Con: Trump’s too smart to fall for harmful GOP Establishment tax plan

By H. Sterling Burnett

Some old-guard Republicans are floating the idea of a national tax on carbon-dioxide emissions. The newly minted Climate Leadership Council (CLC), composed of aged establishment Republicans who’ve seen their stature diminish with the rise of the tea-party movement and election of Donald Trump as president, tried to appear relevant by pitching the worn-out idea of a carbon tax-and-rebate scheme in a meeting with President Trump on Feb. 8.

In exchange for the tax, CLC proposes eliminating nearly all of former President Barack Obama’s climate policies. It’s almost certainly true regulatory greenhouse gas restrictions imposed by the Obama administration distort energy markets more than a straight carbon tax would, but why replace a bad set of policies with a slightly less bad tax? This is not one of those repeal and replace moments. Let’s just get rid of the regulations, full stop, no replacement!

The only reason to discourage the use of fossil fuels is to prevent supposedly dangerous climate change. Yet the best evidence — as opposed to dubious computer model predictions — suggests humans aren’t causing the climate to change in ways that even remotely threaten human health or environmental integrity.

Less than a year ago, on June 10, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution sponsored by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., saying a carbon tax would harm the economy and should not be enacted. Because a carbon tax would apply to 85 percent of the United States’ energy, and energy is the lifeblood of the economy, the resolution noted a carbon tax “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

Nothing has changed since last June. A carbon tax would still harm the economy.

Multiple independent analyses, including reports by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), have found carbon taxes and similar policies result in significant negative unintended consequences.

As a 2016 letter by a group of 22 research institutes, legal foundations and grassroots activist groups — including The Heartland Institute, my employer — discussing the harmful effects a carbon tax would have on the economy stated, “Such marketplace manipulation represents a recipe for unintended consequences and self-inflicted economic damage … (and would be) … regressive, imposing disproportionately high costs on middle- and lower-income families and thereby harming most those who can afford it least.”

NAM says a carbon tax could eliminate the equivalent of 21 million jobs over the next 40 years and reduce workers’ wages by up to 8.5 percent. NAM also says a carbon tax would increase the cost of goods and services, as manufacturers and retailers would pass their higher energy costs on to consumers.

CBO notes a carbon tax is highly regressive, costing the poorest one-fifth of American households 250 percent more than the richest one-fifth of households.

Much of President Trump’s presidential candidacy and his early actions in office have aimed at getting U.S. companies to move their manufacturing back to the United States and encouraging foreign companies to relocate here, thus creating more jobs for Americans. A carbon tax would undermine those efforts.

One of the country’s prime competitive advantages compared to other countries is our abundance of low-cost fossil fuels. The American Energy Alliance notes in the second half of 2014, the average price of electricity for industrial consumers in the European Union was 12 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 7 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States. Because a carbon tax would result in higher energy costs, it would encourage American companies to move their operations abroad. It’s hard to see how that would “make American great again.”

There is never a good time to enact bad policy, and a carbon tax is one of the worst policies I can imagine. Thankfully, I think President Trump is too smart to fall for it.

H. Sterling Burnett is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute. He wrote this for

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Springtime for sycophants

When Donald Trump came to office, many feared that he would break up our close economic relations with Mexico and/or start a trade war with China. So far, neither has happened. It’s true that our free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada is still under threat, and Trump has placed tariffs on some Chinese goods. But his trade ire seems increasingly...
The Palm Beach Post editorial cartoon: March 19
The Palm Beach Post editorial cartoon: March 19

Opinion: Podcast much more than economics

There are so many things to lament about the modern world — fracturing families, the rise of authoritarianism, the rage for torn jeans — but there is also much to celebrate and savor. One is the abundance of great conversation available through podcasts. There’s my own, of course, “Need to Know,” and then there is the...
Letters: Let’s not make road repairs political

It was with much amusement that I read the letter “Road repairs now a political hot potato” (March 14). It seems certain people want to blame President Trump for everything, including road paving. If Summit Boulevard needed paving, it needed paving. It is a busy route with the main post office and library situated there. Last year, Haverhill...
POINT OF VIEW: Enjoy your job in software? You have a woman to thank

The most tragic story of the computer industry is how a field once dominated by women became the domain of men. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t just a matter of the latter pushing out the former. To a large extent, men have women to thank for the very existence of their jobs. Once upon a time, only programmers could interact with computers...
More Stories