Rep. Dingell Insists He’s for Carbon Tax
07/25/2007 by Daniel Rosenblum
From The Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2007He means business with carbon tax
Re "Dingell's roadblock," editorial, July 18:
Several points raised in your editorial deserve clarification, chiefly the assertion that I'm designing a carbon tax bill with the intention of seeing it fail. Never in my "distinguished half a century in the House" have I introduced legislation that I did not believe was worthy of my colleagues' consideration and the public's support.
For months, I've been discussing a carbon emissions fee as one option for reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. While it may not be the most popular option, I agree with The Times that a carbon tax would be the most effective available option to fight global warming. Also, I have voted for gasoline taxes in the past and will continue to do so. I don't have a point to prove. I have a job to do, and I am doing it.
REP. JOHN D. DINGELL (D-Mich.)
To maintain an even international playing field, a tariff could be levied on products imported from countries without a C tax or cap-trade. However, wouldn’t GATT be invoked to strike down such a tariff?
Comment by Sylvester Johnson — October 8, 2007 @ 3:22 am
Good points. It may be possible to impose border tax adjustments to reduce or eliminate international competitiveness issues and the border tax adjustments will raise GATT concerns which we believe can be overcome. We begin to address the points in our discussion of border tax adjustments on our "Issues" page. We intend to address the issue more thoroughly in the future.
Comment by Dan Rosenblum — October 8, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Thanks for your considered reply. A professor of political science wants me to give a presentation to his class, but needs to know about GATT undermining the tariff adjustment-or should we call it a border tax adjustment for legal reasons?
From your “Border Adjustments” page, it appears that the tariff would likely hold, but would not be 100% guaranteed to be robust against a challenge.
In particular, “it is not clear if an import tax could vary based on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during a good’s production — WTO rules would have to be interpreted in a way that considers products not to be ‘like’ each other based on their carbon footprints.” Seeking a special interpretaion may be problematic?
On the other hand,
“even if “border adjustment” would not be permitted for process-based measures such as a domestic, US carbon tax, regulation or cap-and-trade system, and/or such “border adjustment” would be found to be discriminatory, the resulting GATT violation may still be justified by the environmental exceptions in GATT Article XX (Section VI).”
Seems like it would be preferable not to provoke a GATT violation in the first place.
Comment by Sylvester Johnson — October 9, 2007 @ 1:08 am
One way to avoid a GATT issue is to negotiate an international response to climate change that includes a carbon tax. If the United States were to lead the way instead of doing its best to block progress , the chances of an international agreement would be dramatically improved.
Comment by Dan Rosenblum — October 13, 2007 @ 7:37 am
zqonsxp jquwoag
Comment by metformin xr — July 25, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
aflgnpx nhzyfab
Comment by inderal sa — July 26, 2008 @ 8:59 am
djley qibolme fvrx
Comment by drugs similar to plavix — July 31, 2008 @ 7:06 am