Progressive Budget Would Tax Literally Everything To Slightly Slow Global Warming

logoThe Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has released a budget for 2017 that would tax virtually everything Americans do in order to slow global warming by negligible fractions.

The CPC budget features taxes on carbon dioxide (CO2), huge increases in green energy subsidies and new cash to enforce Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. It would add another $9.9 trillion to the national debt by 2026. The current national debt is roughly $19 trillion.

“This is the only budget in Washington that truly accepts the urgency of the climate crisis,” Lukas Ross, a spokesperson for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, wrote in a Thursday press release. “From reigning in Big Oil to investing in clean renewable energy, this is the policy vision we need to ensure a just and speedy end to the era of fossil fuels. In the face of record inequality and looming climate disruption, debating between different shades of austerity is simply unacceptable. Budgets are about priorities, and the budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet.”

Much of the budget’s spending increases are said to be paid for by a new tax of $25 per ton on CO2 increasing annually by 5.6 percent. The caucus predicts this would bring in an additional $79 billion, 25 percent of which the budget would directly redistribute to low income families. Such a tax would have only a “negligible” impact on global warming.

If the government levied a tax on CO2, the cost of producing goods and services that use CO2 as a component would increase as well. Any good transported via truck or car would also increase price. Thus, taxing carbon dioxide effectively taxes almost everything.

Additionally, critics say carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. A 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that a carbon tax would double the tax burden of the poorest households, making it nearly impossible to have both a carbon tax and a living wage. A tax on such emissions would make the tax burden of the poorest households three times greater than the richest households, according to the study.

Only four nations  — Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland actually have such carbon taxation today. The largest economy to ever have a carbon tax, Australia, repealed it in 2014.

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar



    Regardless of how the progressives want to waste the taxpayers money, taxes are UNNECESSARY when operating with FIAT currency and continual deficits accumulating a gargantuan national debt that

    The currency has a separate identity of its own and unrelated to anything else including the National Debt !

    When operating this economy the only purpose there can be for taxation is the removing of money from the pockets of the populace to prevent their exercise of economic free will.

    Taxation has become autocratically oppressive and exists only to keep people under the thumb of government.

  • Avatar



    the only legitimate purpose
    of government is to
    serve the people

    when government dictates
    to its people it is
    no longer legitimate

    politicians are not
    enshrined with the
    authority of deity

    their only rightful
    prerogative is

    ich dien

  • Avatar



    Creeping socialism . This carbon tax approach is the same as the one shoved down the throat of British Columbia citizens by a Liberal government . It will do nothing to change the planets temperature but it really isn’t about that anymore is it ?

    The USA would be wise to stop the fraud of a carbon tax in it’s tracks before the government bureaucrats get addicted to it . Consumers in the USA are known to have a little more backbone when it comes to government rip-offs and this is no exception .

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton


    The Alarmists have still not proven that CO2 causes global warming. It does’nt
    Therefore, it makes no difference what the levels of CO2 are.[except too low ie under 200ppm]
    The records show that much more CO2 would be beneficial. 1000 to 1200 ppm would be great.

  • Avatar



    Al Shelton ,”much more CO2 would be beneficial ” . Correct you are and we know CO2 levels have been far higher historically than they are today and life on earth flourished .
    If CO2 drops that is when every plant and animal on earth has a problem . What percentage of animals and plants on earth would survive the next ice age ? Now that is something to fret about other than the current debates by maroon’s masked as humans in the political debates .

    CO2 is great plant food and global warming is good . We should celebrate Global Warming Day . It would be one of the few positive things the world has in common these days .

  • Avatar



    [i]”The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has released a budget for 2017 that would tax virtually everything Americans do [u]in order to slow global warming by negligible fractions[/u].”[/i]

    And these “negligible fractions” assume the the entire premise of man made CO2 as the cause of destructive climate change. [b]That alone is a whopper of an assumption[/b].

    These people are trying to build a skyscraper on a foundation of cards.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.