There is a set of bills at the US House of Representatives trying to deal with climate change that is sometimes described as the cap and trade bill, or by opponents, cap and tax. Long and short of it, the bill's intention is to make polluting a costlier action. By selling "pollution credits" on the open market, using the revenue to fund or subsidize renewable and non-hydrocarbon energy sources, it is expected to put a dollar figure on the pollution generated by our industrial processes, primarily manufacturing and energy production. As a further incentive to reduce pollution, the amount of credits available will be reduced at regular intervals, thus raising the value of the credits and thus the cost of polluters who choose not to or can't reduce the pollution produced below the number of credits they already possess.
The primary objection to this bill that concerns me is a common view that monetizing pollution is a tax on the citizens and customers of these polluters. I'll just tell you now that I am concerned that we are not paying the true cost of goods and services, especially those that produce air, water, and land pollution. What we pay is a price that is subsidized by our tax dollars and the high quality of life and natural environment we could be having instead. Without any consequence to the producer or better yet, any encouragement to them to reduce or eliminate pollution they create, they will continue to do what they have been doing for decades, and push the burden to our future.
Getting back to this issue of monetizing pollution or creating a "carbon tax" as some suggest, it is appropriate to pay for the true cost of production, distribution, use, and disposal/redistribution. When we are paying the whole true cost of something at the point of purchase, we will adjust our behavior patterns to reflect our values and priorities. Eventually, we could even reduce our taxes because we wouldn't be subsidizing services and products that aren't desired in the manner or quantity that were being produced. We all know that when something costs more to produce, regardless where the additional expense comes from, the producer always tries to make the client/customer pay for the increase. The challenge we are facing is that we have a history of letting these corporate polluters discharge their waste in our common water, land, and air resources, without any consequence or incentive to reduce their pollution. Thus in trying to make these polluters pay for discharging their waste, it is considered a tax because we are adding a cost that has not been there before. Since tax has a negative connotation in this country, those who object to this effort are coming through quite effectively by equating this cost of production as a tax that shouldn't be imposed.
My argument is that these same people hate paying taxes in the first place, so let's figure out how to reduce the amount of taxes being spent behind the scenes to reduce the price of the good or service, and let everyone have more money in their pocket to pay the higher but true cost of what they wish to use or consume. Since our tax dollars are used to reduce the costs of goods and services (subsidy) that are used by people across the whole economic spectrum, these people should be concerned about wealth/income redistribution in our current system, that has been promulgated by members of all political persuasions. If the money received from the sale of pollution credits is redistributed to projects that are producing clean and renewable replacements, the one-time cost would be worth getting a momentum started now. Most likely the same polluters will be the beneficiaries of the credit proceeds anyway because they will create the projects that are renewable and non-polluting (they have access to the substantial resources that are needed to create these projects). What is different is that instead of coming out of taxes though, it will show up in our bills that we have more direct control over, and came make immediate decisions that can impact our future bills. By not coming out of taxes, if we elect leaders who would refrain from spending the money on other subsidies, we can eventually reduce our taxes while improving our quality of life and natural resources.
I hate paying high costs for goods and services just as much as the next person. But what I hate more is paying taxes to a government that I don't feel is spending the money they choose to take out of my income in ways that are hurting our country and our economy in the short and long term. I would rather see my food, energy, and transportation expenses go up and make conscious and direct choices that influence my costs for these goods/services, than to pay higher taxes and let a government that is supposed to represent my values and desires direct these taxes to the corporations who are paid to reduce their costs, allow them to charge more to the consumer anyway, and still allow greater polluting into common/public resources than can be naturally mitigated.
Caveat: I have not "fact checked" my opinions or thoughts in this entry. I will attempt to make more accurate entries in the future with more specifics so that it becomes a tool that anyone can use effectively. For now, I just want to get this perspective out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment