By all means, let's have a carbon tax. It's the best way to deal with global climate change. It would require Republicans and Democrats to compromise -- a good thing -- and would provide revenues for a government that desperately needs more revenue. Fine. But let's not pretend that a carbon tax is a panacea for either climate change or too much debt.
With most Republicans -- and some Democrats -- hostile to any tax increase, a carbon tax remains a long shot. Still, the odds have shortened, because some respected Republican elders recently endorsed it. These include George Shultz, James Baker and Henry Paulson. All were treasury secretary and/or secretary of state in administrations from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush.
<snip>
"It is inherently difficult to convince people to endure costs now for benefits that accrue to others 30 years hence," writes Ted Halstead, head of the Climate Leadership Council, sponsor of the carbon-tax plan. "Even then, such 'benefits' will manifest in the form of the situation getting less worse, rather than an outright improvement."
To overcome this objection, the Republican plan would rebate all the money raised by the carbon tax. There would be a flat quarterly "carbon dividend" -- the poor would get the same as the rich -- starting at about $2,000 annually for a family of four. As the tax rose, so would the "dividend." The politics of a carbon tax would change, argues Halstead, because most Americans would receive "benefits in the here and now."
What's not to like? We can fight global warming and favor the middle class and poor. Actually, it's not so simple.
[excerpted]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/20/two_cheers_for_a_carbon_tax_133126.html
