Progressive Groups Warn Congress Against Including Carbon Tax in Reconciliation Package

Posted by on September 29, 2021 in Environment, Environmental Hazards, Government, Policies with 0 Comments

Democrats are considering adding a carbon tax to their evolving budget reconciliation package. (Photo: 123RF)

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams 

Five progressive organizations on Tuesday urged top congressional Democrats to exclude a carbon tax from the sweeping budget reconciliation package they aim to pass this week following reports that the policy is under consideration in the U.S. Senate.

“Carbon taxes… do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters.”
—Mitch Jones, Food & Water Watch

Given the Senate's current makeup and Democrats' refusal to abolish the filibuster, passing the Build Back Better package is considered essential to delivering on President Joe Biden's climate pledges. Backed by the latest science, progressives have repeatedly advocated against including “false solutions” that impede a just transition away from fossil fuels and exacerbate the climate emergency.

Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Our Revolution, and Progressive Democrats of America made their case for leaving a carbon tax out of the package in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

While applauding Democratic leaders' efforts to generate the money necessary to combat the climate emergency, the groups warn of the expected harms of such a policy and argue that repealing fossil fuel subsidies “would provide a simpler and more robust revenue stream.”

The letter came amid uncertainty over the fate of both the Build Back Better package and a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and just days after Wyden confirmed to The New York Times that in the face of opposition to the party's tax plan from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Schumer instructed him to craft legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions but also align with Biden's vow not to raise taxes on households making below $400,000.

As Wyden noted to the Times, a carbon tax remains a heavy push politically even if it comes with a dividend that would return a portion of the money to consumers. Of course, the more money returned to consumers in the form of rebates, the less revenue there is to spend on other programs—the point of instituting a carbon tax.

The potential impact that such a policy could have on families with lower incomes is among the concerns detailed in the groups' letter:

The Build Back Better Act is touted as the best shot to address the climate crisis, but it is also an opportunity to address the injustice and harms that fossil fuels bring to Black, Indigenous nations, and environmental justice communities. Including a carbon tax as a pay-for in this spending plan will further our dependency on fossil fuels and undermine efforts to eliminate and reduce pollution in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, this regressive tax will also undermine a key promise of President Biden to not raise taxes on people making under $400,000 per year, an increase that will be felt hardest among low- and moderate-income households who are least equipped to make investments necessary to avoid carbon emissions and these new taxes.

The organizations explain that fossil fuel interests support carbon taxes because they not only sustain but create more dependence on the industry by making social programs—like those proposed in the Democrats' package—reliant on revenue from polluters.

“This perverse relationship,” the letter warns, “will cause us to choose between the health of vulnerable communities and our climate or funding government programs, a dichotomy we should avoid at all costs.”

“The inclusion of a carbon tax,” the letter continues, “would create an inequitable, discriminatory, ineffective, and ultimately regressive proposal that gives a green light for the biggest climate scofflaws to pay to pollute and maintain a harmful status quo.”

Food & Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones echoed the letter's warnings and demands in a statement Tuesday.

“Carbon taxes have fallen out of serious climate discussions for good reasons: They do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters as a ploy to look concerned about climate while continuing business as usual,” he said.

“If lawmakers are really concerned about holding the costs of this spending bill,” Jones added, “They should get rid of the billions of dollars we waste every year on subsidies to polluters.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Tags: , , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use' must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Send this to a friend