SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed


Florida Congressmen Behind Push for Crazy New Carbon ('Not a Tax') Fees

February 27, 2019 - 9:00am

It seems the embarrassing joke that was the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal proposal has not dissuaded politicians from coming up with alternative plans that make little sense. Instead of hiding from further notification, they are proudly promoting alternatives that are just as dubious.

In the House of Representatives they have drawn up the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA) just the latest ruse to pull funding out of the private sector and place it in the hands of government. As expected, the plan is full of high-minded promises not rooted in anything approaching empirical proof.

In promising to deliver a healthy, stable and prosperous America, the EICDA touts it will “drive down carbon pollution,” as well as “bring climate change under control.” This one piece of legislation promises to do all of that, and we should just nod and accept this as certain. However, there are problems with the promises right out of the gate, with the simple claim of this being bi-partisan.

“Republicans and Democrats are both on board, cosponsoring this bill together,” touts the website for the Act. However, among the 15 cosponsors of this bill -- including Florida stalwarts Ted Deutch, Charlie Crist, Alcee Hastings, and Francis Rooney -- the number of GOP members who signed on are ... one. One name constitutes “Republicans,” and “bi-partisan” -- Florida's Rooney.

Francis Rooney
Francis Rooney

With that subtle subterfuge I’m certain all the other claims will be completely above board. According to (a consortium of Florida news outlets backing legislation to combat sea level rise), this legislation promises to lower carbon emissions by 40 percent in just 12 years, and by a monstrous 90 percent by 2050. How? Well, beyond collecting money, there are very few specifics.

To start, logically they will place a “fee” on all oil, gas and coal. Not a tax, mind -- it is a fee. At the same time, "it will make clean energy cheaper and more attractive than dirty, polluting energy.” Just don't ask how it will be made cheaper. We have to take it on faith they will accomplish this. But they do promise that collecting money out of the free market will somehow lead businesses to embark on expensive innovation and improvements

When it comes to the money side, they promise things are revenue-neutral, AND promise that we will all get money back. How could anyone object? “Most American households will end up with more money in their pockets to spend as they see fit, which helps low- and middle-income Americans.” 

We will need that help, because this “fee” businesses are charged will be recovered in raising prices. This is going to drive up energy and food prices (due to transportation costs spiking), so the very best we could hope for is to break even.

Laughably, there will also be fees placed on goods coming from countries to alleviate the fees being placed on American businesses. “To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, goods imported from countries that do not have an equivalent carbon price will pay a border carbon adjustment.” This is the plan from the same politicians who have been complaining about President Trump’s tariffs. We suppose that calling their tariff a carbon adjustment excise fee will not lead to other countries retaliating with their own import charges.

The biggest lack of explanation comes from this question: If this EICDA delivers on everything it promises, how can they assure it will bring climate change “under control” when other nations are not bidden to follow this plan? China has been refusing to join in any international climate treaties, all while expanding its industries and raising its carbon output annually.

But the most uncomfortable detail is one that never sees its way into these new environmental proposals. Without being forced into any confiscatory legislation such as this, America has been reducing its carbon output since 2005. Put another way, we have been already achieving these goals, and we are ostensibly saving the planet. It almost appears as if we don't need more politicians confiscating more money from the marketplace.

Brad Slager, a Fort Lauderdale freelance writer, wrote this story exclusively for Sunshine State News. He writes on politics and the entertainment industry and his stories appear in such publications as RedState and The Federalist


The thing that most reasonable and sensible people object to is the fact that the taxes paid (and this is nothing more than a tax under the guise of something named more noble) never seem to go toward anything other than the current politicians favorite redistribution scheme. The VAT tax scheme in Europe started out small and then has grown to ever larger taxes and very little has gone to anything which even closely resembles climate change remedial programs. The carbon trading scheme turned out to be a huge windfall for a very select few in government. It just becomes another tax.

Consider. Nobody can seriously argue climate change isn't real. It's obvious. There is enough public facts to prove it, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't believe man has had a role? Then you're ignoring the probability of reality. God gave man dominion over the earth. Man is responsible for protecting God's gift, and we are failing miserably. Oil... By what right do we drill, pump and burn every drop we can find? What are we leaving for our children and grandchildren to use? That's selfish and shortsighted. It's our responsibility to leave our descendants a livable planet. Clean air. Clean wster. And sufficient resources to better their lives. You can't be a Christian and not believe it. You can't be a Christian and not do everything possible to mitigate the results of climate change. I am constantly confounded by those who argue against leaving our descendants debt, but have no problem denying them clean water and air and sufficient resources to live. It's beyond politics. It's a fundamental requirement of humanity.

It seems to be progress that there is some educated debate here. It would be helpful if Brad put his assertions in perspective. There are over 40 countries and territories pursuing a fee on carbon. (including China) . We are 11th worldwide in per capita carbon emissions. There is extensive research and support from all leading economists for a fee on carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. I take the time to reply here so my descendants can see I am active in promoting actions to reduce damages from climate change on the horizon.

I swear. OIl, and other fossil fuels, are like Oxy to an addict. What is wrong with investing in Renewable Energy NOW, so that when we do run out of your pickups drug of choice, does run out, it won't be so overpriced thanks to the greed, so prevalent with today's money hungry Republicans. California has the right idea. Energy independence.

This the same California that has dropped billions on a high speed rail boondoggle that has barely broken ground after more than a decade? The government is hardly in a position to take us to that "next level". If there is a viable and cheaper energy alternative then we would move onto that source. What they want to do is cripple our existing energy sources without that viable alternative in place first.

So, go to California (Hades).

Seems like THIS Rooney "caught a little of the 'stupidity bug' that the last Rooney left behind" when he left in December..!

Corporate polluters should pay for the pollution they have created ... and be prohibited from continuing such pollution. Period. And, as far as the payments for causing such pollution go ... call them what you will ... fees, fines, penalties, taxes.

Brad, the proposed legislation looks awfully like the California law in terms of carbon reduction and increased renewable energy use. As the approximate fifth largest economy in the world California can dictate lots of socio-economic policy. Not saying it is good but they have the power to do it. Thankfully. Though, this attempt will fail in this Congress—but I expect to see it reintroduced in many future Congresses.

California has been taxing their gasoline by the highest levels in the country, and other regulations makes their the most expensive. Meanwhile they have lost billions on the HSR project that was supposed to be completed by next year but has now been scrapped. With all of the state's focus on renewable energy it still stands in the top-5 of most expensive energy costs in the country. Florida sits below the median. California is not exactly leading in this subject.

This sounds like a bunch of little grade school girls at a tea-party. "I'll tell you you are pretty, then you can tell me I'm pretty". .. I'll support your bills, no matter how stupid, if you support my stupid bills.

Another corporate post from Brad...…………......….. So Brad you are in favor of subsidizing FFs $600B/yr with your income taxes, healthcare, military, etc FF cost foisted on the government?...…………….. Can you say massive corporate welfare?...……………FF pollution cut 1.7 yrs from American lives average...………..What is that worth?......…...…...It increases our healthcare cost 20% you pay in higher insurance, income taxes...……...........You like that?.........………..Especially since switching to RE costs 50% less, just what is the point anymore for FFs other than massive corporate welfare?...…...…………..There is little more fiscally and morally conservative to making you own secure clean power for less no one can increase prices on. No? ….........….Or do you think paying more for polluting energy that make foreign jobs, terrorists, dictators is a good idea vs 3 x more US , Floridian jobs making RE instead for 50% less? ......…......….Or are you a right wing political hack with no morals?...………………...Your choice which side you stand on but the facts are clear...……………………..And a FF surcharge for FFs to pay their full cost returned as a dividend is a good start to a level playing field, open market FFs companies don't want...…………………..And don't forget in 2020 a constitutional amendment to open the electric market to competitions RE because it costs less, will like in Texas is doing, take over the market.

Jerry, You are wasting FF posting your comments and turn your lights out while you are at it.

"Jerry", you are the symbol of the Democrat Political Party: an *** !


Best............when seeing Jetty's addiction to the to ignore anything he says. He never.................makes sense around here.

Putting it simply even an idiot can understand,...…... So you want to pay more for polluting power others control and jack up the price?.…….....Please tell me how that is fiscally conservative?...……...Smart in any way? ..............Waiting ;^)……...…...Chump sure likes the uneducated he said himself...;^)

When you manage to handle standard sentence structure then we can talk.

Comments are now closed.



Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.