Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Every time voters are presented with something close to the actual costs of achieving CO2 emission targets, they say no. This explains why America’s left avoids putting carbon taxes on the ballot, writes The Editorial Board.

I disagree. It's much more specific than that.

As I've stated, a carbon tax doesn't necessarily need to be presented as the ONLY answer to meeting targets, but as one part of the answer to meeting targets. Thus it doesn't have to be so astronomically priced as if it will reach those targets on its own.

But the reason the left doesn't want to propose carbon taxes? Because they're regressive and will hurt left voters more than right voters, and they KNOW the right [which doesn't want taxes anyway] will call them on it mercilessly.

Taxes are GREAT, when they're on "other people". When you're asking "the rich to pay their fair share", when you're essentially promising your voters that they'll get the benefit and someone else will pay the bill. Even if [as usual] the middle class is the one that'll get screwed, they can sell higher income taxes as being on "the rich" if they're very loose with what they consider rich.

You can't pull that here.

Problems with the left proposing a carbon tax:

• The political risk of it not passing at all is high, because they KNOW the right will oppose it tooth and nail.
• The political risk of proposing it is high, because the right will skewer them as it being a regressive tax that is borne by the poor and middle class--which it is.
• The political risk of it passing is high, because it will be a VERY visible tax that will raise prices, and they will be blamed for it--by their own constituents.
• Because they can't sell it as offset by a reduction in something else regressive like the payroll tax (which I've suggested) because then the right will accuse them of defunding social security or something like it, and their commitment to social security and medicare is FAR more important to their electoral success than a carbon tax.

Reasons the right won't propose or go along with a carbon tax:

• Because they don't want to in the first place.

Typical politics. Good policy IMHO, but it will never happen because the political calculus makes it full of peril for the side that would want it most.

funds laundered by government?

I'm never a fan

The mere existence of the tax should reduce CO2 output. That is its purpose... It's a Pigovian tax--adding extra cost to an activity (pollution) where the negative externalities aren't currently captured in the market cost of the activity.

What the revenues are spent on are irrelevant--which is why I suggested offsetting the revenue gained with cuts to the payroll tax, another regressive tax. You could simply route the revenues to the social security trust fund and it's a wash.

I dont agree at all

If the folks who are screwing up the environment arent going to help pay for its improvement I see no reason for the tax

and there is no way there would ever be an offset in other taxes

I dont agree at all

If the folks who are screwing up the environment arent going to help pay for its improvement I see no reason for the tax

and there is no way there would ever be an offset in other taxes

The point is that the tax is a punishment for emitting CO2. If they don't want to pay it, they should reduce their CO2 emissions. 

The source of personal and corporate income taxes have no relationship to what that revenue is spent on. Why should it? Should we only fund the military with the income taxes from soldiers and corporate taxes from defense contractors? Of course not. Money is fungible. 

Now, I agree with you that they won't offset other taxes. The left doesn't want that; they want more taxes, and the regressive taxes that it would make sense to offset are their pet programs, so they would never offer. The right would love that, but they'd rather have it be offset by a reduction in capital gains or marginal tax rates because that's more important to their constituents. 

Has anyone noticed a Congressional proposal of late to deal with climate change?  I know some of the infrastructure bill supposedly has something in it, but I'm not sure what.  If this indeed is our biggest problem, should it not have specific legislation proposed to combat it?

(I don't mean the Green New Deal, that was a toothless "resolution" that meant nothing.)

What should government be doing here?  Carbon tax?  Subsidies for wind and solar?  Something else?