Carbon tax should return its revenue to residents

In 2016, voters in Washington may get the chance to enact the first state carbon tax. To make sure they provide a good example for the other 49, they should adopt the smartest policy with the broadest bipartisan appeal: a revenue-neutral tax.

Carbon Washington, an organization that has gathered some 350,000 signatures to put a $25-per-ton carbon tax to a vote, has long favored the revenue-neutral strategy. Its measure would return the money generated by cutting income and corporate taxes. Unfortunately, many left-leaning carbon-tax supporters in Washington stae feel strongly that the revenue should be used to make new investments in clean energy, education and other social programs.

Their strategy undercuts one of the most powerful arguments in favor of a carbon tax: Climate change is everyone’s problem, regardless of political philosophy, so the effort to lower greenhouse-gas emissions should be undertaken in the least partisan manner possible. Putting a price on carbon can encourage energy efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels, and it can be done without getting sucked into the eternal debate over the proper size and scope of government.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would sidestep that controversy and focus on its one essential goal: cutting emissions.

A second advantage would be transparency. If revenue from a carbon tax were used to enable other tax cuts, politicians would have less opportunity to reward their favored constituencies. That would make it easier to assure voters that the higher prices they’d have to pay for electricity, gasoline and home-heating fuel are working to fight climate change, not to play politics.

Washington’s Legislature will soon decide whether to pass the revenue-neutral tax or put it on the November ballot — possibly alongside an alternative carbon tax that would expand the state budget. In that case, voters should stick with the original version, and support the broader fight against climate change.

The above editorial appears on Bloomberg View at www.bloomberg.com/view.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, April 8

A sketchy look at the day in the coronavirus outbreak (and politics).… Continue reading

Editorial: Trump must reopen Obamacare enrollment for jobless

About 3.5 million are without coverage following layoffs; ACA enrollment must be reopened for them.

Editorial: Prepare for a long fight to flatten the curve

Stay-at-home orders have been extended; but there’s reason for hope the efforts are working.

Editorial: States on their own to produce medical supplies

States and their manufacturers now have to make up for the federal government’s lack of preparation.

Editorial: Sacrifices against COVID daunting but necessary

$2.2 trillion is a heavy price to pay but Americans and businesses need help to continue the fight.

Commentary: At home with partner? Older couples have it down

If you’re adjusting to stay-at-home orders, consider how your older peers have made it work.

Saunders: Why are Post, Times boycotting briefing room?

Suddenly, the White House is as dangerous to reporters as a natural disaster or war-torn nation.

Commentary: Covid-19 is anything but an ‘equalizer’

Pandemics, like the 1918 influenza, have higher death rates among impoverished communities.

Herald Homework: Medicare for All would save money

I am here to argue in favor of Medicare for All, which… Continue reading

Most Read