Should Republicans support a carbon tax? Proponents of the tax tout it as an elegant, market-based policy conservatives should endorse as a way to address climate change. But there are a number of reasons conservatives shouldn’t do that.
The first problem is that a carbon tax does not measurably reduce global temperatures. The second problem is that a carbon tax can’t be implemented in a revenue neutral way that won’t harm our growing economy. Finally, voters are especially unwilling to increase their own cost of living in exchange for a policy that doesn’t work.
Let’s put aside the debate over global warming for a moment. At a minimum a policy proposal should actually work. A legislative proposal should be measured by its effectiveness. The test for a carbon tax should be asking whether it actually reduces global temperatures. The EPA’s own research indicates that a carbon tax would have no measurable impact on climate change or global temperatures.
Even Republicans who support some type of action on global warming have a tough time supporting a policy that is a toxic mix of virtue signaling and rent seeking. Bad policy should always be openly debated, but bad and ineffective policy should be universally rejected. If a carbon tax can’t halt or even slow rising temperatures, why would we impose such a heavy cost on consumers and the economy?
Proponents of a carbon tax have deceptively coined it as a “revenue neutral” policy in which all the money raised will be returned to consumers. Yet, every time a carbon tax surfaces, proponents can’t seem to help debating how best to spend the revenue in relatively short order. Just look at the countries that have gone down this path. When Canada levied its carbon tax, the government promised that revenues would never be used for the general budget, but they have already backtracked on that promise. There is no indication that Congress would be any less restrained on whether and where to spend this new pot of money.
And then there’s the plan itself. Supporters of a carbon tax have funded a variety of right-leaning think tanks and advocacy organizations to give the idea of a national carbon tax some fresh branding. They have paid high-profile Republican messengers like James Baker, George Schultz, and Trent Lott to serve as the smiling faces of the campaign. But when you look closely at what they are proposing, you see it’s really just the same old liberal policy proposal repackaged for Republican consumption.
The “carbon dividends” proposal put forth by the Climate Leadership Council — the group fronted by Baker and Shultz— would put a consumption tax on traditional fossil energy use, establish a “carbon dividend” program administered by the Internal Revenue Service, impose a border adjustment tax on the estimated carbon footprint of goods being imported to the United States, and cut existing environmental regulations.
This “Republican” plan is strikingly similar to the “cap and dividend” legislation introduced by Democratic Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Their bill would institute a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, create a federally run carbon dividend program, impose a border adjustment tax on imports, and permit additional federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to further reduce carbon emissions.
What’s the difference between the two proposals? There is none. The only real difference is their patronage. Not a single Republican has signed onto the Beyer-Van Hollen legislation, while the Republican leader of the Climate Solutions Caucus in the House has introduced a version of the Baker-Shultz plan. It’s also worth noting that nearly every Republican member of the Climate Solutions Caucus voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing a carbon tax.
In the months since the 2016 election, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have focused on pulling two levers to return the country to a stronger economic footing. They have reduced taxes on individuals and businesses, and they are overhauling the growing mountain of environmental regulations that increasingly acted as a brake on the economy. Aside from being a dubious policy that has no impact on global temperatures, a carbon tax would reverse the progress that Republicans have worked so hard to secure.
Chandler Thornton (@chandlerUSA) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the chairman of the College Republican National Committee.
