You raise several very cogent points. Our proposal really is more accurately described as a disposal fee than a tax. So yes, we may be unnecessarily handicapping our proposal. I’ve noticed that Dr. Hansen has started calling it a “fee.”

On the other side of the coin, the magical sheen seems to have rubbed off the term “cap.” Proponents are starting to re-label:

“I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does.” — Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) NYT, 9/29.

The dictionary definition of “tax” is very broad and includes any payment to government for public purposes. Several payments that fall within that broad definition are not generally called taxes. For example, entry fees to publicly-owned museums, fishing licence fees, and disposal fees to drop off garbage at publicly-owned landfills. These are called user fees because we recognize that the user is using a scarce public resource (or the “commons”) and should pay for that use.

In contrast, what we usually call “taxes” do not reflect a direct link between the reason for the payment and the use. For example, we pay taxes according our income, which is not directly linked to our individual use of military defense.

If we recognize the emission of greenhouse gases to be a use of the atmospheric commons, then “user fee” (or, more specifically, “emission fee” or “greenhouse gas disposal fee”) would be a better term than “tax” to describe a charge on greenhouse gas emissions.

To many people, “tax” implies income redistribution and other things that they may object to. Most people don’t object to user fees to the extent they object to taxes because they recognize the justification for being required to pay for what they use. Even very poor people willingly pay fishing license fees.

Carbon tax advocates sometimes argue that they are being forthright by calling a spade a spade. But, in fact, they are calling a non-spade a spade and thereby covering up a major justification for a fee on emissions; that is, if you use a scarce resource, you should pay for it.

I don’t sense that it’s lack of effort or intention that’s making Congress’ task of pricing carbon hard. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) who’s proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax in the House, calls fossil fuels the “incumbent technologies.” Like political incumbents, the technological incumbents are hard to displace; they’re profitable now and can make their preferences felt on Capitol Hill. Alternatives and conservation, whose benefits and profits will emerge in the future, just aren’t well-represented.

But I was relieved that the ENR hearing did not feature any Senator or witness denying the climate problem or our ability to address it. Not all want to take serious steps, but no one was saying it’s not real.

Separately, I gotta say that THE ECONOMIST has awesome wordsmiths. “Carbonivorous” is a neologism worth of Pat Buchanan! I intend to make it mine. The article does at least mention that most of the public statements being made are mainly “doing politics” and little more; a situation I expect is true far beyond France.