Congressional Climate Poll — Hold the Pessimism
Washington climate circles are abuzz over a National Journal poll released last weekend suggesting that concern over climate change is waning among Republican House members just as public alarm is mounting.
The Journal, a highly respected print and e-magazine covering politics from Washington, DC, asked Members of Congress, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" While the number of Democratic members answering No was a gratifyingly low 2%, the same as last April, the share of Republican naysayers rose to 84%, from 77% in April.
Though the Dem-Rep split is noteworthy, the absolute percentages should be viewed with caution. For one thing, the response rates were low: 1 in 7 Republicans, 1 in 8 Democrats. (Hmm, could it be that the more "extreme" Senators and Representatives from either party were more apt to respond, skewing the divisions between the parties?) Second, the poll predated the Feb. 2 release of the IPCC-4 report. The Journal's questionnaire was sent out Jan. 29 and the answers were received Jan. 29 - Feb. 1, too early to reflect the sobering findings from the report and the extensive media coverage.
The second (and last) poll question concerned solutions: "Which of these actions to reduce global warming could you possibly support?" Respondents could vote Yes or No to six choices, which included measures such as higher CAFE standards and greater spending on alternative fuels.
A carbon cap-and-trade program far outpolled a carbon tax, by 83% to 50% among Democrats and 42% to 3% among Republicans. We regard this, at least in part, as a reflection of the active promotion recently of cap-and-trade and the relative silence from carbon-tax supporters. In addition to the poll's unfortunate timing, we wonder if the wording ("A 'cap-and-trade' carbon dioxide emissions-reduction program" and "A carbon tax", respectively) inadvertently tilted responses toward cap-and-trade. Perhaps next time National Journal can ask about "An emission-reducing carbon tax" or "A revenue-neutral carbon tax".
We also expect that Congressional understanding of the merits of carbon taxing will increase as a result of efforts by carbon tax supporters who can now benefit from the information on this site.
Op-ed in today’s Washington Post by Robert Samuelson that’s both very cynical about the climate solutions on the table and in favor of a gas & carbon tax.
Comment by Evan — February 7, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Here’s an op-ed in today’s WashPost by Robert Samuelson that’s both cynical about current climate solutions and supportive of a carbon tax.
Comment by Evan — February 7, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
I think that after a round of meetings with the major US think tanks, you all should then organize a hill briefing from notable economists on the merits of a carbon tax. Also, here’s a good Grist article on an editor of Forbes magazine in favor of a carbon tax. Interesting article and might be a good place for you all to post a comment to.
Comment by Evan — February 7, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Good post by Greg Mankiw on notable economists in favor of carbon taxes. Get these guys on Capitol Hill!
Comment by Evan — February 7, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
This is the stupidest idea ever conceived. Just another way to raise taxes for more bureaucracy and fill the wallets of fat cat politicians.
Evidence is that the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles since it was created. The warming spells between the 10th and 15th century was greater than the one we now have! Most of the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years occurred prior to 1940!!
Share all the facts, not just what you want for your agenda!!
Comment by Terry — February 8, 2007 @ 3:25 am
A carbon tax may be fair for corporations but not necessarily for individuals. Low income people in rural areas may consume more fossil fuel (gasoline) than wealthier folks in the ‘burbs or metro areas, because they have to drive farther to get anywhere. Making them pay even more taxes will drive them even further toward poverty. Any carbon tax for individuals must take this into consideration and provide releif for them, e.g., they pay whatever percentage of the carbon tax that their income is (30% for $30K income, 50% for 50K income, 65.5% for 65.5K income, etc., so that only people over 100K income pay the full 100% of what they owe in carbon tax). Businesses/corporations could be subject to the same guidelines. Thus very small and startup businesses could get some tax relief as well. That being said, we are fooling ourselves if we think it will reduce global warming. THE ONLY REASON WE SHOULD DO IT IS BECAUSE IT S A GOOD THING TO DO to reduce pollution, but the effect on global warming will be minimal, if any. Yes the amount of CO2 has doubled in the last 30 years, from 0.0000015 to 0.0000030. It is measurable, but insignificant. We are not going to suffocate because of it. The world’s plants will benefit from it because they consume CO2 as part of photosynthesis, with O2 as a byproduct. The oceans have an even greater capacity to absorb CO2 than the world’s forests, and if increased CO2 is causing more storms, this will cause more turbulence in the seas and increase the absorption of CO2.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 6:01 am
On second thought, a carbon tax is a bad idea after all. It will not result in a reduction of fossil fuel consumption. What will happen is that the corporations that are taxed for production of carbon will pass the cost on to the consumer, and not feel any ill effect of being taxed. Thus they will not reduce consumption. The consumer who is taxed for his consumption will end up paying twice and footing the entire bill. Even if it results in a reduction in inidviduals’ consumption of fossil fuels, this amount will be minimal relative to the corporate consumption. Thus the benefit will be small, but the cost to the individual will be unbearable. NO CARBON TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The solution is gov’t mandated reduction in Carbon production by corporations and mandated absorption of cost by the corporations, not the consumers.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 6:10 am
Another tax? For the USA? And I thought this was a world problem. Who is going to tax the other countries? Where is the money really going to go? And fas ar as what ever we do about this so called global warming thing, has anyone asked Mother Nature how she is going to handle that asteroid/comet that is on its way. I might not be here for that, but my grand kids will and maybe my kids. So much for humans trying to control what God has planned. Just the same what happens to global warming when that thing hits if we survive it??????
Comment by H Koehler — February 8, 2007 @ 8:08 am
Looking at our electricity bill last month, there was a $27 charge added because of additional costs to the energy company. All a carbon tax will do is increase that $27 to cover it, consumers end up paying for our own consumption tax, and that of the energy company as well.
I don’t mind paying the tax for my own use. However, when the energy companies seek permission for additional charges, they should be denied, at some point, they need to pay out of their own pockets, not just merely pass on the cost to the consumers. Our energy company has approx. one million customers, that’s 27 million dollars per month they receive. Where does it all go?
Comment by Kim Schneden — February 8, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Kim — Perhaps you should consider buying wind power. Depending on where you live and which utility company provides your electricity, you may be able to contract to receive wind-generated electricity. The price might be higher initially but at least it won’t rise due to escalating fuel costs. There are also a host of measures such as converting from incandescent to compact fluorescent lights that will let you cut down on usage without sacrificing comfort. Go to www.aceee.org for info.
H Koehler — CTC’s platform is to return the carbon tax revenues to the public on an equitable, progressive basis. Please go to the second sub-page ("Softening the Impact") on our Issues page.
DG — Corporations, small business and individuals alike cause fossil fuels to be burned. If there were a workable way to charge a higher carbon-tax rate for big business or wealthy households, we (CTC) would be for it, but we fear that the "gaming" and special pleading that would result would doom the tax completely. And higher prices do induce fuel efficiency and substitution. (We talk about this on our FAQ page and in one of our Issues pages.) We share your concern about tax impacts on poor families, which is why we’re committed to equitable and progressive redistribution of carbon tax revenues. (See "Softening the Impact" on our Issues page.) Very few poor households use more fossil fuels than average, so our redistribution proposals will likely leave poorer Americans better off, not worse. As for whether the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is a threat, please read the summary of the new IPCC-4 report. (There’s a link to it in my blog post that started this thread.) And while you’re at it, please multiply your figures above for CO2′s concentration in the atmosphere by 100.
Terry — Either you didn’t view enough of our site, or our site isn’t as clear as it needs to be, to see that CTC is proposing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with no net increase in taxation of Americans. As for the rate at which the Earth is warming, since the late 1970s it’s been almost an order of magnitude greater than it was from 1900 to that time. But don’t take our word for it, see what the world’s leading scientists have just said, by the thousands, in the IPCC report. Or see what former Fed Chair Paul Volcker says on the subject, as reported in this week’s Forbes (see our Who Supports page).
Evan — Thanks for those good and encouraging ideas. CTC hopes to do exactly what you’re urging!
Comment by Charles — February 8, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Check out Senator Barbara Boxer’s request to "Help Set a Global Warming Agenda". This is probably a good place to pitch a carbon tax over the other options they’ve got there.
Comment by Evan — February 8, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Charles,I did not say that the CO2 concentrations were in %. If they were then I would have multiplied by 100. They are shown in parts per million and are correct as I have shown them.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Another way to say it is that the concentration has gone from 1.5 ppm to 3ppm.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Kim,There is no guarantee that the cost of ‘wind power’ will not go up. All commercially generated electricity goes into the grid. You could build your own windmill to supply your own power and get off the grid entirely. Trouble is, a 10 kilowatt windmill stands 40 feet high, costs $20000, and requires a sustained 29mph wind. Perhaps someday solar panels will be efficient and affordable enough if you live in a sunny place. Until then the powers that be will continue to find ways to get as much money out of us as they can.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
If the CO2 concentration actually is 300ppm as you suggest, then allow me to gasp for air as I remove egg from my face. I will double check my source.
Comment by dg — February 8, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Check out this video of Greg Mankiw and Fred Bergsten (Institute for International Economics) on Kudlow & Company on CNBC pushing for a gas tax.
Comment by Evan — February 9, 2007 @ 6:53 am
Check out this video of Greg Mankiw and Fred Bergsten on CNBC pushing a gas tax.
Comment by Evan — February 9, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Here is Kudlow’s reaction to Mankiw and Bersten. Lots of good background.
Comment by Evan — February 9, 2007 @ 6:56 am
Here’s part 2 of the Kudlow interview with Mankiw and Bersten.
Comment by Evan — February 9, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Check out this good cartoon in favor of gas tax over other policies. It would be good to post this to your site.
Comment by Evan — February 9, 2007 @ 7:18 am