The another step in Obama’s agenda for advancing state power and economic collectivism in America is his carbon “cap and trade policy,” under which the government will formally nationalize the atmosphere above the United States and make businesses buy permits to emit carbon dioxide into the air.
I discuss the consequences of this policy in a new piece of mine on, “Obama’s Carbon Cap and Trade Policy is Costly for Consumers.”
The White House hopes to use this stealth tax under the name of selling emission permits to raise over $650 billion (or much more) in government revenue to help fund the administration’s planned and huge increase in redistributive, welfare state activities.
It will impose a huge cost on business and consumers that may lower by one percent or more annual GDP and consumer standards of living for years to come. The resulting higher costs for many consumer goods would be be equal to a $1,100 tax on a family of four in 2010. These costs would continue to rise and would increase to $3,000 on that family of four in 2050 (in inflation-adjusted dollars).
At the same time it will dramatically cause a redirection of jobs across the economy that would have no relationship to the distribution of employment in a free market with strict property rights to internalize externalities.
If passed and implemented, it would a further step on Obama Administration’s march toward the planned economy.
Richard Ebeling
{ 11 comments }
Yes, Obama’s Cap-and-Trade policy is collectivism. So is the current no-property-rights, free-for-all atmospheric socialism we currently have.
Yes, Obama’s C/T policy will reduce consumption. So will the effects of carbon emissions.
Fill in the blank for me: “one kind of collectivism/loss to consumption is obviously worse than the other because ________.”
“Yes, Obama’s C/T policy will reduce consumption. So will the effects of carbon emissions.”
I’m a little confused. Could you elaborate on that last part of your statement? How exactly will the effects of carbon emissions decrease consumption?
“How exactly will the effects of carbon emissions decrease consumption?”
I’d like to know also. And while we’re at it, I understand the EPA recently classified CO2 as a pollutant. So I guess if less CO2 is good, then barely any CO2 would be great, and no CO2 would be best of all. Am I right?
The issue of climate change is from both a scientific and economic/financial perspective a major tool to expand the fascist state.
The overwhelming dominance of government funding and, hence, political control of climate science “research” is producing the same results as those that have occurred in economics since the early 20th century. Scientific objectivity and integrity, and a pursuit of truth have been overwhelmed by political considerations.
We have to separate issues from government interventions.
Poverty, pollution, and crime are all negative issues that we would like to solve. But aspiring power mongers use these issues to gain control over society by making emotional appeals. Even if there were true desire to solve the problems, the governors are more intent on gaining power. And the truth of the matter is that the problems worsen due to government intervention.
We are not arguing that poverty, pollution, or crime are good things and therefore we do not want the government involved. We are arguing that government solutions do not work, are disingenuous power grabs justified in the name of solving problems, and lead to less freedom and ability to truly solve the problems.
In other words, there is a lot of evil in the world and government is part of the problem, not the solution. Those who support the State are misguided at best, and have sinister motives at worst. History has demonstrated over and over that anyone who says “Give me the power and I will make everything right!” is lying.
Perhaps someone should do a “fill in the blanks” rendition of Silas’s repetitive, dull posts? In fact it does not follow that Obama’s arbitrary scheme will be better than “no ownership” and will come anywhere close to genuine property rights.
It doesn’t follow that where a commons exists, you necessarily have “collectivism”. That would only occur if the commons is coercively prevented from being privatized. Thus, the “commons of the air” IS better than Obama’s Cap & Trade policy, because it still allows the possibility that private interests will indeed figure out how to privatize the commons.
Consider the U.S. phone system at the beginning of the 20th century, and how phone companies were working out business plans to share phone lines until Bell Telephone successfully managed to get the government to intervene and allow local monopolies of phone service. Getting rid of the phone monopoly decades later required more government action, and did little to sort out the original problem that existed. C & T will just delay any real, viable solution to the commons of the air.
It should be noted that the $1,100 increase for a family of four estimated at the 2008 level and $3,000 in 2050 would be dependent on how much each household consumed of the “taxed” products. It is a strong possibility that this would be a strongly regressive tax falling heavily on the poor.
The rich has the luxury of shifting their purchases to save, the poor do not. Actually this could be the most regressive tax in our nation’s history.
The issue of the atmosphere as a “commons” is important. However, I would argue that the fundamental issue is whether or not a tort has been committed by human release of CO2 into the atmosphere and at what level of CO2 emissions any tort would occur.
Furthermore, labeling CO2 a pollutant is problematic, as it ignores the fact that the entire food chain is based on plants utilizing CO2, water, sunlight, and chlorophyll to produce carbohydrates through photosynthesis. In addition, all humans (and animals) omit CO2 when they exhale.
@Silas Barta: Fill in the blank for me: “one kind of collectivism/loss to consumption is obviously worse than the other because ________.”
Because one is more destructive to liberty than another.
Should the states do something to protect the residents who have to live with the extra pollution that local polluters are able to buy in the “marketplace”? Is it possible that when an idea is *this* wrong, on so many fronts, that it overwhelms all efforts to counter it?
Comments on this entry are closed.