[i][b]Many items would indeed go up in price.[/b]

No, EVERY ITEM would go up in price.  Name me an item that wouldn’t.  Clothing?  No, shipping costs would go up.  Food?  The same, not to mention corn would increse just because of ethanol.  Housing?  Very likely would go up, in one way or another. [/i]

Used cars, especially those without great gas mileage, would go down in price, because a lot of people would sell them after finding that with gas prices as high as they are they don’t use them enough to continue using them.  Used recreational vehicles would be dirt cheap.  Used vehicle prices would decrease as soon as it is annnounced how much gas prices will increase. 

Health care costs would go down very quickly due to reduced pollution after implementation of a pollution tax. There would be fewer asthma cases for example.  Because of fewer vehicles on the road, there would be fewer car accidents.  Insurance rates would go down.

Within a few years, the costs related to weather damage would go down due to decreased global warming.  Less hurricane damage, less flooding damage.  Air conditioning usage might go down a bit for some people that live in areas of thermal pollution.  The air conditioning cost might not go down much however, because the tax would make electricity costlier.  Road maintenance expenses would fall due to less utilization of the roads.  New roadway construction could be deferred due to decreased demand. 

Within a few decades, trillions of dollars of expenses would be avoided due to avoidance of worldwide flooding of major population centers.  Trillions of dollars spent on warring over scarce resources might be avoided, and the cost of defense would decrease compared with life with no pollution tax.

I agree that many prices would go up.  That is the whole idea.  Prices need to reflect the true cost of items for people to make correct decisions as to what to buy.  Currently, prices are “subsidized” by people offloading the cost of their pollution on others: those with asthma, people in poor countries that can’t feed its people, and so on.  When people have to pay the true cost of their purchases, they buy less.

Gross national product would probably decrease, although a decrease from increased prices would be offset by new green industries.  A lower GNP is not necessarily a bad thing.  There is a difference between quantity and quality.  Prices will be higher, less will be bought, less will be consumed, but what is consumed will be of high quality and will be environmentally friendly.

[i][b]But income taxes would go down, offset by the money collected from a pollution tax.[/b]

Please name me a time in the history of the federal gov’t where the addition of a new tax brought other taxes down?  No, very likely they would add this tax, and keep all others at the same level. Bet your bottom dollar on it.  That actually is exactly what Al Gore has proposed, by the way.

[/i]Actually, the only practical way a pollution tax could be accepted by the public is if it is linked with a reduction in income taxes.  Or the pollution tax would be added on as a means to fund some new program, such as environmental mitigation.[i]  [/i]

[i][b]The rich tend to live in large expensive new energy efficient houses that they keep overcooled and overheated because they can afford it.  The poor tend to live in smaller energy inefficient houses or apartments that they undercool and underheat in order to save money.  The net effect is the rich actually spend more per capita per month on utilities than the poor (although the rich get a lot more for their money).[/b]

The net effect is that pollution won’t be decreased.  Yes, you will collect more dollars, and if that is your goal, great.  But the poor, even with things like closing up windows, can do only so much to make themselves more efficient.  You are talking 5, maybe 10% more efficient if they are [/i] [i]really lucky.  The rich won’t change.  So overall, no change in pollution.  So is your goal to raise taxes, or to lower pollution?

[/i]Are you saying that when prices go up, people don’t change the amount that they buy?  The recent ~$1 per gallon increase in gasoline has already reduced consumption by several percentage points, and consumption is expected to continue to fall as people continue to adjust their habits to use less.  There is a time lag for people to change their vehicles, learn about public transit, carpool, and so on. 

The effect of price on demand is a well known economic principle.  Are you denying that demand is not sensitive to price?  Even the rich cut their most extravagant waste when costs rise.  For those that don’t, so be it.  At least a tax was collected to pay for the damage to the environment that they caused.

A 10% reduction in heating or cooling is very pessimistic.  The energy consumption of a drafty old building can easily be cut in half by sealing it up and controlling the timing of heating and cooling.  Poor people will adjust their thermostats to use less power if their utility bills start to become unaffordable.

[i] As for public transportation, without major capital expenditures for the gov’t, understand that most of the country today doesn’t have realistic access.  you leave the northeast, and most cities do not have a viable public transportation system.   Actually some cities are already breaking down now, because of the little increase that has occurred recently.

[/i]I have lived all over the country, and can say from personal experience that almost every town over 50,000 people has a public transportation system.  You might have to wait one or two hours for a bus, but there are buses.  There is certainly carpooling wherever you go.  Check out craigslist.  One can get a ride anywhere from craigslist if one plans ahead. 

It is not a lack of capital expenditure that limits the extent of public transit.  It is a lack of DEMAND.  If people rode the bus more often, rest assured the local government would gladly invest in more buses.  Obviously, if gasoline is $15 per gallon, many people are going to take the bus or carpool.  With the increased demand for public transit, there will be the political support and economic viability that will allow substantial expansion of public transportation.

[i][b]There is a difference between energy efficiency and energy usage.  [/b]

No, I understand the difference.  The problem is this:  Say you reduce overall usage 10% over the next 10 years.  Well, with the overall growth of the economy, assuming no increased efficiency, our pollution amount will increase by [b]25%  [/b]over today’s amount.  While, it is always good to reduce usage, if you are talking about longterm global warming, this solution will only make the bad problem a little better.  I guess that is an accomplishment in and of itself, but it doesn’t solve the whole problem.

[/i]The growth of the economy needs to be in a greener direction.  There is no reason to believe that pollution will increase 25%.  If anything, pollution should decrease.  Pollution will certainly decrease if people have to start paying every time they create pollution.  A 10% reduction over the next 10 years is extremely pessimistic.  10% reduction per year is more realistic.  If there is no reduction in pollution, then at least the funds will be raised to clean up the pollution.

Cleaning up the pollution is not an optional thing.  Global warming is real.  Greenhouse gases must be reduced.  There is considerable controversy regarding the best way to clean up the gases after they are already produced.  But there is little controversy regarding about how much damage each ton of Co2 causes.  Hence we can at least internalize the externality of pollution so the polluters pay the cost of their polluting.  Carbon credits, disaster relief funding, or other means can then be used as necessary to manage the effects of global warming.

If the polluters are not going to pay for their pollution, who do you propose should pay for it?  If you charge the polluters, then they will reduce their pollution.  With reduced production of CO2 and other pollutants, the problem is already partially solved.

[i][b]If you buy a new car, you immediately cause a huge amount of pollution because it takes a lot of pollution to make a new car.  That is true.  But isn’t it fair that those who pollute by buying a new car pay for the pollution required to make that car? [/b]

And again, this is my point.  The dichotomy in this plan may make things worse.  I understand your point, but also undertand that current SUV owners, in your plan, may be better off keeping their old useless polluting SUV than pay more tax on a more efficient new car.  And thus, people may keep cars longer, which always is bad because older cars pollute more

[/i]No, it is not ALWAYS bad.  It depends on how much someone drives the SUV.  Keeping a car longer, even one with low mpg, can create far less carbon emissions that destroying the SUV and building a new high mpg car, as long as the SUV is not driven very much. 

Older cars pollute more PER MILE DRIVEN.  However, if they are not driven very many miles, the amount of pollution is minimal.  What do you want to do with old low-mpg cars?  I say, let the market motivate those who do not drive much to take advantage of the low prices of these cars.  Let these low-mileage drivers then avoid the purchase of a new car which has a huge pollution penalty.  Let those who drive a lot be motivated by the market to invest in an expensive new car with great mileage.  The way to facilitate the economic correctness of these decisions is to add the cost of pollution to the cost of fuel, and add the cost of pollution of making a car be added to the price of the car.  Which will go up more, the cost of the car, or the cost of the gasoline?  It depends on how much someone drives.  Most people, when given the true cost of the car and the true cost of the fuel, will make a reasonable decision regarding what they drive and how much they drive it.

If pollution taxes are accurate, the cost of pollution will automatically be included in the price of everything.  Someone with an SUV will look at how much he drives, how much that costs, and whether or not buying an expensive but fuel efficient car will save money.  The net effect is that those who rarely drive or really need a big SUV will tend to have them, whereas those who drive a lot or don’t need the extra space will sell their SUV’s to buy a smaller more economical car.  Some poeple who only need occasional use of a car will gobble up the heavily discounted SUV’s.  So all the energy put into building those SUV’s will not go to waste.

[i] Additionally, we have not even discussed the effects this would have on the auto industry, which still employs millions of people in this country.

[/i]It would accelerate what is already happening.  The auto industry is shifting away from stupid gas guzzlers and it is making efficient cars.  Certainly, fewer cars would be made, and many people currently employed making cars that are not fuel efficient would be layed off.  This is a GOOD thing.  Why should these autoworkers be wasting their time making gas guzzlers that destroy the planet?  Why are we ruining perfectly good steel by using it to make big SUV’s that soon almost nobody will want?  We need most of these people and we need that steel to make buses, high efficiency cars, and new subway trains.   We need others to change jobs making something that is more useful.

Maybe the bus plant is in another city.  Sure, there will be dislocation of autoworkers.  But that is what a dynamic economy is about.  The cost of someone moving to another city is far less than subsidizing the production of retarded equipment.

These kinds of changes will be made in response to recognition of the true cost of pollution.
[i]
[b]Foreigners purchasing US goods would pay pollution taxes…[/b]

I am assuming you are talking about foreigners living here.  I am talking about foreigners from abroad, like say Canada.  When they drive across the border and pollute, how are you going to recoup that? 

[/i]Well, you’ve got me there.  If gas is cheaper in Canada than in the US, then people living on the border would tend to fill up their tanks in Canada and dump the pollution in the US without paying for the cost of the cleanup.  However, border-crossing trips are a drop in the bucket as far as total US gasoline consumption is concerned. 

Furthermore, Canada is already further along the learning curve than we are as far as pollution taxes are concerned.  Our politicians are barely considering it, whereas Canada already has concrete proposals:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080619/sc_afp/canadapoliticsenvironment_080619184001

The Canadians, as usual, are way ahead of us.  They will probably have a pollution tax in place five years before we do.  During that time, ugly Amercians will cross the border with our SUV’s filled with cheap gasoline.  We’ll dump the car exhaust on the Canadians, just like we already dump our acid rain on them. 

We’ll let them pay the cost of cleanining up the damage.  Let them pay increased healthcare costs and maintenance costs from corrosion.  Let their crops be destroyed by the acid.  Let their waterways be poisoned.  We don’t care.  It is their problem now, not ours.  We are happy tooling around in our retarded SUV’s, letting the rest of the world handle the mess it causes. 

Am I the only one ashamed of our behavior toward the Canadians and the rest of the world?  We are lousy neighbors, especially considering our superpower status. 
[i]
[b]It is not true that the tax will hit you no matter what you do. [/b]

And you go on to say your solutions won’t people [/i] [i]as much,  which implies they will still [/i][i]get hit. [/i]

Of course people will get hit with the cost of pollution, some more than others.  You can pay a little bit now, or pay a lot later.  It is better to recognize the cost NOW, instead of after the polar ice caps are melted and half the world’s largest cities are underwater.  By that time it will be too late.

[i][b]It is not going to cost money.  It is merely going to redistribute money from polluters to non-polluters.[/b]

This is the biggest fallacy of all.  Understand, virtually all americans are polluters.  Period.  And the poor in some ways are worse than the rich.  Even farmers in this country are overall polluters.  [/i]

Yes, every human that is alive does emit carbon dioxide.  But it is not a question of whether or not everyone pollutes.  It is a question of the extent to which someone pollutes.  It is a question of making people responsible for the pollution that they do create.  And it is a question of making prices reflect the true cost of pollution so that people change their behavior to reflect that very real cost.

The biggest fallacy of all is denying the inconvenient truth.  You can pretend that there is no cost to pollution.  You can pretend that we all do not pay for this pollution one way or another.  Or you can recognize the cost and allocate it to those who create the cost instead of subsidizing polluters.

[i] And if you look at even enviromental group studies, they said that the overall cost, for the average citizen, will be [b]$1200 in additional taxes

[/b][/i]Is that all?  $1200 per person is a very small price to pay compared to the trillions of dollars that  is being paid and will be paid in the future if we do not do anything.  However, that $1200 would be for various governmental programs to clean up pollution, not the cost of a pollution tax.  I think an accurate pollution tax might be even more expensive than $1200 per person.  If so, it would be money well spent.

[i]But don’t tell me taxes overall for the population won’t increase, because that is what every proposal I have seen today plans to do, from McCain to Obama to Gore.   [/i]

You are right, overall taxes will increase.  But it is not because of the imposition of a pollution tax  [i]per se[/i].  It is because people want the government to  do more, and the new programs are going to cost money. 

That extra money may be raised by increased income taxes, an “inflation tax”, deficit spending, windfall profits taxes, or a national pollution sales tax.  Personally, I favor the pollution sales tax over the other alternatives.  But probably all of them are going to increase.  Hopefully pollution taxes will be increased more than the other options, which are not as good.

[i][b]national sales tax…[/b]

It is interesting you bring this up.  For decades Dems have been against this concept because they said it could work.  Now, they are trying to use the same thing to solve pollution.

[/i]Maybe the democrats have demonstrated hypocrisy, maybe not.  I don’t care.  The fact is that a national sales tax, in the form of a pollution tax, makes a lot of sense, especially in light of recent global warming.

[i] I don’t know what the truth is, but you are dreaming if you think this tax will replace the income tax…it will just be added on like every other tax.

[/i]Oh, I do not think it will totally replace an income tax.  You can’t raise that much money solely from sales tax without severely distorting the economy.  Black markets would develop, for example.  However, a national sales tax on key polluting raw materials could avoid an increase in income taxes.  It might even reduce income taxes if a reduction in income taxes is politically coupled with a sales tax in order to get it through congress.