Republicans shifting towards climate change legislation.

[Direckshun]

Thank you god.

Can we get this done in the next two years, please?

Norquist seems to be pushing for it to be part of the Grand Bargain. The last time Obama scored energy legislation it was wrapped up in the stimulus package. Wrapping up more energy legislation in a Grand Bargain would be consistent with that -- never let an opportunity go to waste, amiright?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energ...ledge-20121112

Norquist: Carbon-Tax Swap for Income-Tax Cut Wouldn't Violate No-Tax-Hike Pledge
Coral Davenport
November 12, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

In a step that may help crack open the partisan impasse on climate change, Grover Norquist, the influential lobbyist who has bound hundreds of Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, told National Journal that a proposed “carbon tax swap”—taxing carbon pollution in exchange for cutting the income tax—would not violate his pledge.

Norquist’s assessment matters a lot, and could help pave the way for at least a handful of Republicans to support the policy. Over the past six months, a growing number of conservative voices, including former Republican officials and renowned economists, have amped up pressure on their party to finally address climate change.

One group, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative headed by former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., has been working for months to persuade the GOP to take up a carbon-tax swap as part of a broad tax-reform package next year. The idea is to create a market signal to drive consumers away from fossil fuels by taxing the carbon pollution caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

The problem is that creating a new “energy tax” would be viewed by some as political suicide. And Republicans who have signed Norquist’s pledge would be barred from supporting it.

That’s where the “swap” side of the policy comes in: The new carbon tax would be paired with a cut in the income tax—something Republicans have long sought. The idea essentially would be to cut the tax on income and move it over to carbon pollution—keeping the proposal revenue-neutral.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal.

But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said.

“If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.

Still, if the tax swap could indeed be structured in such a way that it wouldn’t violate Norquist’s pledge, it could remove at least one political obstacle for some Republicans.

“We hear frequently, constantly from Republican lawmakers who say, we see climate change as a huge problem and we want to talk about ways to do this, but for now they’re afraid to talk about it, because of the political repercussions,” said Rob Sisson, president of the group ConservAmerica, formerly Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Conversation about a carbon tax is increasing in Washington. In September, the Congressional Budget Office released a report concluding that a carbon tax on its own—not paired with a tax cut elsewhere—could reduce the federal deficit by 10 percent to 50 percent.

The day after the presidential election, the global bank HSBC put out a research note identifying a carbon tax as a policy that could emerge in President Obama’s second term.

On Tuesday, the Brookings Institution hosts a daylong conference on the economics of a carbon tax, featuring speakers from CBO, the Treasury Department, and the International Monetary Fund.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

Thank God money is being spent on shit that won't actually clean up the environment.

You don't think a carbon tax is an effective way to reduce carbon output?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

When and why did "Global Warming" become "Climate Change"?

I am not sure when it happened, but climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It is when your goal is to reduce your carbon footprint.

Die in a fire.

[alnorth]

This will not happen.

As much as many have mocked the right for being delusional lately, the left is delusional on this issue. The only environmental policy issues with any shred of viability in this country are things like researching renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency. Every form of cap and trade is dead, dead, dead in this country.

Kyoto was rejected by the Senate 95-0. Ninety-Five to Nothing. This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, cap and trade has no significant support in congress.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It probably would have been more possible under Romney because the House GOP would be falling in line.

No, they would not. You are greatly over-estimating the political viability of a cap and trade law.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

This will not happen.

As much as many have mocked the right for being delusional lately, the left is delusional on this issue. The only environmental policy issues with any shred of viability in this country are things like researching renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency. Every form of cap and trade is dead, dead, dead in this country.

Kyoto was rejected by the Senate 95-0. Ninety-Five to Nothing. This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, cap and trade has no significant support in congress.

The science has gotten a lot more severe since then.

The Democrats have largely turned on the issue. You can probably get 51 votes for something along the lines of cap-and-trade right now from Democrats. If this momentum towards climate change legislation continues, you really only need 5-7 more Republicans who agree to beat a filibuster.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

No, they would not. You are greatly over-estimating the political viability of a cap and trade law.

Doesn't have to be cap-and-trade, necessarily.

[Brock]

Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Brock

Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

The idea that we can significantly alter the weather by anything we do short of ceasing production and transportation or leaving the planet is indeed laughable.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Brock

Some rich people are going to get richer off of this, the poor will pay more for everything they buy, and the weather will continue to give zero ****s what we do.

It would lead to more people paying a fairer share of the country's taxes, but don't let Direckshun in on our secret.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by vailpass

The idea that we can significantly alter the weather by anything we do short of ceasing production and transportation or leaving the planet is indeed laughable.

Please Ari said the US government caused the tornado in Joplin.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

he's a piece of dog shit.

No wonder Griswald laps him up.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You don't think a carbon tax is an effective way to reduce carbon output?

Gas prices have gone up. People still use gas.

I think the headache of taxing carbon usage is going to outweigh any kind of positive effect we'll see on the environment.

Meanwhile they still use leaded gas in parts of Africa, deforestation isn't slowing down, and China is cool with shitting whatever it wants into the atmosphere.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

Gas prices have gone up. People still use gas.

I think the headache of taxing carbon usage is going to outweigh any kind of positive effect we'll see on the environment.

Meanwhile they still use leaded gas in parts of Africa, deforestation isn't slowing down, and China is cool with shitting whatever it wants into the atmosphere.

Your preferential course of action, then?

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Your preferential course of action, then?

Start burning some of that natural gas we've got. It's cleaner burning than oil.

The market is doing a good job adjusting to make fuel efficient cars. Green crap is everywhere. It's popular in this country. Let people continue to make those decisions, and let companies continue to churn that stuff out.

In the mean time, I have no ****ing clue what you say to the rest of the world to make them stop being stupid. I'm not a politician or an ambassador.