Why is a new tax needed for global warming?

Question

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071113133308.aspx

One analysis of that bill by CRA International, an international business consulting firm, predicts the Lieberman-Warner bill could cost $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years, according to an editorial in the November 11 Washington Times.

If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child – more than 303 million Americans – $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.

“There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.”

Why aren't politicians looking at prioritization within the existing federal budget?

Answer 1

All that money for something that won't have the impact on the climate that it is purported to have.  Just more governmental waste.

Answer 2

Prioritizing is the key, but most politicians have one basic priority and that's to get elected another term.

Answer 3

The Liberals have a one track mind and that is the fix for everything,and it is more taxes.

CO2 is not the problem just go measure it. What the liberals are reporting is a lie. Just like Gore's movie that it turners out to be a lie.

Answer 4

Because our government is addicted to spending we the people's money like drunken sailors and running the dollar into the dirt. They show complete irresponsibilty in fiscal matters.

If we ran our finances like the gubermint we would be in prison.

GW is just the latest excuse to run up the tab.

Answer 5

because most of the budget is appropriated to unchangeable expenses, such as social secuirty and medicare..it's unethical to reduce it's coverage and costs.

there's always gonna be conflicting interests.

such as defense costs, which might be decreased after the new president takes charge, but then again, the more we ask for oil, the more defense money will be appropriated.

and finally, global warming is expensive.

all the new technology we need as of now, is quite expensicve, or so it seems because the new tax proposals make it seem like the burden is too large for us to bear.

in reality, the tax money that we put into the hands of government to improve environmental policy will only end up saving us money in the long term, through a drastic reduction in our energy bills.

we are proritizing, it's just that this policy seems expensive for now, especially for us to deal with, since global warming hasn't taken it's biggest effect yet and people don't realize what we're bargaining.

Answer 6

First, you need to understand that taxes are a way for Governments to affect desired behaviors.  Governments need X dollars to operate.  They are not trying to get a surplus.  In fact, we are running a deficit.  So, it's not a matter of raising MORE money.  It's a matter of where to tax to raise that revenue for the government.  And, where you increases taxes in one area, you can decrease taxes in another.  Revenue stays FLAT unless the government decides it needs more money to cover Expenses for SERVICES we receive at Citizens.

That all said, then what we as a country are trying to do is TAX where harm is done to the environment (i.e. using resources).  This will cause a behavior change to AVOID the tax.  This is why other countries TAX gasoline so heavily.  It's to cause people to use much more environmentally friendly ways of transportation (ie.. PUBLIC transportation).

Answer 7

I can't support any new tax until we get some better answers about the spending of the existing taxes.  Since Bush ordered the EPA not to do its job for the past 8 years, what has he done with the money?  Should it not be refunded to the taxpayer since the job wasn't done that we were taxed for?  Why would Lieberman, et al even consider adding another tax without an investigation to see if the money provided to the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act was siphoned directly into the pockets of Halliburton, Blackwater and the rest of Cheney and Bush's dummy corporations (like most of the rest of the Federal Budget)?  What about the money currently being spent to block 18 States from cleaning up after these filthy polluters?  Is this the EPA or the Treasury Department?  How come the EPA has the time and money to play Justice Department while Cheney-Bush's vast industrial empire pollutes as liberally as they spend?