Suddenly, ‘Climate Change’ Groups Are Against A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax

For several years now, many ‘climate change’ groups and individuals have been calling for revenue neutral carbon taxes, whereby citizens are reimbursed to cover the cost of living increases caused by the carbon taxes – you know, that cost if living increase which they said wouldn’t happen due to carbon taxes. Such big wig members of the Cult of Climastrology as James Hansen and Michael Mann have called for revenue neutral carbon taxes. What happens when someone tries to actually pass one? Well…

In twist, environmentalists fight proposed carbon tax – because it doesn’t grow gov’t

On paper, it looks like a big win for environmentalists: a ballot initiative in Washington state to make it the first in the nation to impose a tax on all carbon emissions.

Yet green groups are united almost in lockstep against the proposal – all because it includes tax cuts, to offset the tax hike.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Yoram Bauman, who authored Initiative 732 and generally sides with environmental groups that have claimed for years that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change, now says he’s shocked at the pushback he’s facing from these same organizations.

Huh. How about that

The turn of events has highlighted a curious aspect of the environmentalist coalition in the region: as much as these groups want to fight carbon emissions, they also want to make sure the money from any carbon tax is used primarily to boost the government’s clean-energy programs.

In other words, they really want the money funneled back to their own groups as well as increasing government control of the energy sector.

The tax would start out at $25 per ton and rise each year until hitting a cap of $100 a ton. Initially, it is projected to add 25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline, increase air fares and raise utility bills — costing $2 billion a year. But this would be offset by cutting the state’s sales tax by 1 percent, lowering taxes for 400,000 working-class families and eliminating a tax on businesses that manufacture in Washington.

So, doing it this way would offset for citizens and small businesses, reducing economic harm. But

“It’s not only about reducing carbon,” said Rich Stolz of One America, a group that advocates for poor minorities. “It’s how we do it, and developing the kind of clean-energy economy we need.”

Stolz said he would have backed I-732 if it were a tax increase, funding government programs and new regulations on polluters.

So, wait, it’s not about reducing “carbon emissions”? It’s all about growing government? Well, that’s strange. If only someone had been writing about this.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!