Comments on: Dingell Opens the Door … with a Hybrid Carbon Tax http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/ Pricing carbon efficiently and equitably Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:02:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Mike Lebo http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-21959 Mike Lebo Wed, 07 May 2008 23:48:49 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-21959 Why would 60% go to roads, since travel would be cut dramatically? Do you realize we live in the suburbs/rural because housing in the city is too expensive? I pay $460 month house payments for a 1 acre rural homestead and my taxes are less than $700 a year. And crime on average is considerably higher in the city. We dont even have a patrolling police force here just the county sherriff and they are on a "call to get service" only. My doors can stay unlocked and my kids can walk anywhere they want. This tax would cause us to move closer to our workplace to save on fuel cost. The real estate market would be a mess(even worse than it is now)    I suggest making the roads more friendly to alternative means of transportation IE; bicycles, scooters, mopeds. I cannot travel any state routes safely, while riding my 100mpg moped because there are not any lanes designated for slower(40mph) transportation. And another problem arises once in the city due to parking being designed for cars not mopeds and scooters. I am a novice when it comes to politics and bills, but I have more questions than what I just posted and I dont beleive I will receive any good responses, other than "everyone will need to make concessions".   That to me means Ill have to make concessions even though there are other solutions that can be added to this bill that would allow less of an impact to my very humble lifestyle.  Why would 60% go to roads, since travel would be cut dramatically?
Do you realize we live in the suburbs/rural because housing in the city is too expensive? I pay $460 month house payments for a 1 acre rural homestead and my taxes are less than $700 a year. And crime on average is considerably higher in the city. We dont even have a patrolling police force here just the county sherriff and they are on a "call to get service" only. My doors can stay unlocked and my kids can walk anywhere they want. This tax would cause us to move closer to our workplace to save on fuel cost. The real estate market would be a mess(even worse than it is now) 
 
I suggest making the roads more friendly to alternative means of transportation IE; bicycles, scooters, mopeds. I cannot travel any state routes safely, while riding my 100mpg moped because there are not any lanes designated for slower(40mph) transportation. And another problem arises once in the city due to parking being designed for cars not mopeds and scooters.
I am a novice when it comes to politics and bills, but I have more questions than what I just posted and I dont beleive I will receive any good responses, other than "everyone will need to make concessions".   That to me means Ill have to make concessions even though there are other solutions that can be added to this bill that would allow less of an impact to my very humble lifestyle. 

]]> By: Carbon Tax Center » Dingell: My Carbon Tax Bill is “Off the Table” http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-21142 Carbon Tax Center » Dingell: My Carbon Tax Bill is “Off the Table” Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:33:59 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-21142 [...] voice yesterday when Rep. John Dingell announced he was taking “off the table” the hybrid carbon tax proposal he floated last fall that would have imposed a national carbon fee, supplemental increases in taxes [...] [...] voice yesterday when Rep. John Dingell announced he was taking “off the table” the hybrid carbon tax proposal he floated last fall that would have imposed a national carbon fee, supplemental increases in taxes [...]

]]> By: Kurt Lyell http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-9652 Kurt Lyell Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:57:20 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-9652 I am an engineer, and have studied energy for the better part of six years.  Dingell's carbon tax structure is nearly identical to what I would propose.  I am very impressed with the tax proposal, and believe this would be a realistic way to meet the needs of our future.  Government will not be able to afford tax incentives for renewables, considering the growth projections, and a carbon tax indirectly helps renewables renewable energy generators and alternative fuel.   I also believe in taxing diesel at a different rate.  Diesel powers the economy, and several countries tax diesel less to maintain the economy.  I also suppor the view that carbon tax with a well known structure helps businesses prepare their cap-ex budgets with known projections and costs.  I would be happy to see a portion of the revenues dedicated to reducing our national debt, currently listed at over $30,000 per American (<a href="http://brillig.com/debt_clock/" rel="nofollow">http://brillig.com/debt_clock/</a>) I am an engineer, and have studied energy for the better part of six years.  Dingell’s carbon tax structure is nearly identical to what I would propose.  I am very impressed with the tax proposal, and believe this would be a realistic way to meet the needs of our future.  Government will not be able to afford tax incentives for renewables, considering the growth projections, and a carbon tax indirectly helps renewables renewable energy generators and alternative fuel.  
I also believe in taxing diesel at a different rate.  Diesel powers the economy, and several countries tax diesel less to maintain the economy. 
I also suppor the view that carbon tax with a well known structure helps businesses prepare their cap-ex budgets with known projections and costs. 
I would be happy to see a portion of the revenues dedicated to reducing our national debt, currently listed at over $30,000 per American (http://brillig.com/debt_clock/)

]]> By: Carbon Tax Center » A Convenient Tax — Issue #3 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-8642 Carbon Tax Center » A Convenient Tax — Issue #3 Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:09:33 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-8642 [...] Dingell released his proposal on the evening of Sept. 26, we were ready with a blog post on both our Web site and Gristmill, branding the idea a "hybrid carbon tax," praising Dingell's vision, and [...] [...] Dingell released his proposal on the evening of Sept. 26, we were ready with a blog post on both our Web site and Gristmill, branding the idea a "hybrid carbon tax," praising Dingell’s vision, and [...]

]]> By: Grzesiek http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-8598 Grzesiek Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:04:43 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-8598 I strongly agree that creating a price floor using tax would be beneficial (total risk to investor in no carbon technology would be significantly lowered unleashing market forces capable of bringing the biggest changes).Charles, interesting avg price comparison.My inclination to treat the gas tax and carbon tax separately is due to different goals of those taxes:gas tax -> less gas consumption/new transportation technology -> lower trade deficit (smaller CO2 reduction)CO2tax -> lower  energy consumption/movement to noCO2 technology -> large CO2 reduction (less effect on trade deficit/national security)Both goals are good but they could be more difficult to achive together. I strongly agree that creating a price floor using tax would be beneficial (total risk to investor in no carbon technology would be significantly lowered unleashing market forces capable of bringing the biggest changes).Charles, interesting avg price comparison.My inclination to treat the gas tax and carbon tax separately is due to different goals of those taxes:gas tax -> less gas consumption/new transportation technology -> lower trade deficit (smaller CO2 reduction)CO2tax -> lower  energy consumption/movement to noCO2 technology -> large CO2 reduction (less effect on trade deficit/national security)Both goals are good but they could be more difficult to achive together.

]]> By: Charles Komanoff http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-8547 Charles Komanoff Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:24:55 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-8547 <p>Grzesiek -- </p><p>I agree w/ some of your points but not all.</p><p>Agree: Revenue-neutrality is vital. Payroll tax swap is an excellent option. Fuel taxes will reduce non-tax price, hard to say how much.</p><p>Disagree: With your likening the 63c/gal 5-y increase in the Dingell proposal to 16c rise in past two weeks. Latter is ordinary price fluctuation/manipulation that drivers rightly interpret as noise. Indeed, 2007 avg price (first 3Q) was identical to 2006 avg (first 3Q)! What's needed is an unambiguous signal that the price will rise (due to tax) and at approximately such-and-such rate.</p><p>Disagree: With your math on $300/tCO2 impact. That would be just under $3/gal, not $1.25. But regardless, ramping it up gradually but steadily is the key.<br /></p> Grzesiek – 

I agree w/ some of your points but not all.

Agree: Revenue-neutrality is vital. Payroll tax swap is an excellent option. Fuel taxes will reduce non-tax price, hard to say how much.

Disagree: With your likening the 63c/gal 5-y increase in the Dingell proposal to 16c rise in past two weeks. Latter is ordinary price fluctuation/manipulation that drivers rightly interpret as noise. Indeed, 2007 avg price (first 3Q) was identical to 2006 avg (first 3Q)! What’s needed is an unambiguous signal that the price will rise (due to tax) and at approximately such-and-such rate.

Disagree: With your math on $300/tCO2 impact. That would be just under $3/gal, not $1.25. But regardless, ramping it up gradually but steadily is the key.

]]> By: Grzesiek http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-8523 Grzesiek Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:05:33 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-8523 I agree with readers who noticed how insignificant the numbers are: 63c/gal after 5 years? Last 2 weeks gas went up 16c! Electricity: .9c/kwh doesn't seams a lot ~ 10% of current price. I think Hal could be right - don't mix carbon tax with gasoline tax in the same bill. I have different numbers and correct me if I'm wrong but $300/tCO2 would equal $1.25 tax on gasoline (its oil component; would be less for E85) and about 10c/kwh. This kind of shock and awe would be extremely difficult to push through legislation and  to sweeten  it  revenue neutrality is absolutely necessary. Good choice would be offsetting by cutting into payroll tax... You can not reasonably predict how big would be effect of consumption suppression on price of oil, but it is reasonable to expect that balance would be tilted toward lower price.  This way the gas price would not grow as much as the tax addition.   I agree with readers who noticed how insignificant the numbers are: 63c/gal after 5 years? Last 2 weeks gas went up 16c! Electricity: .9c/kwh doesn’t seams a lot ~ 10% of current price. I think Hal could be right – don’t mix carbon tax with gasoline tax in the same bill. I have different numbers and correct me if I’m wrong but $300/tCO2 would equal $1.25 tax on gasoline (its oil component; would be less for E85) and about 10c/kwh. This kind of shock and awe would be extremely difficult to push through legislation and  to sweeten  it  revenue neutrality is absolutely necessary. Good choice would be offsetting by cutting into payroll tax… You can not reasonably predict how big would be effect of consumption suppression on price of oil, but it is reasonable to expect that balance would be tilted toward lower price.  This way the gas price would not grow as much as the tax addition.  

]]> By: Carbon Tax Center » Bloomberg to Urge U.S. Carbon Tax http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-8267 Carbon Tax Center » Bloomberg to Urge U.S. Carbon Tax Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:35:23 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-8267 [...] September, U.S. Rep. John Dingell, the powerful chair of the House Commerce Committee, proposed a hybrid carbon tax combining a straight carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas with a surcharge on gasoline and jet [...] [...] September, U.S. Rep. John Dingell, the powerful chair of the House Commerce Committee, proposed a hybrid carbon tax combining a straight carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas with a surcharge on gasoline and jet [...]

]]> By: Reality Check http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-6920 Reality Check Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:44:49 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-6920 A carbon tax is absolutely essential and will happen sooner or later. The question is how drastic it will have to be to address the problem, given the amount of foot-dragging that is going to happen before people wake up and demand it. Do not insist on waiting for the "best" solution; none exists. Instead, embrace this effort, get it passed, and then make it better over time. A carbon tax is absolutely essential and will happen sooner or later. The question is how drastic it will have to be to address the problem, given the amount of foot-dragging that is going to happen before people wake up and demand it. Do not insist on waiting for the “best” solution; none exists. Instead, embrace this effort, get it passed, and then make it better over time.

]]> By: David Sackett http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-6873 David Sackett Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:10:13 +0000 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/09/26/dingell-opens-the-door-with-a-hybrid-carbon-tax/#comment-6873 Am I the only person who caught from the summary that Dingell is suggesting the Carbon tax not as an alternative to a cap and trade regime but in addition to it? He says, "In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach. <em> In addition</em> to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable." This is not at all what your organization has been advocating and furthermore it is clear that revenue nuetrality is the furthest from his mind given all the special interest funding included in his summary: Medicare and Social Security Universal Healthcare (upon passage) State Children’s Health Insurance Program Am I the only person who caught from the summary that Dingell is suggesting the Carbon tax not as an alternative to a cap and trade regime but in addition to it? He says,
"In order to get to this end we need to have a multi-pronged approach.  In addition to an economy wide cap-and-trade program, which would mandate a cap on carbon emissions, a fee on carbon is the most effective way to curb emissions and make alternatives economically viable."
This is not at all what your organization has been advocating and furthermore it is clear that revenue nuetrality is the furthest from his mind given all the special interest funding included in his summary:
Medicare and Social Security
Universal Healthcare (upon passage)
State Children’s Health Insurance Program

]]>