The EU has a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The Sierra Club wants one. So do two Republican Senators: Lindsey Graham (SC) and Bill Cassidy (LA).
Sierra Club Carbon Market Proposal
Let’s start with a look at the Sierra Club’s Carbon Market Proposal.
The Sierra Club recognizes that, of the many identified greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the primary cause of global climate change.
The United States should adopt a comprehensive climate change strategy, consistent with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The strategy must provide a broad array of components to reduce CO2 emissions, including policies and incentives for promoting efficiency, conservation and renewable energy. Putting an adequate fee on pollution from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to reflect their true costs would provide one such incentive. Any strategy must protect natural systems and species and promote environmental and economic justice.
Carbon emission fees will directly establish a cost associated with CO2 emissions.
Foreign Pollution Fee Act
Now lets consider the Foreign Pollution Fee Act press release by Bill Cassidy, citing himself, emphasis mine.
“China is challenging the United States militarily, geopolitically, and economically. These challenges are connected, and the right response must address all three. The answer is a single new policy: a foreign pollution fee. This fee will target imports that are produced with higher greenhouse gas emissions than American-produced goods,” wrote Dr. Cassidy.
“To counter China, the United States should make use of a clear competitive advantage—its ability to produce with comparatively low greenhouse gas emissions. It is unacceptable for China, or any country, to both freely pollute and export to the United States. Allowing it to do so effectively rewards Beijing for practices Washington does not permit at home. Instead, the United States should use its capacity for low-emission manufacturing and energy production for its own geopolitical and economic gain. It must enact policies that bolster the U.S. economy by encouraging more American production while creating opportunities for the expanded trade of cleanly produced goods at home and abroad,” continued Dr. Cassidy. “This is why I will be submitting legislation calling for a foreign pollution fee. The fee is not a domestic carbon tax. It does not prevent the continued use of U.S. natural resources. Its purpose is to enhance American security and competitiveness, streamline domestic permitting processes, and safeguard the environment, not put a larger burden on American energy producers and job creators.”
Spotlight on CBAM
On December 19, 2022 I noted EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme, Inflationary Madness Sets In
CBAM is part of the “Fit for 55 in 2030 package”, which is the EU’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels in line with the European Climate Law.
Please consider Europe Tries to Stop Exporting Its Emissions.
Given the self-imposed cost of going green, the CBAM explicitly looks to make European manufacturers more competitive with foreign producers. Europe says that’s fair. In compliance with World Trade Organization rules, it isn’t discriminating against any particular country, just leveling the playing field.
But this means top trading partners like the U.S. will now face a steep carbon bill when docking at the ports of Rotterdam or Antwerp.
The U.S. has attempted to discourage the CBAM. Climate envoy John Kerry warned Europe against proceeding with the border tax, saying last year that “the United States has strong feelings about not having excessive regulation.”
Biden has “strong feelings about not having excessive regulation,” says John Kerry.
What a Hoot!
The world has gone mad. Now two Republican Senators support CBAM, even citing climate change as one of the reasons.
The Fee is a Carbon Tax
The fee is a carbon tax. But let’s not call it a tax. Let’s call it a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Nah, that’s already taken. So let’s call it a Foreign Pollution Fee Act (FPFA) instead.
“This fee will target imports that are produced with higher greenhouse gas emissions than American-produced goods,” wrote Dr. Cassidy.
Who Else is In Favor?
- The Senate’s leading offshore wind proponent, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse
- Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) President Heather Reams
- Climate Leadership Council CEO Greg Bertelsen
- Battery Materials and Technology Coalition Spokesperson Ben Steinberg
- American Iron and Steel President & CEO Kevin Dempsey
- BASF Vice President & Deputy General Counsel for Regulatory, Environmental & Government Affairs Catherine Trinkle
- Portland Cement Association Senior Vice-President of Government Affairs Sean O’Neill
- Steel Manufacturers Association President Philip Bell
Whitehouse was noted by the WSJ, the rest were touted by Cassidy.
Bloomberg on Foreign Pollution Fee Act
Please consider GOP Senator Backs Carbon Tax, Just by Another Name
Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican, recently proposed a bill for a Foreign Pollution Fee Act. This would impose tariffs on imports of goods in 16 industrial sectors based on their greenhouse-gas intensity, as determined by federal bodies. Calculated as a percentage of value, rather than a flat amount, and assessed on intensity relative to what’s seen in the US, the somewhat convoluted bill doesn’t set an explicit carbon price.
Cassidy cites the EU’s own regulations as a motivating factor, saying carbon-intensive Chinese exports priced out of Europe might be dumped into the US.
The CBAM is an inevitable outgrowth of the EU’s Emissions Trading System, which forces industry there to reduce emissions or pay for carbon permits. The CBAM imposes a cost on imports from foreign competitors that aren’t subject to the same sort of carbon pricing in their own jurisdictions, thereby preventing them from undercutting EU companies. Ultimately, if you engineer a situation whereby instead of buying appliances from lower-carbon domestic manufacturers, your citizens buy cheaper imports from a coal haven, you end up with climate change and deindustrialization. The old lose-lose.
What About Developing Nations?
Bloomberg commented “Developing countries with less history of emissions or resources to build prosperous net-zero economies have particular reason to fear, and be angered by, such trade barriers.“
I listed many examples of the impact on developing nations in my report on CBAM.
Republicans for a Carbon Tax
The Wall Street Journal notes Republicans for a Carbon Tax
The Foreign Pollution Fee Act, sponsored by Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, could well have been written by the Sierra Club and AFL-CIO. Among the carbon tariff’s biggest advocates is Donald Trump’s former trade adviser Robert Lighthizer, who favors tariffs in principle.
The bill would impose tariffs on 16 categories of goods produced in countries with higher CO2 emissions than the U.S. They include steel, aluminum, critical minerals, solar panels, wind turbines, crude oil, gasoline, petrochemicals, plastics, paper and lithium-ion batteries. Companies could lobby to have products added to the list, and you can bet they will.
The bill would expand the administrative state by creating a new bureaucracy with sweeping powers that would be hard for future Congresses to rein in.
U.S. production of most goods on the tariff list doesn’t come close to meeting domestic demand. Yet tariffs could be reduced only in limited circumstances—namely, for national security needs or if U.S. companies produce less than 5% of domestic demand. That means importing businesses won’t have an alternative to paying the tariffs, which would be filtered through supply chains and passed to consumers.
The Louisiana Senator is also selling the bill with a misdirection worthy of Al Gore. The bill defines “pollution” as “greenhouse gas emissions.” This is a gift to Democrats who have been trying to codify the Supreme Court’s misconceived Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruling that let the Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. This is the Administration’s legal justification for its back-door ban on gas-powered cars.
The Senate’s leading wind producer, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, is praising the Cassidy-Graham bill, which he says “creates the negotiating space to try to come with a bipartisan agreement.” Senate Democrats last Congress introduced two carbon tariff bills, which have the added virtue for progressives of raising revenue they can spend.
Shades of Obama’s Cap and Trade
Who would have thought two Republican Senators would be endorsing a global carbon tax scheme essentially the same as originally proposed by President Obama?
Does Trump endorse this monstrosity? I cannot find a direct reference. But Donald Trump’s former trade adviser Robert Lighthizer, favors tariffs in principle. So does Trump himself. And Biden kept all of Trump’s tariffs intact, expanding most of them.
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Grace Period is Over, What’s Next?
Yesterday, I commented House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Grace Period is Over, What’s Next?
“We’re on the job now. We’re going to make it happen,” said Johnson this week. Really? Make what happen?
Bipartisan support for general climate madness and more bureaucracy is amazing. Yet people keep telling me that eight House Republicans can change things.
The best we can possibly hope for now is no change at all. Otherwise we are likely to see the incredibly inflationary Foreign Pollution Fee Act pass.
The Foreign Pollution Fee Act is sponsored by Republicans but appears to be a joint effort of AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Obama, and Biden.
Unless Trump comes out against this bill, and possibly even if he does. this is where we are headed.
Mercy!
“Republicans for a Carbon Tax”
From the sound of it, the proposed carbon tax is an import tariff by a different name, with the intent of getting U.S. companies to move manufacturing back into the U.S., by making Chinese manufacturing more expensive.
“The Sierra Club recognizes that, of the many identified greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the primary cause of global climate change.” Where is the proof of this statement. Wildfires, volcanoes, global tilt, solar flares and other natural phenomenon not considered. The wildfires in California in 2022 emitted more green house gas emissions than twice the amount of green house gas emission reductions brought about by government mandates over the prior 14 years. Reducing one’s carbon footprint is a great achievement and should be applauded, however, there are far more important things we could do to make the world a better place for humanity. I’ve never understood the desire to protect those that are not yet born at the expense of those now living. Most of the developing world wants what we have, clean drinking water, food sources and choices, readily available energy, healthcare, and a better life tomorrow than today.
Proof that manmade CO2 emissions are the main driver of our current global warming?
Well, you could read the 88000+ peer reviewed scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists that say so.
Or the agreements signed by 195 countries on the subject.
Or the climate policies of the majority of the world’s major companies.
Or you could read a grade 5 science book.
Incidentally; the wildfires in California in 2022 released 9 million tons of CO2. Volcanoes release between 200 and 360 million tons of CO2 per year globally, with the average being around 280 million tons per year. Compare that to man’s annual CO2 global emissions of 34 billion tons (34,000 million tons).
Not even close.
Earths CO2 levels do go up and down naturally over long periods of time (without help from man). Thanks to the change in the planets tilt, orbit etc (as you mentioned) CO2 levels regularly fluctuate from a low of around 180 ppm to a high of 300 ppm and back down to 180 ppm over time periods of roughly 100,000 years. This pattern has repeated itself over and over for the last 3 million years. An increase of 120 ppm and then a decrease of 120 ppm over 100,000 years. No matter how many volcanoes erupt, or wildfires burn, CO2 levels have naturally ranged between 180 and 300 ppm for those 3 million years.
Until 200 years ago.
In the last 200 years mankind has managed to increase CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 420 ppm. That’s an increase of 140 ppm in 200 years! There is no other scientific explanation for this increase. No matter what skeptics like to believe. It’s CO2, and we are the cause.
Now the earth has had high levels of CO2 in the distant past. 4 million years ago, CO2 levels were around 400 ppm (like today). At that time, global temperatures were 3C (5F) higher and sea levels were 50-70 feet higher. Which is where we are headed again. What we don’t know is how long it will take to get there. Take sea level. Perhaps 1-4 feet by 2100. 10 feet by 2200. 50 feet by 2300. It’s all a guess. In the past, these changes took many thousands of years because CO2 changed very slowly. But since mankind has changed CO2 levels so quickly, we don’t have a historical precedent that tells us how long the other changes will take.
Have a good day.
Does anyone have the US carbon tax formula for human cremations?
Just absolutely idiots. There’s nothing wrong with being climate change aware and wanting to do reasonable things to move us off fossil fuels, but carbon taxes will only cause higher inflation which is something we don’t need now or in the future.
Vote them out! And, I agree, Lindsey Graham is a stooge!
Inflation is necessary in a stagnant dead economy.
If these nincompoops were as creative in coming up with ways to improve our country (by dreaming up more tax means), America COULD be great again. Even the Mighty Trump put import taxes (cleverly called “Tariffs” – – if you are easily impressed, the word clever takes hold with you) and then made it sound like the Chinese were paying them.
I asked more than a few of my die-hard Nincompoop Republican friends and family members and without an exception, they said, “NO, the CHINESE PAY THOSE TARIFFS!”
Do not get fooled by partisan politics as there is plenty of stupidity to behold!
The title in the first graphic should be
“Share of global CO2 production covered by emissions STATEMENTS”
There’s lots of talking around the world, less enforcing.
China continues to build coal plants at a breakneck speed, India has set a goal to increase coal production by 60% by 2030. Europe replaced leaky Russian gas with leakier US LNG.
We finally have a country that has elected a libertarian capitalist. Let’s see what happens next in Argentina
His first acts will be to Grift freebies and figure out a way to get a piece of ALL of the Government Action….just like our Presidents and Grifter Congress dolts do.
The objections to this measure hinges on the notion that it restricts “Free Trade” and that anything that does that is bad. That notion doesn’t address the fact that you can’t have environmental controls on polluting industries within your country and at the same time allow countries that do not have these controls export freely into your country because pretty soon you won’t have any industries left. Some people would say so be it because they believe that industry is not necessary and that you can make an economy out of TikTok video production or something similar. Myself, I prefer having clean industry and a clean environment over cheap imports any day.
I agree with the level playing field. Nuts that western industry spends billions to develop, install and operate tertiary filtration when their competitors often don’t even have basic primary filtration and just pump particulates and toxic gasses into the air and dump rubbish and chemicals into the rivers and oceans.
But CO2 isn’t a pollutant and the main source for it is from volcanic eruptions with the man made part just a minor contributor.
The money, time and engineering effort wasted on CO2 controls would be better utilised to control the real pollutants and if a foreign tax is imposed put it on those making the nasty pollutants.
“ But CO2 isn’t a pollutant and the main source for it is from volcanic eruptions with the man made part just a minor contributor.”
It is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like that. Do you actually believe this or are you intentionally trying to mislead people?
Annual man made CO2 is roughly 60x the annual CO2 from volcanoes.
Always good to have a qualified authority clarify misconceptions.
While most people would agree in principal with your statement, the devil is in the details.
In this case the details are exactly what constitutes pollution or how much is permissible. The entire world doesn’t and most definitely never will have 1 standard (what’s required in California with their air inversions due to the mountains is not what’s required in wide open places).
So the problem is who sets the standard and thus decides on the tax. What’s going to happen is that this tax is simply going to be forced onto the US consumer and absolutely NONE of that tax money is going to be used to improve pollution in other countries. Instead it’s going to be pocketed by someone here in the US. So what’s the point of the tax if it doesn’t actually get used to solve the problem?
“That notion doesn’t address the fact that you can’t have environmental controls on polluting industries within your country and at the same time allow countries that do not have these controls export freely into your country because pretty soon you won’t have any industries left.”
Yes you can. You’ll have industries which pollute less.
Clean air and water is a valuable good. Wealthier countries can afford more of it, than poorer ones. Putting up with some smog, is likely acceptable to people in places where the alternative is starvation. Less acceptable to people in places where the alternative is a 70 foot yacht rather than an 80 footer.
It’s perfectly sustainable, and maximally efficient, for both countries; that industry which pollutes, end up in the one where people have the fewest alternatives, and hence are OK with a bit of smog. While people in the country which have options, choose to focus on cleaner industry instead.
It’s not as if Google is going to move their search group to The Congo, just because they could save a few bucks by getting away with somewhat dirtier emergency generators over there. At the same time, it makes a hard zero sense for The Congo to force people to either buy the world’s cleanest and most expensive generators, or go out of business and starve.
Comparative advantage, is about as elementary as economics get.
Luongo got into the government war on cars (not just gasoline ICE) here –
https://tomluongo.me/2023/11/03/podcast-episode-160-eric-peters-and-how-the-war-on-cars-is-the-great-reset/
Global Warming / Climate change was started by Al Gore on the HOAX that it is caused by C02, an absolute necessity for all plant life.
Now, as then, an excuse to raise taxes to change the weather to fight the non existant problem! See the first comment in here!
https://straightlinelogic.com/2023/11/18/we-need-more-co2/
“MEN, IT HAS BEEN WELL SAID, THINK IN HERDS; IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THEY GO MAD IN HERDS, WHILE THEY ONLY RECOVER THEIR SENSES SLOWLY, ONE BY ONE.”
CHARLES MACKAY, Excerpt from book, “EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS” — 160 years ago in 1841
Um, the title should read “Two deceitful politicians from the uni-party realize the government is bankrupt and desperately needs new sources of revenue”
Calling someone a democrat or republican is just a way to divide and conquer the masses. Neither party represents what it historically used to.
Now they are all spendthrifts looking for the next revenue source to steal and use for their own selfish (usually corrupt) purposes.
Time to start the RINO chant!
Taxation is purely theft from the productive to spend on the non productive.
all this really does is limit global trade
since most countries won’t pay the TAX on imports
making for limited supply of products using said materials
and many times just meaning EMPTY SHELVES
so sorry can’t get, no timeline, and price will be Xtimes
If there is a bad idea out there in Congress you can bet Lindsey Graham is a cosponsor.
If the Sierra Club is involved, know that they want degrowth, a reduction in the American standard of living and consumption of resources. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal is involved, know that they intend to ‘equitably’ distribute the reduction; the better off and middle class reduce their standard of living more than ‘the lower-income masses’. – We know from standard economics plus Art Laffer that progressive politicians will receive less tax revenue than they think and will have less to spend than they think. And the Sierra Club intends this.
We need to tax Sierra Club and all the “non profit” scams that are trying to destroy our standard of living.
We tax tobacco and alcohol and other stuff that harms us, so why are we giving tax subsidies to political activists who harm us?
– So do two Republican Senators: Lindsey Graham (SC) and Bill Cassidy (LA)
> Hahahaha… you wrote down “Two” Rep. Senators but accidentally/apparently wrote down: Lindsey Graham, as the very first name? I excuse you for the mix up, but He is No Rep. but more a RINO, and they both start with the Letter “R” I couldn’t get past Bill Cas….. are you kidding me, to move on further with the article!
Those 2 Are The Examples??? Really? WTF!!!
Western world to developing countries: “Sure, we got rich with inexpensive fuel and limited environmental regulation … but you have to use unreliable and uncompetitive renewable fuel sources and we will still wack you for whatever we feel is appropriate.”
These guys did not wake up and become green. Its a import tax to protect whoever is giving them campaign money. Business as usual.
The fee is more important than the carbon in the atmosphere. The US could tell the WTO to go pound sand and recommend banning imports of goods produced with too much carbon emissions. The US cannot inspect every factory and especially every item imported. Enforcing import tax collection got so burdensome that Congress passed a law permitting up to I think $800 per import tax free.
Graham’s biggest donor is a Jewish GOP group. So how many Jews in Congress of the 38 Jews are Republicans? Yeah buddy I don’t think so. First off, he’s Baptist so right out the gate he’s taking money from Jews and not Baptist and there are no Conservative Jews in Congress so this is beyond feeble minded. NO. He is a Democrat that says a lot of funny Southern slang. Nothing more. How people do not see through this MGTOW or whatever he is with no wife or family I do not know. How does he even get elected…nonsense.
Mish and many of his readers may be interested in this
https://news.yahoo.com/argentina-holds-cliffhanger-election-economy-011043999.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJBUdHvx5ugpoUCna94T96OVvhxlA-Y3sM3XFpV_uGbEqeopRfrdQwAWZTRfJPVtAF9k9UjQOn93u-7V_KlVjlQeqFBw7UVRTpdWfHC4mI_qF-1K_4vHwLk1lJ3S–7sAdh4rrX6M1lfAJJ2mZ73lcxy-PEQYwVvcP5vWMfhIFOh
Argentina, which is being destroyed by hyperinflation has elected a libertarian self-described anarcho=ca[italist economist as president. Apparently, he is a follower of Murray Rothbard.
It sounds like an interesting experiment. Although I doubt it will end well. Among other things, He wishes to make the US dollar Argentina’s national currency..
Argentina is not being destroyed.
Argentina is simply doing a little remodeling.
“…He wishes to make the US dollar Argentina’s national currency..”
Something Rothbard would recommend for the United States, post 1971…
Compared to the Peso, even the USD is a step up. Using the Yuan would be a bit more enlightened, but Milei may be angling for some US support in a region rapidly turning towards China for their needs…
Gold would most certainly be Rothbard’s pick, but both the security situation and corruption is so darned bad across all of Latin America, that no such thing as Fort Knox can exist anywhere there. So it may well be preferable to outsource the safekeeping of the currency to Washington or Beijing.
It will be interesting to see if he gets any traction. Argentina led the world towards the Peronist style arbitrary totalitarian governance which is how all Western countries are governed these days. It would be fitting if they managed to be the ones starting the dismantling of the disaster.
I don’t know who Bill Cassidy is, but Lindsey Graham can suck a bag of d!cks, that RINO fck. Hopefully, he’ll be joining his buddy John McCain soon in hell.