Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
America's First Carbon Tax
May 21, 2008 1:01 PM
In San Francisco, regulators have voted 15-1 to impose America's first fee for emitting carbon dioxide.
It's not terribly much -- 4.4 cents per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere -- but the symbolism is obvious.
The proposal comes from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which met today. About 2,500 businesses would be required to pay fees, most of them less than a dollar a year. A few big ones -- seven power plants and refineries, could pay close to $200,000. Cars and trucks, estimated by the District staff to account for half of local CO2 emissions, are not affected by this plan.
More details HERE from Terry McSweeney of our San Francisco affiliate, KGO-TV.
"It doesn't solve global warming, but it gets us thinking in the right terms," Prof. Daniel Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, tells AP. "It's not enough of a cost to change behavior, but it tells us where things are headed. You have to think not just in financial terms, but in carbon terms."
Plenty of businesses, of course, feel otherwise, worrying that competitors elsewhere will get more work if they have to pass one more cost on to customers. The Western States Petroleum Association says it may sue over the hodgepodge of regulations that might now come. And there are questions about whether local regulators have authority on a global issue, though the District's staff says the California Air Resources Board doesn't seem inclined to stop them.
To many environmental advocates, nothing will happen unless there's a clear cost to emitting greenhouse gases. The beauty, they argue, is that businesses can get around the tax by...finding cleaner ways to operate.
Some companies have outright asked for clear regulations from Washington. They stand to profit from it. GE's homepage today leads with a feature about the company providing wind farms in China.
May 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (190)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Will these people PLEASE make up there mind! Is it "global warming, global cooling or global dimming"??? What's the excuse for big government to re-regulate our lives this week? Why are we spraying sulfate and glass particles into the atmosphere??? How the heck does THAT fix the menace of global warming? Why the hell are we cutting down redwood trees in California and burying them in the ground for christ sake. What's the threat of trees, they're meant to decompose and regenerate the soil. Who's running this whole "Global warming" SCAM!?! Will you watch "Global warming or global governance" or the "Great global warming swindle." Write an article on THAT and please stop LYING to the American public! ENOUGH! Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe and encourages plant growth (hence why plants grow in a greenhouse) carbon MONoxide is pollution and needs to be regulated. Convieniently they are NOT taxing THAT, and are allowing corporations to pay for the right to NOT be regulated... Jesus, get on this please! It's bad enough to not cover this, but to disinform like this, when you do... is pitiful.
Posted by: blog | May 21, 2008 1:19:53 PM
well stated!!
Posted by: jack | May 21, 2008 1:27:23 PM
People in Califonia are just as damn sutpid and backwards as can be. I think Stalin and Mao would be proud.
Posted by: Ash | May 21, 2008 2:26:09 PM
People like you truly frighten me. The issue isn't that plants utilize CO2 (they certainly do), the issue is the accumulation in the atmosphere that leads to global warming. In other words, it's not ok to recklessly emit CO2 because photosynthesis will take care of the excess. California is once again exhibiting the leadership that is shamefully absent in DC.
Posted by: MTM | May 21, 2008 2:32:27 PM
Once again, leave it to the liberals to try and tax our way out of a problem....
Posted by: RottieLover | May 21, 2008 2:45:55 PM
Well in this case, taxing polluters makes perfect sense. We all suffer as a result of an increasingly polluted world, so why should the worst polluters profit at our expense?
Posted by: MTM | May 21, 2008 2:54:21 PM
MTM, since the CO2 level in the atmosphere is 0.00323 which is about as close to 0 as you can get, frankly I'm not terribly frightened of CO2.
I am, however, VERY frightened of the mass hysteria that is resulting from this issue, ultimately leading to tyranny. The tax mentioned in this article is only the beginning.
There is also a food crisis going on in developing countries right now due the fact that we an other nations are converting much of the world's food supply into ethanol, NOT to ease the burden of gas prices but for global warming purposes. We are now starving many people over global warming. The food shortage should hit this country at some point.
Posted by: jfm125 | May 21, 2008 3:01:56 PM
California doesn't exhibit leadership. This state is a joke. I live in Sacramento. Our genius politicians consistently voted down upgrading the capitol city's mass transit infrastructure. So now we have a downtown business district with virtually no bus or rail system that people can use to go to work instead of driving their cars. And I wouldn't be shocked if they come up with the great idea of a "fee" (read: tax) on cars and trucks that commute downtown to "combat" global warming.
Posted by: RottieLover | May 21, 2008 3:14:29 PM
Once again California exhibits it leadership in ignorance and greed.
Posted by: Quietman | May 21, 2008 3:29:03 PM
I hope the slimy liberals and other degenerets that populate the Mecca for scumbags in the US (san francisco)remember to levy that tax against their municipal busses, garbage trucks and the like. This tax won't fix a thing.
You Californians are a wierd bunch. We in Texas are unfortunate enough to get smarter californians fleeing your miserable state coming here. We have to teach the rude little peasants manners. You say hello or good morning to them and they don't respond. We have even changed the name of running a red light or stop sign to pulling a cali stop. You guys should move to vegas instead of Texas. Californians would feel more at home in the bastion of immorality and rudeness!
Posted by: BimmerMike | May 21, 2008 3:37:58 PM
Hey, how about some carbon taxes on cows? There's so much methane spewing from the central valley, that it's near impossible to breathe when driving I-5.
Peeyew!
Posted by: ErniePF | May 21, 2008 3:39:42 PM
I don't get this backlash against people trying to make earth cleaner... Unchecked free markets do not work, it has been proven time and time again. Unless some economic incentive is made to make industry cleaner nothing will happen. Saying there is nothing going on and climate change isn't real is akin to being aboard the titanic as its sinking saying, thats fine its just a submarine now.
Posted by: thomas | May 21, 2008 3:40:42 PM
Just another example of Pelosi and her left wing cronies finding more ways to tax people out of thier entire paychecks. This time it's businesses--it won't be long before the private citizen has to pay extra taxes for the type of vehicle they own (to save the environment). And if the left wing democrats have their way then it will be illegal to spit sideways on the sidewalk (or just taxed heavily for it). As far as I'm concerend Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and Obama are no better that Bush and his right wing cronies--just the exact polar opposite of what we have in office now. This "nanny" mentality is infringing on the rights of everyone because a few are offended by the majority.
Posted by: my two cents | May 21, 2008 3:42:27 PM
Is California still one of the fifty seven states? I think all of that CO2 has done somthing to the minds of those people out there. I am starting to understand the logic of people like pelosi and that is scary.
Posted by: Billy Bob | May 21, 2008 3:54:01 PM
Thomas, the jury is still out on how much people are contributing to global warming. That's what some folks are hot and bothered about.
Posted by: Nancy | May 21, 2008 3:59:05 PM
SF tax business for CO2. Great, now business passes the tax on to Jimmy and Joanie Jet. Business isn't paying a thing, not a red cent comes out of their pocket, nor should it.
And how is this tax equal? Is SF going to audit every single business, have CO2 tables?
Jimmy and Joanie Jet just got the pooch from the SF city government.
Posted by: Balderdash | May 21, 2008 4:01:03 PM
In the end, the power companies will pay nothing - corporations don't pay taxes - people do - the 200000 will be passed on to the consumers.
Posted by: Mark | May 21, 2008 4:01:06 PM
Or if global warming is even reality, as opposed to a complete scam.
Posted by: Nancy | May 21, 2008 4:01:25 PM
Answer this question: How does penalizing North America and Europe for carbon dioxide while NOT penalizing China, India, Russia and the rest of developing world for actual pollution (carbon monoxide) do ANYTHING to stop global warming? Why are we limiting job creation in this country and ecouraging more corporations to move overseas where they can be additionally rewarded with our "carbon footprint penalty fees?" How does that save the enviroment, please explain... Please watch or research global warming, global dimming, global governance, and tell me what you come up with. Because it seems the more I look into it, the more I can't find ANY consensus on anything. The globla dimming folks say that because airplane pollution was cutt back after 911 when the planes were grounded (wait for it...) that the earth's temperature ROSE two degrees..? If there are no planes in the air, thus less pollution in the air, why did the Earth's temperature RISE? Doesn't the greenhouse gas/global warming hypothesis preach the opposite? What are the facts and what is fiction. I encopurage anyone to look at Global warming or Global Governance on google. An Inconvienient Truth is rebutted wholeheartedly with actualt scientist disputing Gore's assertion. Of course who would you rather believe? Scientist and satelite photography, Or computer models from a man who is the majority shareholder of Occidential Petroleum? Please ask questions, and think for yourselves. The information is out there, you just have to seek it.
Posted by: blog | May 21, 2008 4:05:12 PM
There is no way to control pollution levels as long as human population increases. Impossible, no way, can’t be done, forget it. Plain and simple, people pollute. More people = more pollution. Fewer people = less pollution. I can go into algebraic proof if I must.
Our society, national and global continues to promote population growth. We continue to create our own demise. “Feel good, do nothing” legislation only serves to cover up the problem in order to placate religions which only seek to increase their numbers and thus their power.
We make heros of families with 17 kids. ... They are the real source of pollution.
Posted by: Royce | May 21, 2008 4:09:00 PM
Post a comment

