Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed

Should Congress enact, and the president sign, a carbon tax?

(page 2 of 2)

No, a carbon tax would be ridiculously ineffective.

By Steve Witherspoon

Activists tell us that a carbon tax will reduce carbon emissions and thus reduce carbon in the atmosphere and slow or reverse global warming. This is a gross exaggeration.

Quantifying the reduction of carbon emissions from a carbon tax cannot be predicted. Any overall reduction would likely be negligible because the tax does not prohibit the activity — it just makes the activity more expensive. Business will absorb the increased cost, find other ways of reducing cost, or pass on the cost to the consumer. In the end, a carbon tax will punish consumers and put more money in the hands of the government, which won’t spend it to solve an unsolvable and naturally recurring trend.

The EPA tells us in its Carbon Monoxide Trends report that since 1980, there has been an 84 percent decrease (8.8 ppm down to 1.4 ppm) in the national average. But wait — we’re being told that we need a carbon tax to reduce overall carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse climate change. Yet we’ve reduced carbon emissions over the past 37 years by 84 percent, and we’re still being told that the climate is getting worse, which requires drastic action like a new tax to fix it? How stupid do they think we are?

The carbon put into our atmosphere by fossil fuels is only a small portion of the carbon put in the atmosphere from other sources. Some estimates say that fossil fuels contribute less than 5 percent of the total carbon in our atmosphere and the United States produces about 15 percent of the world’s CO. If the USA stopped using all fossil fuels overnight, it would only make a 0.75 percent difference in overall global carbon.

So, they want us to believe that an ineffective carbon tax is going to reduce the U.S. carbon output, enough to change the overall global concentration and thus fix climate change. I’m sorry but the numbers and the logic make no sense. I repeat: How stupid do these people they think we are?

Steve Witherspoon works in manufacturing management in Oregon, Wisconsin.​

Click here to sign up for the free IB ezine — your twice-weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices, and the names you need to know. If you are not already a subscriber to In Business magazine, be sure to sign up for our monthly print edition here.

Old to new | New to old
Oct 10, 2019 04:41 pm
 Posted by  AlexConverse

U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are more than five billion tons per year, and are higher today than they were in 1980, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration *. The argument against a carbon tax presented in the "No" opinion above rests on the claim that "we’ve reduced carbon emissions over the past 37 years by 84 percent", but this refers to levels of carbon monoxide (CO), which is different from carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is the dominant man-made greenhouse gas that warms the planet by trapping heat from the sun. For 800,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). From 1980 to today, the CO2 concentration has risen from 340 ppm to 410 ppm, and it continues to climb**. It's important to discuss which policies are best to control greenhouse gas levels, for instance banning fossil fuels or taxing them, but first we must agree on the data.


Alexander K. Converse
Madison, Wisconsin

Oct 15, 2019 07:30 am
 Posted by  Steve Witherspoon

Alexander Converse,
Please read the following where I expanded on the opinion.

Add your comment:
Bookmark and Share Email this page Email Print this page Print Pin It
Feed Feed
Edit ModuleEdit ModuleShow Tags

Events Calendar

Edit ModuleEdit Module
Edit Module