CHRIS WHITE
TECH REPORTER
August 26, 2020
A climate council Montana Gov. Steve Bullock established in 2019 suggested that the Democratic governor implement a state carbon tax plan to address climate change in a leaked draft of recommendations obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation
A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana’s economy, as well as expand the state’s private industry, a document from Montana’s Climate Solution Council reads. The draft document, titled “Montana Climate Solutions Plan” and dated August 2020, has not been signed by Bullock but suggests several ways for the state to tackle climate change.
Four members of the 41-person council dissented to the recommendation to tax carbon emissions.
“A carbon pricing mechanism – if structured thoughtfully and with appropriate stakeholder input – has the ability to both lower emissions (through either a cap on emissions or through a price on carbon) as well as generate revenues that can be invested back into the economy to expand Montana business and/or further reduce Montana [greenhouse gas] emissions,” a section of the draft plan reads.https://2a8af03a31a3ba9e7629c2ced8ee9ce2.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Bullock, a Democrat, is running in a tight Senate race against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines. (RELATED: Sen. Steve Daines Introduces Bill To Extend President Trump’s 60-Day Immigration Ban).
“Montana should consider both the mechanism for pricing carbon (e.g., fee vs. cap), the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions, and how revenues generated from carbon pricing will be invested back into the economy,” the document said. Such a tax should also consider “any disproportionate impacts to low-income and vulnerable communities,” it adds.
The four dissenting council members raised concerns “regarding the implementation of carbon pricing, its potential disproportionate impacts on Montana businesses and low-income communities, and potential for carbon pricing to compound known challenges facing the state’s fiscal health,” according to the draft document.
The council has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the climate plan.
“The governor has not formally received the recommendations, which are in draft form, and it would be inaccurate to say the governor supports any of the recommendations in the report at this time,” Erin Loranger, press secretary for Bullock, said in a statement to the DCNF.
The draft noted that there is an “important need for considering the impacts of federal legislation on the state and its economy. The recommendation makes clear that any discussion at the federal level should include Montana stakeholders at the table,” Loranger added.
“This reckless proposal is a gut punch to the over 35,000 oil, gas, and coal jobs in Montana, not to mention the thousands of manufacturing and transportation jobs that would be crippled under such policy,” Daines wrote in a letter to Bullock. “Montanans rely on these jobs to support their families and revenues from these industries support our schools, communities, and essential services.”
The governor announced in February that the Montana Climate Solutions Council rolled out a set of draft recommendations for reducing carbon emissions. The recommendations were issued for public review and comment through March 31, 2020.
“We are excited to share the early recommendations of the Montana Climate Solutions Council with partners and the public to encourage the engagement of all Montanans in the work of the Council as they identify and refine options to prepare our state and our economy for climate impacts,” Bullock said in a statement in February.
Nearly one-third of the nation’s coal reserves are in Montana, and the northern and eastern areas of the state contain deposits of crude oil and natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. The United States has dramatically reduced its dependence on coal power, with natural gas and other renewable energies taking the place of coal.
Coal plant closures accelerated under President Donald Trump despite his 2016 presidential campaign promise to end what he called his Democratic predecessor’s war on coal, E&E News reported in June.
There were nearly 48 gigawatts of coal power retired during former President Barack Obama’s eight years in office, with 33 gigawatts going offline in his second term, E&E News reported, citing data from the Energy Information Administration. Roughly 37 gigawatts of coal have been lost during Trump’s term, data show.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a reason this is under wraps. It will be political suicide for any pol outside of Missoula and maybe Bozeman. Bullock has been a relatively moderate governor, which you have to be here, but he showed his hand running for POTUS and D policies nationally on guns will end his run when Daines beats him. Daines is also a good “bring home the bacon” retail pol,but he doesn’t have the Pelosialbatross hanging around his neck.
Why do you all let the government have “power” over you?
Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged — and other titles — author) was born and raised in Russia/Soviet Union. When her father’s dental business was taken over by “the People,” and a sign stating such was put on her father’s business entrance, he did what millions of Russians did — he withdrew. Her father let the Soviets have his business and he slowly worked himself to not working in order to let the whole system eventually collapse. This was purposeful and this was the main reason the Soviet Union is no longer (many thanks to the “Gipper” for helping to tip it over the edge, too).
Why cannot we understand that we need to do the same: WITHDRAW from this system as much as possible and it will collapse. It doesn’t mean we are lazy. It means we produce what we need to live to the greatest extent possible. It means not “buying” their junk. It means withdrawing from Facebook, Twitter, etc…
Taxation does not work if there is very little to nothing to tax. Stop whining about taxes and do something pro-active about it. What are you all willing to give up in order to break the system or do you think you can have your cake and eat it?
I live in a very rural area and need my car to deliver my products. When our governor allows the northeast TCI to pass it will affect me quite a bit. I pretty much have just four options:
1. Lump it
2. Raise my prices
3. Consolidate my trips and reschedule my deliveries in order to lessen my use of taxable fossil fuels
4. Pack up and move out of the northeast
Option 1, I will not do. Option 3, I might try. Option 2 hurts my business, my customers’ pockets and helps fill the government coffers. Option 4 hurts me at first, but hurts the government by losing tax revenue. Option 4 is the best choice most especially when others follow suit even when it means I lose my business, drain my very small savings and have to start all over again.
Is it worth it to constantly have the government burdening you? Stop looking to politicians to “solve” your problems when you have the power to do it yourself — even when it costs you to do so.
Regards
AK in VT
p.s. The Russian dictators eventually learned their lessons and the income tax rate in Russia is less than most of the modern “free” western world.
Any carbon dioxide tax will increase the price of everything in the economy because it increases the cost of gasoline. It will not create jobs, it will be the cause of job losses. And poor people will be hurt the most by a carbon dioxide tax, no matter what the politicians say when they claim the poor will be reimbursed. They won’t be reimbursed for the increased costs of everything they buy.
A Carbon Dioxide tax is meant to discourage the creation of carbon dioxide. Since there is no reason to discourage the creation of Carbon dioxide, there is no valid reason for implementing a Carbon Dioxide tax.
Exactly right.
We do not need to do anything about co2 emissions at all.
Even if the tax did drive down co2 emissions of any significance, it appears it would have little to no effect on atmospheric concentration.
Increasing atmospheric concentration has had little to no effect on the climate.
The little effect it may have on the climate has not been proven to be detrimental. Indeed it is more likely beneficial.
Shut up, pay your Climate Indulgence Tax, and feel good about “Doing Something”. It is all about “Feeling Good” and not about “Saving the Planet”.