Heating costs, thread continuation and thoughts:

[archimedes]

You might want to reread my post.  I never said this would do anything for the national debt .  Trade deficit yes,  budget deficit no.

[Native_NM]

You might want to reread my post.  I never said this would do anything for the national debt .  Trade deficit yes,  budget deficit no.

I actually updated my post at the same time you commented. I should have been more clear. 

[archimedes]

 
The problem is that most of our trade deficit is caused by imported oil.  That's a problem that a carbon tax would go a long way to fixing.


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/05/29/the_trade_deficit_has_turned_v/

But like I said,  no big corporate conglomerate will be able to profit from a Carbon Tax (like Wall St will with Cap and Trade or Big Oil will with the current status quo)  so unless American's insist on it,  it won't happen.

[Ajax]

Surprisingly unbiased article by Forbes...

Either you're being sarcastic, or you didn't read the article

[Sassy]

I'm not opposed to spending when it benefits greater society or the public in total.  Regulation can also have a net benefit to the public.  There is a point of diminishing returns for regulation.  The incremental cost of implementing cap-and-trade for example, is estimated in the trillions, with a "T".  The additional net benefit is measured in the billions (at least finacially). 

The original post here addressed the unintended consequences of cap-and-trade, and was based on a report from some economists who recognize that everything is not black and white.  Politicians usually think short-term, but spend long-term.  A classic example is cigarette taxes.  Taxes were raised for two reasons:  one to curb usage and improve health.  The second was to generate revenue.  In the base year of any new tax, somebody makes a revenue projection.  The revenue stream is variable, based on the units taxed (in this case cigarettes).  In the same year, some politician decides to commit that revenue stream for the next 20+ years.  Assume that by year five, half the people quite smoking.  The revenue stream is now half of the base year, but the expense stream is fixed.  Next step - raise the tax even more.  By year ten, another half have quit smoking.  The revenue stream is now 25% of the original baseline.  To keep the revenue stream the same, the original tax rate would have to increase by a factor of four, or a 300% tax increase. 

I read much of the cap-and-trade bill.  There are lots of spending plans for that money.  Lets assume it passed and suddenly net energy usage fell by 25%.  I wonder how long it would take the Feds to raise the tax rate to fill the gap!   The legislation is about revenue first, and the environment second.  They could add a dollar a gallon surtax to gas today with one page of legislation, and it would help the environment more than the multi-thousand page cap-and-trade bill.

Several questioned whether I was being sarcastic when I commented on the Forbes article...  no, I was being serious...  either I can't read or don't understand the article or maybe you guys didn't really read it.  My take on it was basically saying the same thing as Native_NM said in the quote above...  I think Cap & Trade is just another way to tax & control & as Squirl said, give Wall Street a another way to "game it."  Just look at how much Al Gore has made w/his Cap & Trade company.

None of you quoted anything in that article that was so way off for the responses several of you made.  BTW, I certainly didn't see too many references in any of your statements...   

A little more explanation would be appreciated as I am & have been totally against any Cap  Trade legislation...   

[Native_NM]

The problem is that most of our trade deficit is caused by imported oil.  That's a problem that a carbon tax would go a long way to fixing.


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/05/29/the_trade_deficit_has_turned_v/

But like I said,  no big corporate conglomerate will be able to profit from a Carbon Tax (like Wall St will with Cap and Trade or Big Oil will with the current status quo)  so unless American's insist on it,  it won't happen.

There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit per se.  A carbon tax might lower the deficit by reducing demand, but Americans will still be spending the same amount on fuel costs due to increaesed fueld taxes. 

I have read the carbontax.org site, and watched their video.  I still don't know how they claim a revenue neutral carbon tax can lower the deficit.  Then again, I don't know how the trillion dollar Obamacare program can lower the deficit.  If the carbontax.org folks said they were going to use the new revenue to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit, I might believe it could lower either, but since they propose to just tax the rich and credit to the poor, not sure what the point is.  The point of a tax in this situation is to curb demand.  I downloaded their spreadsheet and studied it, and I think it is fundmentally flawed.  Their models make many assumptions, and then extrapolate those out to 2034.   They project, for example, to collect almost $500 billion in new taxes by 2020 (Cell S122).  The total tax receipts today, personal and corporate, total just over a trillion.  Since the rich pay 75%, that means $750 billion is paid by the "rich".  They want to tax them another $500 billion...hmmm!

The problem I see with the carbonax.org model is it is just another tax on the rich, and it does nothing to curb demand.  Their premise is that rich people use more energy, so they should pay more.  Since poor people are, well poor, they should get rebates.  Rich people make up a small percentage of the population.  If 85% of Americans pay no carbon tax because of credits, what incentive do they have to conserve - none!  Even poor people drive F150's and Tahoes, so they should also pay.  When one applies for car insurance,  the premium is not based on income.  Poor people pay just as much as rich people.  The carbon tax, at least to me, is more progressive voodoo.  I'm not opposed to a flat buck at the pump, but I think every American needs to pay it, not just the "rich".  For the record, I'm not "rich".

[Sassy]

My understanding is that a percentage of the credits go to the poor countries.  You & I know where most of the money we send to poor countries goes...  to the unscrupulous leaders - so the poor stay poor - we've just once again subsidized the dictators & oppressive leaders.

China isn't even part of the mandate to curb pollution. 

I've read quite a bit about the carbon tax plan - you'll just have the super wealthy trade carbon credits so they can pollute more - look at Al Gore - he's not only become a multi-millionaire w/his carbon trading company, he just buys more credits so he can live in his mansions & fly around the world.

Look at Pelosi - she spent $2.5 million of the taxpayers money in the past 2 yrs flying around in an Air Force jet - so much for curbing her use of carbon!
www.judicialwatch.org

And the businesses/corporations that can't make it here w/all the taxes & regulations will either go bankrupt or move to a foreign country that is more friendly.

[archimedes]

Sassy and Native NM,

I think you're confusing "Cap and Trade"  and Carbon Tax.Org.    They are completely different things.  I agree (and so do the Carbon Tax .org people)  that Cap and trade won't work,  and that some people will game that system for profit.

The Carbon Tax would reduce the trade deficit because we import so much oil from abroad.  If there were a carbon tax that oil would be more expensive and demand would move to cheaper domestically produced alternatives,  such as wind,  solar, hydro, conservation,  or a yet to be discovered alternative  which would be driven by the increase in the price of carbon - all of which are domestically produced thereby reducing the outflow of cash to foreign countries (and creating jobs here). 

I disagree that there is nothing wrong with a trade deficit.  A trade deficit is bad because that means we are shipping jobs,  and wealth,  out of the country.

I'm not sure why you keep thinking that the Carbo Tax people claim it will reduce the budget deficit - it won't and they don't claim that it will.  So I'm a little puzzled there.  Maybe you can clarify for me.

This is not a tax on the rich with the poor being exempted.  It is a tax on all carbon for all people and will be rebated to all equally.

[Native_NM]

From the carbontax.org website:

A carbon tax, like any flat tax, is regressive — by itself. However, the regressivity of a carbon tax can be minimized, and perhaps eliminated altogether, by keeping the tax revenue-neutral in a way that protects the less affluent.

The operative fact is that wealthier households use more energy. They generally drive and fly more, have bigger (and sometimes multiple) houses, and buy more stuff that requires energy to manufacture and use. As a result, most carbon tax revenues will come from families of above-average means, along with corporations and government.

That is why the two "return" approaches discussed above — carbon dividends or tax-shifting — can turn the carbon tax into a progressive tax. Because income and energy consumption are strongly correlated, most poor households will get more back in carbon dividends than they will pay in the carbon tax. The overall effect of a carbon tax-shift could be equitable and perhaps even "progressive" (benefiting lower-earning households).

My question to you:

If the carbon tax is revenue neutral, and they intend to raise hundreds of billions, and it is not going to be regressive, and the "less affluent" households may actually get a dividend, who is going to pay the tax?  An honest answer, please.

As to the trade deficit and the budget deficit, I understand the distinction.  If you read through the website, including the PowerPoint presentation, they indicate a carbon tax (not cap and trade) could be used to lower the deficit.  They also indicate it is revenue neutral.   How can a revenue-neutral tax lower the deficit?

[Ajax]

Several questioned whether I was being sarcastic when I commented on the Forbes article...None of you quoted anything in that article that was so way off for the responses several of you made.  BTW, I certainly didn't see too many references in any of your statements...   

You stated that the piece was unbiased, yet the first paragraph contains this

"On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster"

And later we get this gem

"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."

The first quote can hardly be called unbaised and the second one is just ridiculous.

Just look at how much Al Gore has made w/his Cap & Trade company.

Two questions.  What was/is Gore's Cap and Trade company?  And how much money did he make from it?

[archimedes]

I'm not sure I understand what your argument is,  that we should tax low carbon users more  and tax high carbon users less?Of course high carbon users will pay more tax and low carbon users will pay less,  that's the whole point to the plan.    

The point of the plan is to create a financial incentive to use less carbon by whatever means the consumer deems best.  It's in our national interest for;
1) economic reasons
2) national security reasons
3) environmental reasons
4) health reasons.

This is the simplest fairest proposal that I have ever seen.  Much better than Cap and Trade and infinately better than doing nothing.
This proposal has been support by some forward looking fiscally Conservative Republicans  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


There is no perfect solution.  This is the best that I have seen.

What's your solution?

[Sassy]

"The initial premise is wrong on two accounts. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any human-caused climate crisis exists."  First it was "global warming" now they're calling it "climate change" - the history of the earth is all about climate change...    Yes, humans have polluted but normal everyday pollution has not changed the weather - volcanoes cause more pollution.  Now w/weather modification in the troposphere & HAARP experiments in microwaving the plasma in the ionosphere & sending out ELF & ULF waves, I guess I have to say we are affecting the climate...


Welcome to the TAP Home Page!

Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) will in the future be conducted under the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols. Interested readers are referred to the ASP web site and to the documents accessible from that page.

Because much of the science that had been planned for TAP coincides with planned research in the Atmospheric Science Program, this page is being maintained to provide background technical information.
http://www.asp.bnl.gov/tap.html

HAARP  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP  
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj1203.html

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

http://www.kansasprogress.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/05/09/cap-and-trade-al-gores-cash-cow/

Fuelling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade
Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

By Steve Milloy  Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Al Gore's venture capital firm has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation — further fueling controversy that Gore lied about his profiteering from cap-and-trade to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee during testimony in April.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

[Native_NM]

The point of the plan is to create a financial incentive to use less carbon by whatever means the consumer deems best.  It's in our national interest for;
1) economic reasons
2) national security reasons
3) environmental reasons
4) health reasons.

This is the simplest fairest proposal that I have ever seen.  Much better than Cap and Trade and infinately better than doing nothing.
This proposal has been support by some forward looking fiscally Conservative Republicans  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


There is no perfect solution.  This is the best that I have seen.

What's your solution?

A guy who makes $15/hour and drives 12,000 miles a year has the same carbon footprint as the guy who makes $100/hour and drives 12,000 miles per year.  If the $15 guy gets a carbon dividend that was paid by the $100 guy, what incentive does he have to drive less?  The only difference between carbontax.org and cap-and-trade is the name.  The principle is fundamentally the same.   The really rich people are not going to suddenly consume less, becasue they are really rich.  I pointed out that their Excel model was flawed.  The demand elasticity for energyl is not static across all economic levels.  The underlying premise of carbontax.org is that the rich or affluent have a larger carbon footprint.  We tax them more, but since they are rich, they can afford it. Their net energy usage might not change at all.   Their footprint is not going to change as dramactically as the $15 folks. I would model the carbon dividend might actually increase the carbon footprint of the lower income people as they started receiving their dividend, which is effective income.

A revenue neutral plan is a carbon-neutral plan.  My solution is to tax everyone at the pump equally based on usage.  Everyone.  That will have an environmental impact, which is really the intent.  

Maybe the $15 guy should get a food dividend from the $100 guy because he pays more of his income as food?  The carbon tax is nothing more than a feel-good program to redistribute wealth.  I'm all for a cleaner environement - most of us are.  That means sacrifices from everyone, not just the affluent, and I'm not affluent.  I am pragmatic and logical.

Lets discuss the viability of the numbers also.  How can they raise $500 billion by 2020?    

[archimedes]

[/i]  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/13/68130/republican-lawmakers-back-carbon.html


A revenue neutral plan is a carbon-neutral plan.  My solution is to tax everyone at the pump equally based on usage.  Everyone.  That will have an environmental impact, which is really the intent.  

The Carbon tax does tax everyone equally based on usage.  I don't see where we disagree.  

Cap and trade and the Carbon tax are totally different.  There is no comparison whatsoever.

Essentially what you're saying about the revenue neutral part is represented in this analogy;  "  if we started to tax people $1 a gallon for tap water,  that they would still run the water while brushing their teeth"   (if they got a rebate check for the additional tax that caused the water to be $1 a gallon)
I think the natural reaction for most people would be to turn the water off while brushing their teeth,  and keep the check.  Now rich people might say "I don't give a damn, I'm not gonna change my behavior"  and they would have that right,  but most people would change their behavior and thereby reduce energy consumption.

And frankly,  I personally,  don't care whether it is revenue neutral or not.  But I think you would have an impossible time getting any law passed the had a net revenue increase.  In my opinion both ways would work and I would support either.  But only one stands a chance of ever becoming law.

[Native_NM]

If it taxes everyone equally, how is it revenue neutral?  It would be a net revenue generating program.  The carbontax.org site clearly states that there would be revenue shifting from the affluent to the less affluent.   They talk about dividends to the poorer people, even credits.  

The most successful laws are ones that are applied to all people fairly, regardless of socio-economic status.  Fairness, in fact, is the basis of common law.  Your average rich guy doesn't mind following a law that applies to everyone equally.  The average poor guy feels the same way.  When a group is singled out, it plays against an inherent sense of fairness that all Americans are raised with.  We are a nation born out of equality and justice for all.  When the poor guy feels the rich guy is getting away with something, there is "class envy".  When the rich guy feels he is paying more than his fair share, he develops a sense of entitlement ("I'm paying for them, so I deserve a little more or the rules don't apply to me").   If the speed limit sign said "Rich people, 55, Poor people 75", we both know who is going to follow that law.

Tax everyone a buck a gallon at the pump.  The government does not need to create a new agency to administer a new program.  The existing system is in place to collect the tax.  Invest the proceeds in new energy technology, reduce the deficit, or fund a national lotto.  Either way, it will immediately reduce energy usage, which should be the real goal.  All the other plans proposed try too hard to be fair, and don't really address the environmental concern.  

[archimedes]

If it taxes everyone equally, how is it revenue neutral?

With all due respect,  this statement makes no sense.  "Revenue neutral"  means that the gov't does not generate any additional revenue (profit) from the tax.  Revenue neutral and "taxing everyone equally" are two completely different issues.  It's like comparing apples and oranges.   

Taxing people more who create more of the problem is not "unfair".  It is by definition equitable.  Burn more carbon,  pay more tax.  Burn less carbon pay less tax.  You could do whatever you want with the proceeds from the tax.  The most politically acceptable plan would be to rebate the proceeds.

We do agree on taxing carbon though.  We just differ on how best to do it.  And which policy has the best chance of actually becoming law.  I'm not opposed to a gas tax,  I just don't think you can get it passed.  I also don't think it will have all the benefits of a carbon Tax.

[MountainDon]

 When a group is singled out, it plays against an inherent sense of fairness that all Americans are raised with.  

I believe that is so true!

[Native_NM]

Everyone has a carbon footprint, including the poor. Many rural, poor people might actually have a larger carbon footprint than their wealthy, urban counterpart.  Rural families drive twice as many miles as their urban peers, and are more likely to heat with dirtier energy sources.    Regardless, since everyone has a footprint, there can't be anything to redistribute or rebate. 

The only way a tax can have the desired effect is if everyone pays it. You assert that everyone will pay equally based on usage, and at the same time assert that it will be revenue neutral.  I assert that everyone has a carbon footprint.  Accordingly, if everyone is paying proportional to their use, a carbon tax will result in net revenue generation.  The only was it couldn't is if the revenue generated was rebated to those who had a zero carbon footprint.   Nobody has a zero carbon footprint.  Carbontax.org has a political agenda as opposed to an environmental agenda. 

What metric do you propose we utilize to measure our individual carbon footprint?   The average American drives about the same number if miles, pays about the same to heat and cool his home, and consumes about the same number of calories (food production footprint). From a pure usage standpoint, a middle-class family with two kids has a larger footprint than a retired rich couple.  I'm sure you would support taxing a struggling soccer mom and rebating the surplus tax to the wealthy couple living in a high-rise on Park Avenue who don't even own a car....

[Shawn B]

Actually the "wealthy" have a larger carbon footprint than the average middle class family. Think about it. Wealthier families usually have more cars, i.e. daily driver for each adult, "vacation suv", sports car, etc. Plus boats, atv's, jet ski's, motor homes, etc. Higher income families are more likely to have second homes, vacation homes, rental properties. Wealthier people travel more, and are more likely to fly in private planes. Very heavy carbon footprint. Plus their primary homes are usually bigger than middle class, which uses more energy.

This whole carbon footprint scheme is a farce. In fact it is nothing but a large Ponzi scheme that allows the Federal gov't, corporations and the power elite to profit at the expense of the American peoples economy, jobs, property, and sovereignty. It fosters class and economic warfare, based on a failed "new religion" of global warming, climate change, whatever.

[archimedes]

We place a tax on carbon.  The tax generates $300,000,0000.   Every citizen in the country gets a check for $1 (the US population is roughly 300 million).  A family of four gets $4.  

How is that NOT revenue neutral  They only way you can say that that is not revenue neutral is if you don't know what the term means.

Doing this raises the cost of all carbon fuels.  Basic economics tells you that as price increases demand decreases.  

You're arguing that people will not reduce their consumption as price increases.   The entire science of economics is against you on that point.
Even if you rebate back the tax (in the form of a check or by cutting income tax rates)  people will still reduce their consumption - it's basic economics.  

It's just like if you assessed and gas tax and simultaneously cut income tax rates.  People would use less gas because it was more expensive,  even though they were paying and equivilent amount less in income taxes.  People would choose to allocate there income more efficiently .  Again basic economics.

I don't know why people are injected a class warfare issue here.  Every income class pays the same tax rate and each individual gets the same amount of money returned.  Of course if you use more carbon you'll pay more tax,  that's the whole point.  I has nothing to do with class  There are no tiers of tax,  like the income tax,  or exclusions,  or deductions.  Use more pay more,  regardless of how wealthy you are.   It's a use tax  irrespective of wealth.

[Sassy]

Sounds like an accounting nightmare to me!   

[Native_NM]

Looking at the curve in aggregate, taking $300 million out of the economy and then putting it right back in again will have zero impact in total.  Fuel prices might be higher, but since the money supply for the less afluent is now artificially inflated through wealth redistribution, demand in total is the same.  There is not a single example of a price floor or ceiling that has achieved the stated goal.  Thinking housing bubble. 

Of your hypothetical $300 million in revenue, what percentage of it is collected from the "rich"?   

[archimedes]

What's a nightmare is borrowing 1 trillion dollars to fight a war in the middle east over oil.   

[Native_NM]

Never content, I read the entire carbontax.org website, studied their spreadsheet, and researched their agenda.  It is clear that they have a social agenda, not an environmental agenda.  Like most of their type, their heart is in the right place, but they are bad at math.  

Anyone can download the taxpayer statistic file from the IRS in Excel.  It has statistics of all tax returns filed.  I downloaded it, and plugged a few numbers from it, as well as used the numbers in the carbontax.org Excel spreadsheet to see how the two lined up, as well as see if I might be missing something.

There were just under 143 million personal returns filed in 2007, which generated $1.1 trillion in personal taxes.  Population was estimated at 300 million, and the census indicates that 25% were under age 18, and 15% were over age 65, which results in 180 million available in the workforce.  Tax returns are filed by those over 65, and in some cases children.  I'm going to throw the kids out of the carbon equation, even though they have a carbon footprint. I'll assume they don't drive much.   Americans used 137.8 billion gallons of gas in 2009, which represents about 25% of all greenhouse gases.  Electricity is the largest contributor according to carbontax.org.  Based on their numbers, the affluent have a total carbon footprint that is 20% larger than the average American, and, according to them, should pay more of their proposed carbon tax, which would be rebated back to the less affluent.  

Affluent is never actually defined anywhere.  I did find data at a cap-and-trade site which provided miles driven per capita by income segment.  Interestingly, there was no real difference from about $30,000 a year up to over $250,000, which was the highest income on their scale.  The variance was small - the "poor" drive about 3,500 miles per year less than those earning over $30,000.

Tax filers under $30,000 represented 37% of total returns in 2007, but represented just 4% of the income tax generated.   Since the stated goal of carbontax.org is tax equally according to usage, and by their own data there is little difference in gasoline consumption per-capita by income segment over $30,000, I will define anyone earning over $30,000 as "rich" for the gasoline component of the tax.  The average MPG was 21.6 in the analysis year.  I'll use that as a constant.    Lets assume $1 a gallon carbon tax per gallon, which would generate 137.8 billion in new revenue paid equally by usage.  Plugging the numbers into Excel, of the 137.8 billion gallons used, 40.8 billion were used by the "poor", with the "rich" using 97.0 billion.  Everyone pays a buck per gallon.  The total tax is 137.8 billion.  The "extra" 56.2 billion collected from the "rich" is now rebated to the "poor", since this plan is revenue neutral, and the tax is based on usage.  Every "poor" taxpayer gets about $850 rebated to him from the "rich" guy, who used 20% more than him.  Since many in the under $30,000 segment have zero tax liability, I assume the tax would have to be refundable.  

Now we have to look at the effect on demand by income segment to see if there is any ENVIRONMENTAL impact, which is the intent of their tax...I think.    I'll assume that for those earning over $200,000, the extra tax will not reduce their gas consumption. A rich family driving the average miles for a family would be taxed an extra $100 a month.  Hardly a deterrent to their ski trip or weekend at the lake.   They represent 10% of the filers, but 30% of the "rich" segment due to the skewed income dynamics.  By the math, those few families will now pay 1/3 of the new tax, and will probably not reduce their demand.  

The middle class once again gets scr**ed!  Based on the gas prices of 2008, demand in the middle class segment fell about 5% when gas prices rose a dollar.  Each incremental dollar will reduce demand more, as incomes are fixed, and the budget can only get stretched so much.    The middle class (but still "rich"), consume about 67.8 billion gallons of gas.  Lets assume their demand falls by 5%, or 3.4 billion gallons with the new tax.  

The "poor" consume 40.8 billion gallons.  Gas now costs a buck more.  They drive 10,000 miles a year, at an average of 21.6 MPG, burning 463 gallons of gas.  The tax costs them $463 extra a year, but they get a rebate check  (or reduced tax bill) of $850.  I wonder how much less they are going to drive!   We have now implemented a new program, redistributed $56.2 billion in wealth, and lowered demand by maybe 3.5 billion gallons a year out of 137.8 billion gallons used.  Hardly a program that will ever get passed.  There is no real environmental benefit.

Tax everyone a buck at the gallon, and use the proceeds to research new energy sources.  Forget the rebates and wealth redistribution.  The rich are still going to drive the same number of miles, and yes, the tax is regressive.  So what.  It sucks to be poor, and it's good to be rich.  The rich do lots of things we don't do.  I make more than $30,000, but am a long way from $200,000.   In my family, we drive 25,000 miles a year at 20 mpg average, which would cost me about $1,250 a year.  I think I'd pay an extra $100 a month if I knew EVERYONE was doing their part, and tax revenue was actually used to develop new energy sources at not just some ponzi scheme or alternative form of welfare.

[ScottA]

LOL. Sorry to laugh at this but did anyone stop to consider that global warming is a scam and the carbon taxes nothing more than theft? Just because the government says so does not make something true. We broke the all time coldest tempature record this winter. We also broke the all time snowfall record. Last winter wasn't much better. I'm sorry but it's going to take more than "Al Gore says so" to get me to belive this nonsense. I oppose all carbon taxes, period.

By the way, I live in a 400 sq. ft. house with a woodstove for heat and all CFL lights. So stick your carbon footprint.