There are some things that appear so simple like the Carbon Tax yet made impossible because of various kinds of obstruction that politicians offer. There’s the ‘refer it to committee’ the idea that further study needs to occur no matter what those studies already conducted have shown. There’s the ‘pragmatism’ offered by Hillary and her ilk who claim that half measures are better than none, even when the battle for the ½ is exactly the same as the battle for the whole. Unfortunately, what finally is enacted is so full of loopholes and exceptions and amendments that the original program loses much of its appeal. (See articles about the battle for Healthcare – Single Payer versus Obamacare.)
Congress, an institution that has de-evolved into a body subverting the will of the people seems quite content to focus on vacations and short sessions without accomplishing those things required of them – such as the section of the Preamble in which the general welfare is promoted.
Congress, who is full of individuals who believe that they offer the missing link or that they need to be minions of Hades, except for a very few, operated against the will of the people. So it is no surprise that Climate Change is still being debated in this country while the rest of the world has pretty much moved on – to them Global Warming is a fact. A no brainer for ‘pragmatic progressives’ to support in this ongoing battle is a Carbon Tax – unless, of course a chunk of your re-election funds come from the fossil fuel related industries.
It is easy for a politician to dare the opposition into exhibiting proof that the politician has been corrupted by taking funds from an industry. A good starter to look at is the Carbon Tax and who supports it. And who doesn’t.
“Let me start by saying we need to talk about this issue,” Clinton opened, only to have Bernie, who’s been talking about it for years, lambaste her. As he often does, Sanders went after Clinton’s inscrutable relationship with fracking interests, with the oil and gas lobbyists who bundled donations to her campaign, and with the large financial institutions with substantial energy holdings that have given her millions. (Hedge fund D.E. Shaw, to name one, ponied up $1.5 million to her campaign and owns $470 million in shares of oil refinery behemoth Marathon Petroleum.)”
“Then Sanders turned to the carbon tax — the plan to charge air polluters a fee for each ton of emitted CO2 — and finally we had a show.”
“Are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do?” Bernie asked his opponent.”
“The moment stretched on; a subdermal twitch darted across Clinton’s face. Then she gave this a whirl: “You know, I have laid out a set of actions that build on what President Obama was able to accomplish, building on the clean power plan, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the Supreme Court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the Supreme Court justice that President Obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress.”
“Sanders waved off the smoke bomb. “Are you for a tax on carbon or not?” he demanded, as if there were any hope of getting a straight answer. (He didn’t.)”
“Clearly, the time for advocating an incremental approach to global warming has long since passed. Yet when it comes to averting the greatest catastrophe technological civilization has ever faced, Clinton’s fabled realism makes like the polar ice caps and quickly melts away.”
“Ironically, the carbon tax is one of the lower-hanging policy fruits — versions already exist in nearly forty countries. Finland was the first national government to adopt it, in 1990. An attenuated cap-and-trade system, which allows companies to receive rebates from the state for lowering their emissions, is currently in place in California. And although the exact price of a carbon tax is still a matter of debate — the U.S. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, a White House initiative, recommends assessing $12 to $129 for every ton of carbon dioxide — even a modest levy could deliver huge benefits to both the economy and the environment. A study by Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf calculates that just $15 per ton would cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent and raise $82.1 billion in tax revenue; if the top twenty emitting economies charged $57 a ton by 2020, global emissions would be down 11 percent — all but meeting the goal set by the U.N. Environmental Programme.”
“Not to mention, a carbon tax is the economic policy preferred by actual economists. In 2013, Gregory Mankiw, the conservative Harvard economist who shaped President George W. Bush’s fiscal policy and advised on candidate Mitt Romney’s, called it a “no-brainer”: “I am confident that the economics profession has it right,” he wrote in the New York Times. “The hard part is persuading the public and the politicians.”
“Sanders has bludgeoned the Clinton campaign with the charge that Hillary is in thrall to the fossil fuel industry, a claim she has denied repeatedly. And yet when Bernie put the carbon tax question to her, she simply sidestepped it. Such is the state of modern obscurantist politics: The closest we may ever get to seeing the influence of money on Clinton’s position was that moment, that twitch, that bridling against the tax’s inexorable logic. In her refusal to admit the obvious, overwhelmingly agreed-upon, scientifically sound solution — in that moment of muteness — she proved Sanders right.” http://www.villagevoice.com/news/clintons-carbon-corruption-why-hillary-wont-say-yes-to-a-carbon-tax-8528717