The US per capita carbon burning is 5000 pounds per year, including all products consumption.  At $0.30/lb that is $1500 total for everything including $1.50 per gallon of gasoline and $600 per ton coal.  

If revenue-neutral that will stimulate investment and capitalism, and send clear market signals.  I also favor diverting military spending to universities for carbon-neutral energy research and development.

Don't carpool alone.

Such was my vote, and I'd like to say it was not made idly or in jest. I hear it rarely on the news, but it is my belief that our destruction of the environment is profound and life as we know it will undergo major and painful changes. And even those words are not enough.

It is my belief that there will, at the least, be a major reduction in human populations. These reductions not only from rising sea levels and natural events, but also from the political, international confrontations that will occur as the various countries begin to realize more tangibly what we're in for. My sense is that media and most conversations cannot directly confront what's in store; they would be called alarmist or worse. I expect a "die-off" of a significant number of humans, to say nothing of the other life forms we've already diminished or removed. But it cannot be talked about.

Finally, here, I will say that my attitude, feelings, about this matter are of guilt in being a present-time representative of the species that has brought such ruin, and sadness at the breadth of thriving life, greenery, and all else that we have put in jeopardy. Has "intelligent life" ended life as we know it? I believe so.

Jim Wells
Marina del Wilmington, CA, US

   The idea of ending payroll taxes and replacing them with a carbon tax has a major flaw.

   Low income people generally don't pay payroll taxes (except social security).  So, they won't benefit from and "end" to such taxes.  But they will be screwed royally by the carbon tax proposals that are floating around.

   Another problem is that it is not clear how this would affect multinationals.  Who is going to measure the carbon produced by clothing manufacturing in Bangladesh, China and India, and how will that be charged?

   Or is this another case of American Imperialism?  (We won't sign global treaties, but we will impose our taxes ideas on others without discussion or consent.)

   So, I didn't vote.

   Here's my vote.  In the US, the government put a luxury tax of say, 3000% on big cars (an annual tax), and invest the money in mass transit.  Give apartment dwellers who live in cities major tax credits.  Tax the hell out of McMansions, and also tax suburban sprawl areas.  Spend money on higher denser housing and social services in urban areas.  Kill the Pentagon (not literally).  Use that money to support the roll out of solar and wind power nationwide.  Give big bucks to developing countries so they can use solar and wind.  (GIVE).

   That should do for a start.

patrick

Patrick,

I agree, taxing the energy content of products would be difficult to manage with imports and probably a WTO trade violation.  However, domestic gasoline and coal power taxes are very important incentives to reduce and displace carbon energy consumption.

There is nothing to discriminate between the economic classes for gasoline taxes, and that is as it should be.  Helping the poor with home energy bills should continue as before.  

Taxing carbon is a very important tool.  It will not infringe on the freedom to make choices.  Carbon taxes will also encourage investments in carbon-neutral alternatives.  

I'm with Dave - I think the way to go is some of both. Doing it right would mean the right level of rebates to the lower- and middle-classes coupled with an excellent sound bite that describes how this improves their lives.

What concerns me is that in the current political environment (yes, the one we actually have today as opposed to the one many posters here would like us to have) I see no way that Congress could actually develop a smart new tax. Yes, the carbon tax is very rational and makes sense from a lot of perspectives and offers lots of flexibility, but the reality is that it's going to get completely twisted by the usual suspects to be something "those tax-raisin' liberals" are doing and Rove would use it to plow over anyone to the left of moderate Republican.

And if you need some "proof" of the current Congress' lawmaking skill, look no futher than the energy bill that was signed into law just before Katrina hit.

But, I guess the important thing is that Gore is beginning this dialogue at a higher level than it has been in the past, so that's a step toward making this a higher priority.

rh