View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Steve Lunetta: The carbon tax has flaws

Posted: June 26, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 26, 2014 2:00 a.m.

A recent column by Cher Gilmore touted the brilliance and benefits of taxing carbon output from business as a way to reduce global climate change.

The source of her information was a recent 126-page report by Regional Economic Models Inc., or REMI, a climate change think tank.

The report gushes that if we tax carbon output, 2.1 million jobs will be created, carbon dioxide emissions will decrease 33 percent, and 13,000 premature deaths will be avoided.

And peace will reign in the Middle East. The Chicago Cubs will win the World Series. Broccoli will become the favorite food of children everywhere. Bullying will instantly stop (except when Hart plays football). Nose hair will no longer grow.

And a Democrat will win a congressional seat in the SCV.

Yeah, right. To say I was a bit skeptical is putting it mildly.

Here is how the tax would work. If you make carbon dioxide (burn something, make something, etc.), you will be charged 10 bucks per metric ton of CO2 released starting in 2016. That amount will be bumped up 10 bucks every year after.

The government takes this tax (errr, “fee”) and returns 100 percent of it to consumers in the form of a rebate check. This will cause all of these rosy predictions to happen.

I went ahead and downloaded the report referenced by Gilmore to read it for myself. I secretly wonder if liberals and Democrats actually read these things and not just the CNN Cliff Notes versions.

Needless to say, there are numerous flaws with the logic behind the report disqualifying it as a serious reference for anything useful. Let’s look at it.

Flaw No. 1: The report assumes that increasing taxes will “influence earlier retirements of coal plants” and early investments in clean energy like nuclear, gas, wind, and solar (page 6).

The problem, of course, is that if energy companies are allowed to pass on the costs of this new tax onto their customers (us), where is the incentive to retire/invest?

If it’s revenue-neutral to the energy producers, why do they care?

Costs will be reflected directly in increased heating fuels, transportation costs, lighting and other utilities. Indirect costs will also hit retail products like food and household goods.

Ah, but that is where the scheme gets really good.

Flaw No. 2: Consumers will obtain a rebate check depending on household size to get back the added costs of the tax.

So if costs go up but then get covered by the rebate check, where is the benefit?

Many of you recall that the senior George Bush tried a similar trick a few years ago right before an election.

Withholding was changed to put more money in our checks, but the tax rate was not modified.

Essentially, we were being bribed with our own money. Most of us did not fall for the trick and just modified our deductions.

The same trick is being employed here.

Flaw No. 3: Employment will rise an astounding 2.1 million jobs due primarily to increases in health care, social assistance, finance, insurance, and retail.

Why? Because we are going to take those rebate checks and burn them frivolously and not pay our increasing bills.

Seriously. This is what the writers of this report think. Page 65 of the report says that new consumer spending is going to fuel this economic boom.

Flaw No. 4: The report states “carbon taxes ... mean to help markets internalize the negative externalities unrealized by the parties directly involved” (page 11).

Translation: we know what is better for you and will interfere with your life until you bend to our will, you stupid sheep.

The assumption is that businesses and people will not make good economic choices and must be forced to do so.

This is socialism at its core.

Flaw No. 5: The tax rebate is designed to be progressive, using a murky rationale regarding family size to send a greater percentage of the refund to those in the lower economic income brackets (page 36).

So if you are unfortunate enough to be in the middle or upper income brackets, you rebate will be reduced and you will not recover your fair share of the carbon tax.

You guessed it, folks. Wealth redistribution. Once again, another play straight out of Marxist and socialist handbooks.

With so many flaws, it is hard to understand how so many can be deceived by this report. Get the report and read it for yourself.

This is the game plan of the far left and those that have been tricked by the man-induced climate change propaganda machine.

Steve Lunetta is a resident of Placerita Canyon and has his solar panels humming along nicely. Go ahead and send my check, Mr. Obama. He can be reached at



Most Popular Articles

There are no articles at this time.
Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...