Merriam-Webster defınes a tax as a “government levy on persons, groups or businesses.” And as common and often necessary as taxes are, no one likes to utter that three-letter word.
Opponents of California’s complex cap-and-trade framework say the state should have just implemented a simple carbon tax. “It encourages a more earnest and honest public debate,” says Jay McKeeman, vice president of government relations and communications for CIOMA. “Let’s pick a number and say, ‘This is what we need to help reduce carbon emissions in the state,’ show the public how that’s going to be done, make sure everyone is comfortable with the bang for the buck and move on.”
Many economists agree that if the aim is to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, a carbon tax would be the most effective, straightforward tool. ExxonMobil, Shell Oil and BP have supported a carbon tax. And in a Bloomberg poll, Americans by a ratio of two to one say that they would pay more for energy if it cut carbon emissions.
But despite this support, the reality of a carbon tax remains politically toxic. Despite its leadership in fıghting climate change, the Obama Administration has said it would never propose a carbon tax, although it supports the general concept of carbon pricing.
The result? A “hall of mirrors” effect, as McKeeman describes it, in which no one has a clear idea of what they may be paying for a cleaner, lower-carbon future. Meanwhile, incredibly shrinking gas prices have disrupted—at least temporarily—the downward trajectory of gas demand, which has made carbon-fuel-hungry SUVs and trucks a lot more attractive to consumers.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.