Bob Corker, Climate Change Rebel?
Sen. Bob Corker (TN) can be one of the hardest congressional Republicans to pin down ideologically, and he proved that today during Al Gore's appearance in the Foreign Relations Committee.
Corker's easygoing criticism of a cap-and-trade system for regulating emissions won him a glowing profile last year in National Review, which called him "the most pleasant surprise conservatives have had" in the Senate since Paul Coverdell in the 1990s.
Wonder what the NRO folks would make of Corker's kumbaya moment with Gore today? From Corker's comments to Gore:
I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there's no net dollars that would come out of the American people's pockets.
Gore, who has proposed a similarly broad carbon tax, agreed with Corker. The two men then heartily concurred on the need to auction off 100% of carbon allowances under a cap-and-trade system -- a plan that mirrors President Obama's.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Methinks I see the beginnings of an unbeatable coalition. And not a moment too soon....
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/futureoceans.html
January 28, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. I forsee some major fissures erupting in the gop big time. Look out we may finally get some stuff done for a change.
January 28, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great. A minimum price for gas, for instance, would do great things to making the financial incentives stable in investing in wind and solar power (and nuclear, too, but that's another can of worms). With gas going up and down all of the time, there's too much risk to do a lot there.
I guess I'm saying it would be nice if a carbon tax was a tool for price stabilization. It just has to be balanced so that it won't bankrupt everyone.
January 28, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there's no net dollars that would come out of the American people's pockets."
My problem with this is who do these guys think are going to pay for a carbon tax? The companies required to pay pass along the cost, at the pump or in the cost of electricity or goods.
I'm not saying this is a necissarily a bad idea, (although I prefer the auction/cap and trade approach), but any way you cut this, every American is going to have to pay one way or the other for cleaning up the mess we've created by inventing the light bulb and the internal combustion engine.
Saying no net dollars will come out Americans pockets is political doubletalk.
January 28, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could just match the revenue gained from the carbon tax with a tax cut elsewhere. The government's income would remain the same so there is no across the board tax increase. Individuals would either see their taxes increased or decreased (or stay the same I suppose) based on their carbon output. I strongly support this idea.
January 28, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, taxes could be reduced elsewhere, but the cost of CO2 reduction efforts, the technology and infrastructure needed to change our energy systems and economy in fundamental ways is also needed. Conservation efforts, even by the most energy/carbon conscious society (which America has proven for the past 200 years we are not), aren't going to be enough to meet the targets of 2050 to be at 50% of the 1990 emission rate. So aside from the "carbon tax" portion of this, or the auction for cap and trade, the costs of this are enormous.
If you send a check to every citizen, great, but that is more money taken away from the science and technology and infrasturcture developement required and that money has to come from somewhere. Until wind turbines start growing spontaneously in the desert, it will come from the consumer, whether that consumer is consious of their carbon footprint or not.
Again I'm all for CO2 reductions (I don't like the term carbon reduction, because Carbon is not the culprit, Carbon dioxide and other exhaust gases are), and know they are neccesary for the long term health of our planet, but I don't believe our government can turn this problem into a no net cost enterprize for every citizen.
January 29, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The environment could be an issue the GOP could embrace to regain some voters. The oil companies don't really fit in with a populist approach some in the GOP pretend to advocate, and some mega-churches have advocated environmental issues.
January 28, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. However, the oil companies line the gop campaign coffers. They won't throw them under the bus anytime soon. The oil companies will be tied to the gop as the gop gets shoveled into the dustbin of history.
January 28, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Corker may be alluding to is called "cap and dividend". All carbon consumption is auctioned: domestic production and imports. The total amount auctioned declines 2 per cent per year (80 per cent decline by 2050). The proceeds are paid in equal shares to each adult American citizen in the form of a dividend check monthly. As the amount of carbon available declines, its auction price increases, and its price in the marketplace increases. Citizens who respond to market incentives by using less carbon benefit the most as carbon based product prices escalate. The magic of this proposal is that it does the most to drive incentives for change of behavior right down to the level of the individual consumer.
The weakness of most cap and trade programs is that carbon credits are first allocated to current producers or large industrial consumers (mostly oil, coal and gas producers and utilities), or they get some preference at the auction. They then benefit as sellers in the trading round. Cap and trade has already been tried in the European Union, and it did not succeed in reducing carbon consumption. It just made the carbon industries richer.
Cap and dividend appeals to true conservatives and libertarians, because it uses the market on both the production/distribution (supply) side and on the consumption (demand)side. The government is not deciding how to use the auction proceeds, the consumer is by purchasing behavior. The producer has incentives to reduce cost of inputs and looks for ways to reduce carbon as an input - in order to compete for the carbon auction dollars spent in the market.
Liberal/progressives (like me) are pleased to see those who consume the least carbon actually get a check every month (think of the homeless veteran living under a bridge); not to mention the nice folks who change that lightbulb, take public transit or scrap that Humvee. Treehuggers (like me)are pleased to see politics, lobbyists, public interest groups, and bribery removed from the process; not so much because we dislike special interests (which we do), but more because this is the most effective way to drive down carbon consumption. We do believe our planet is in peril, and we do accept the responsibility to choose immediate, effective public policies that will minimize the risk to future generations of people and all other life on this earth.
This is true bipartisanship. Hat off to Corker. Let's help him. It's in our interest to do so.
January 28, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Tennessean, I am quite proud of Sen. Corker at the moment. I did not vote for him, and probably will not in the future after his campaign stooped to smearing former Congressman and current Chair of the DLC Harold Ford, Jr. in order to win. However, this plan is genius. I agree with sunny; urge your Congressman and Senators to support this measure.
January 29, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink