The issue of Climate Change has been a no-show in the 2012 election cycle; one would think that ManBearPig had been named an endangered species. But a two-year study commisioned by Barack Obama’s Treasury Department will recommend ways to “green” the tax code by using it to craft disincentives for creating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
If you wanted to design a sure-fire recovery-killer, you couldn’t do much better than a carbon tax. Obama has targeted the oil, natural gas and coal industries throughout his first term. There’s no doubt that a study legitimizing tax warfare on domestic energy extraction would enable an all-out attempt to cram “green” reforms through Congress starting early in 2013.
A Romney administration would unleash domestic energy production; it is the first of five steps in his economic plan. Obama would clearly take the nation in the opposite direction. Are you listening, swing state voters, especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions
Under the bland title of Effects of Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the $1.5 million study is being carried out under the auspices of the National Academy of Science (NAS). Originally planned to take two years, the ambitious project aims to take an inventory of the U.S. tax code in terms of the effects of its most important provisions on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—a huge and complicated exercise in environmental and economic modelling.
The study itself will not be available until after the election. Originally slated for completion in September of this year, its publication has since been postponed until the first quarter of next year.
The bios of the committee members leave little mystery as to their likely recommendations. Their experience is long on academics, long on climate and economic modelling, and short on real-world energy experience. Their current affiliations include:
- Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (Chair)
- University of Maryland, College Park (2)
- Stanford, MIT, U. of Oregon, Duke and Cal-Berkeley (1 each)
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- Goddard Institute for Space Studies
- The Urban Institute
Yep, that’s a pretty green committee.
But it’s the committee’s nominal “industry representative” that takes the cake. Francisco C. de la Chesnaye is a Project Manager for the Electric Power Research Institute, a private, industry-funded research cooperative of the eletrical power industry. Here’s a portion of his CV:
He was previously Chief of the Climate Economics Branch at the U.S. EPA., responsible for developing and applying EPA’s economic models for developing GHG emission projections, conducting mitigation analysis, and assessing issues related to long-term scenarios of economic development, GHG emissions, and climate change. … Mr. de la Chesnaye also co-edited a book titled Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment (2007). Mr. de la Chesnaye also was a Lead Author for Working Group III of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
This is how you get the answer you want, the Chicago Way: you stack the deck.
Cross-posted at RedState.com.
Maley's Energy Blog 
The new EPA regulations AND the sudden availability of huge amounts of natural gas will cost coal miners many jobs and close mines. The industry will be shipping coal overseas to make ends meet eventually. This is called the “Free Market”. A new technology displacing the old and is to be anticipated and supported by true capitalists. I’d note the EPA regulations are part of the market as well. Each industry spends tens of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and buying politicians to gain an advantage. The costs of buying these things go up and down as does the effectiveness of any one “purchase.” In this case the environmentalists spend more wisely and bought the outcome they wanted (clean air, clean water, and undisturbed landscapes) leaving the coal companies to suffer. Such is life.
Obama did temporarily freeze the permitting process for deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but that has resumed and America is producing as much oil as before that freeze. He’s repeatedly said he supports more drilling all over the country to free us from the tyranny of foreign oil but he is rightly cautious of the tar sands that require the spoiling of millions of gallons of fresh water to obtain but little oil.
The issue with fracking is honest disagreement over the “danger” of drilling to rural community’s water supplies. When the spring that feeds your farm or town is the ONLY water supply, you have citizens getting rightly touchy about outsiders engaging in questionable activities. The current bonding is not sufficient to provide a new water source to the community “forever” and suing a major company is well beyond the financial resources of most individuals. This makes recourse to the law a non-limiting factor on bad actors. That said, PA is opening its metaphorical arms to drilling and the economic benefits to “safe” drilling are in the billions over the next 20 years. I believe Obama supports “safe” fracking to free the US from foreign sources of gas/oil and spur growth.
Also, have been reading the news for the last four years? Do you really think Obama can cram ANYTHING past the House? Never gonna happen.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part, but even independents and moderate Democrats should recognize that a bad economy poses a more immediate threat than the long-term “threat” of climate change, and they won’t support Barack Obama’s committee’s proposal (the same way Congressional Democrats won’t even vote for Obama’s budgets).
But hopefully this will be a moot point come Tuesday night..
Pingback: Carbon Taxes. That didn’t take long. #rsrh | Maley's Energy Blog
Pingback: Is a Carbon Tax in our Future? | Maley's Energy Blog
Pingback: Is There a Carbon Tax in Your Future? | Irascible Musings
Pingback: The coming carbon tax « Hot Air
Pingback: Is There a Carbon Tax in Your Future? « Parker County Blog
Pingback: Is There a Carbon Tax in Your Future? | Politics Dividing US