,
    Bruceville-Eddy High School

    ReplyDelete