TNR: Chris Dodd's Low-Carb Diet
by the Editors
May 7, 2007
Sometimes it seems like Chris Dodd would have to appear in a string bikini on "Girls Gone Wild" to garner press for his presidential campaign. But, last week in New Hampshire, he did something even bolder: During a speech on energy policy, he suggested that the best way to wean the country off fossil fuels was to institute a tax on carbon--an idea that, among politicians, only Al Gore has dared to suggest. Later, a stunned George Stephanopoulos asked Dodd: "Are you worried, when you talk about taxes, that you're leading with your chin?"
As they weigh the best means to stave off global warming, congressional Democrats have generally rallied around some variant of a cap-andtrade regime, which would set a national limit on carbon emissions and allow companies to buy and sell pollution credits. It's a reasonable idea that worked with acid-rain legislation in the 1990s, but it also has problems. Europe's carbon-trading program has suffered setbacks over the last few years, as businesses learn to exploit loopholes in the regime or lobby for extra pollution allowances.
With that in mind, many environmentalists and economists now favor a carbon tax as a quicker and more efficient way to encourage energy conservation and reduce fossil fuel consumption by raising prices. (Some advocate combining it with a payroll tax cut to ease the pain on consumers.) Because it's more transparent, a tax would be harder for companies to game.
But the idea tends to be unpopular among politicians. Most Republicans would sooner chop off their right arms than raise taxes. Democrats still recall the thumping they received in 1993 after passing a simple BTU tax in the House. Companies like G.E. and DuPont, meanwhile, are mainly supporting a cap-and-trade bill because they expect to profit from it.
All of which explains why Barbara Boxer has pointedly ruled out a carbon tax as she pushes to introduce climate-change legislation in the Senate. But Boxer is thinking of the present when she should be looking to the future. Even if Bush does sign a cap-andtrade bill, it will almost certainly be one that is too weak to make a real dent in the problem. And Democrats and moderate Republicans do not have the votes to override a Bush veto. So real progress on the issue is not likely to happen until January 2009. Two years is a long time, and, with the conversation on global warming shifting so rapidly, the unthinkable could soon become quite feasible. In other words, laying the groundwork now for a carbon tax is a sound idea. At the very least, if enough Democrats start murmuring about a carbon tax, it might persuade nervous corporations to embrace cap-and-trade as the "moderate" alternative. So, while Dodd's leading with his chin, it might not be a bad idea if more of his colleagues had his back.