The Carbon Tax:Economists Have A One-Page Solution To Climate Change

The Carbon Tax:Economists Have A One-Page Solution To Climate Change

This is why economists love a carbon tax: One change to the tax code and the entire economy shifts to reduce carbon emissions. No complicated regulations. No rules for what kind of gas mileage cars have to get or what specific fraction of electricity has to come from wind or solar or renewables. That’s by and large the way we do it now. Reilly says the current web of rules is a more complicated and more expensive way of getting the same outcome as a carbon tax. … Reilly says, you can reduce, say, income tax to balance out the new taxes people are paying for carbon emissions. People pay more for gas, but they get to keep more of their income. I called around and talked to a bunch of economists about this, and they said the basic idea was sound: If you give the carbon-tax money back by cutting income taxes, you can probably offset a lot of the pain.

My problem with the carbon tax, versus Cap-and-Trade is that with a carbon tax, it goes directly to consumers. Who are just as likely to vote for people who promise the cut the carbon tax without offsets as they are to vote for people who promise to cut income taxes without offsets.

Untitled

ilovecharts: The Voting Rights Act Worked via letsreadsomeinternet

Untitled

panasonicyouth: y’all should follow jamelle on twitter. he’s great.

War on coal: A pretty good idea.

War on coal: A pretty good idea.

the only way to consider new coal-fired plants a remotely plausible undertaking is to completely ignore the social costs of burning the coal. By the same token, simply throwing all my garbage into my neighbor’s back yard could look like a cheap and appealing alternative to proper trash disposal if I were allowed to completely ignore the costs to my neighbor.

Getting rid of direct subsidies and then attacking indirect subsides is all that is need to make wind and solar competitive.

NSA Surveillance Leaks Prompt Legislation

NSA Surveillance Leaks Prompt Legislation

One of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act — Section 215 — allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize broad warrants for most any type of records, including those held by banks, doctors and phone companies. Lawmakers have repeatedly voted to prevent the act from expiring. The government only needs to show that the information pertains to an “authorized investigation.” No connection to a terrorist or spy is required. Under today’s proposal, the act would be amended to require “the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group.” Another provision would demand the government “to provide a statement of the facts and circumstances” to the court to justify the surveillance, lawmakers said.

This is an trivial reduction in FISA court power and yet it is far from certain to pass. Undoing the damage of the patriot act will take a generation.