Guest post by Daren Bakst
The PROVE IT Act (S. 1863) is not a benign information collection bill on the carbon intensity of domestic and foreign goods. Instead, it would put in motion the creation of carbon taxes: a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It would also help the Biden administration as it works with the EU to impose carbon taxes on imported metals. Here’s why:
- Congress has already demonstrated what will happen with PROVE IT Act information. Just over a year ago in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was a partisan reconciliation bill, Congress took information collected under the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program to create a methane tax. The Senate passed the IRA on a 51-50 party-line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker.
- Many bill supporters have shown they would replicate what happened with the methane tax. In the Senate EPW Committee markup of the bill, all Committee Democrats voted to kill an amendment that would have helped block the future use of reconciliation to impose a carbon tax on imported goods or a domestic carbon tax based on PROVE IT Act information. Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) opposed the amendment precisely because it “prohibits any revenue measure based on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with commodities or products.”
- When PROVE IT Act supporters argue the bill is a way to hold foreign countries accountable, they reveal that the legislation is about more than information. Supporters, including lead sponsors Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Chris Coons (D-DE), have argued that the PROVE IT Act is a way to hold other countries accountable for their emissions. Merely providing information cannot hold any country accountable. Their arguments are a tacit admission that the bill will be used to impose carbon taxes on imports, at a minimum.
- Bill supporters openly acknowledge that the PROVE IT Act is intended to lead to more taxes. Many of the bill supporters are expressly admitting that the legislation will mean carbon taxes of some kind. Sen. Coons (D-DE) has said about the bill, “figuring out a fair process for imposing tariffs on countries that don’t have any transparency around their emissions is also going to be a complex part of any border carbon adjustment mechanism.” The European Union (EU) has created the first and only carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and it includes both a carbon tax on imports and a domestic carbon pricing scheme. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has said the bill will “help us construct a carbon border adjustment of our own.” Since 2021, about half of the sponsors of the PROVE IT Act have sponsored bills imposing carbon taxes on imports, with many of these bills also imposing domestic carbon taxes. Senator Coons, a lead sponsor of the PROVE IT Act and two co-sponsors, Sens. Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), sponsored the Clean Competition Act, which uses carbon intensity data to impose carbon taxes on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax.
- The bill helps to collaborate with the EU on its harmful climate policy. Senator Cramer has repeatedly argued for working with the EU on climate policy. He wrote: “We have an opportunity to counter Putin’s playbook with a bold initiative consistent with European priorities… One aspect of that initiative could be a joint trade mechanism between the United States and the European Union that levels a common carbon fee on imported goods.” Instead of fighting and rejecting the EU’s disastrous climate policy, the PROVE IT Act embraces what the EU is doing. Many supporters advocate for a CBAM similar to the EU’s, and seek to create a “carbon club” of countries that join together to impose carbon taxes in some fashion.
- The PROVE IT Act will help the Biden administration in its negotiations with the EU to tax the carbon intensity of metals. The Biden administration and EU are working on the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum that would impose taxes on imported metals based on their carbon intensity. This is part of the Biden administration’s broader plan as USTR explains to “use trade tools to decarbonize our economies.” The PROVE IT Act would legitimize these efforts and help the Biden administration reach an agreement with the EU on carbon taxes by pointing to this domestic effort to develop carbon taxes. It would also provide the Biden administration the data necessary to try and unilaterally impose carbon taxes on imports, such as under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Action of 1974.
- Creating a carbon tax on imported goods leads inexorably to a domestic carbon tax.1) To be part of a “carbon club” with the EU, as many bill supporters want, the US would logically need to have a system like the EU CBAM that includes a domestic carbon pricing mechanism. Not surprisingly, the PROVE IT Act helps to create the framework to implement an EU-type system.2) The US would sooner or later impose a domestic carbon tax if it imposes a carbon tax on imports. This is not simply due to trade law obligations but also because environmental groups and others would not stay silent as domestic industries failed to meet similar greenhouse gas reduction commitments. 3) The PROVE IT Act is a way to build a lobby for a carbon tax on imports that can then be used to secure a domestic carbon tax. Domestic manufacturers would oppose a domestic carbon tax absent a corresponding tax on imports to “level the playing field.” Therefore, the PROVE IT Act is a political solution for domestic carbon tax supporters: The bill will lead to carbon taxes on imports, which will lead to a domestic carbon tax.
Bottom line
The PROVE IT Act would make carbon taxes a reality. If legislators genuinely oppose carbon taxes, then why even take the risk of facilitating their enactment and implementation by building the administrative framework and lobbying base for such taxes? And this would be a huge risk given that many bill supporters would use the reconciliation process to impose carbon taxes once they have the PROVE IT Act information.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just yet another regressive tax. But the Green Blob does not care, and wants to destroy industrial society anyway. The Energiewende was somewhat deliberate in its effects, which hard core greens regard as a Good Thing.
Giving money to the government never solved a damn thing. Get the government out of the energy business and our problems go away.
In 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) which establishes a comprehensive, market-based program to reduce carbon pollution and achieve the greenhouse gas limits set in state law. The program started on Jan. 1, 2023, and the first emissions allowance auction was held on Feb. 28.
Estimates vary but this has added over 60¢ per gallon for gasoline.
But don’t call it a tax!
Makes me wonder about adding PROVE IT on top of the State’s fee.
The Republicans can stop this bill cold in the House through the next election, but one should never underestimate their ability to screw the pooch on energy or climate in exchange for a pat on the behind from the media.
Story Tip…
Huges areas of environmental importance are on the eve of destruction..
by Biden Green Energy. !!
Biden To Ruin Thousands Of Miles Of Land For Green Energy Schemes – Climate Change Dispatch
I’ll send that link to the “greens” here in Wokeachusetts- the folks who think good forestry is an environmental disaster.
The regulators cannot forgo a tool, even if it is well beyond the original intent of the legislation. Witness EPA’s continuing use of regs to revamp the energy sector.
The article appears to mostly correct. The PROVE IT Act is the first step towards the most powerful and least costly free market solution to reduce emissions – a tax on emissions, as recommended by Nobel Prize winning conservative economist Milton Friedman as the most effective policy to reduce pollution.
When you say pollution, do you mean carbon dioxide?
Including carbon dioxide.
Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide are pollutants.
Yes, according to all scientific research , CO2 emissions drive the increase in atmospheric CO2 and thus modern day climate change
All scientific research? A quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen that might interest you:
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
Yes, Lindzen is quite a conspiracy theorist. But only an opinion and not published science, so irrelevant.
You are irrelevant. Richard Lindzen is one of the finest atmospheric physicists in the world. You certainly embody the mass delusion he spoke of.
Lindzen has taken refuge in his tenured professorship, and has become a conspiracy theorist, no longer publishing in scientific journals.
Lindzen has forgotten more climate science than you and the rest of you bed-wetting alarmists will ever know. You know it, and you can’t stand it.
I prefer reading the research of the hundreds of scientists who contradict Dr Lindzen and are not afraid to have their analyses reviewed by other experts and have their work published in top scientific journals. Lindzen just writes conspiracy theories in his basement.
You really are delusional. Get some mental help.
You prefer reading an oddball instead of actual researching scientists?
If you think Lindzen is an oddball, you’re more delusional than I ever imagined. Seriously, get some help. I’m done with you.
Lindzen just tells you what you want to hear. THAT is delusional
Get some help
You have trouble with the body of scientific research that contradicts an elderly tenured professor who no longer does any research?
Get some help.
This isn’t true. I.E. a lie. Not all scientific research shows that. Here is a graph of the emissivity of CO2 showing it is near zero at atmospheric pressure and temperature. So how can it do what you claim.
The graph did take the first time.
.
Here you go: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/#:~:text=As%20CO2%20soaks%20up%20this,contributing%20to%20the%20'greenhouse%20effect.
You believe something from Columbia U.? Ok.
It’s basic science, taught in every university in the world. Your unsupported opinion is not relevant.
That’s not science it’s an opinion piece for the news.
Yes it is science, taught in every university and affirmed by every scientific institution in the world. You are WAY out of date.
The use of taxes for a free market solution?
Yes, because no regulations or mandates are used. Everyone is free to buy whatever products, services, or type or energy they wish. The tax is levied on energy companies based on the carbon pollution their products create.
You obviously do not understand what a free market is.
Have you ever known a free market that didn’t have taxes?
Yes, the barter system, keep the government out of our livelihood.
Good luck living in your fantasy world.
Taxes in a free country are to pay for the legitimate uses of government – not to manipulate people.
Do you know the concept of ‘Tragedy of the Commons’?
So you don’t live in free world, I guess. In fact, has a free world ever existed, except in the Stone Age?
Thanks for letting everyone here know you do not stand for freedom but for using the government to manipulate people.
So if anyone stands for the United States, which has taxes now, that person is not a Patriot?
Taxes for the legitimate use of government are the proper use of taxes. You stand for manipulating people. Quit trying to manipulate people.
we get to vote for Congressmen who support our ideas. My Congressman wants a carbon tax. So do I. Sorry for you
You stand for manipulating people. Quit trying to manipulate people.
I Want to manipulate you to prevent you from burning fossil fuels
People who want to lower other people’s standard of living are not friendly people. They are tyrants who want to impose their beliefs on others without their consent.
You’ve just admitted that. There is no going back, that’s the way you think and that is dangerous to everyone.
No such thing. I want to RAISE your standard of living by preventing the far more expensive effects of climate change.
However, with all the blather you believe and regurgitate, no one has presented any emperical evidence that CO2 actually has any warming effect beyond its 0.04% content of the atmosphere. Its specific heat contribution is negligible.
Actually that’s the conclusion of all scientific research and the overwhelming evidence can be found at NASA, the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society. CO2 molecules resonate at infrared frequencies, and when energized by IR from the earth, gain kinetic energy which they give up to adjacent molecules of atmospheric gases warming those gases, re-emit IR back to earth, warming it.
Canada has and has had a carbon tax for sometime, emissions are increasing showing that carbon taxes are just a money grab. Further, CO2 is not a pollutant, saying so is a sign of lazy thinking.
Canada needs to increase its carbon tax RATE. And yes, CO2 emissions are the cause of modern day climate change as ascertained by all scientific research and every scientific organization in the world.
Which CO2 emissions? Natural or manmade? You forgot to specify which and the relative results of each.
Man-caused CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels — the primary cause of modern day climate change. As universally concluded by all scientific research.
Expect Al Gore to reopen the Chicago Exchange.
His $11B is not sufficient for his lifestyle. He needs more $10M+ beachfront properties.
It’s amazing how politicians beg for your money when seeking election, but once they are elected and then leave office, they all become multi – millionaires.
How does that happen on a politicians salary?
Reminds of when clocks were new and expensive, the British Government tried to tax time.
https://www.fairfaxhouse.co.uk/articles/tavern-clock-taxing-time/
Now some want to tax air.
No, just pollutants. Like CO2. As recommended by conservative Nobel winning economist Milton Freedman as the best way to reduce pollution.
People exhale CO2. (And methane from down under.)
Are we now going to have a worldwide “head tax” and “Butt tax”?
Who’s going to pay for the animals?
Farmers and pet owners?
Who pays for the wild animals?
Human exhalation of CO2 is absorbed by plant photosynthesis, so it has no effect on atmospheric CO2 or the climate. Methane, however,is the 2nd most potent climate change gas.
Who is going to pay for the CO2 tax? All of us. But the best carbon tax policy returns the tax proceeds to households in equal measure , which protects the after tax income of the poor and middle class.
Are you implying that plant’s refuse to accept and use Man’s CO2 to grow?
Human and animal CO2 exhalation are almost exactly balanced by photosynthesis, because that’s the way it worked before man started the massive burning of fossil fuels. It still works that way, although plants are starting to take up a tiny portion of fossil fuel emissions by adapting to the higher CO2 atmosphere.
PS Obama’s EPA declared that CO2 is a “pollutant” for political purposes such as his “War on Coal”.
Nature didn’t. Plants love CO2. And they return O2 to us. (Along with “food”.) A win-win!
Obama’s EPA declared CO2 is a pollutant because it is the cause of modern day climate change.
Proof please.
No computer climate models.
In computer models, I conquered the World as the Germans, the Japanese and the USA (with it’s Allies). (At the end of the Japanese “model” the USA had to beat the Russians also. We did!)
You made a claim.
Back it up.
You really don’t know basic science, do you. Well here’s a primer for you to begin your education: https://climate.nasa.gov
CO2 is plant food. Plants have already evolved to use 1200 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere which means it can’t be a pollutant at less than those levels. It is an essential nutrient for all life.
You do believe in evolution don’t you? The only other way plants could have this ability to use higher CO2 levels is through divine intervention.
Lets hear your arguments about how plants still retain the ability to use high levels of pollutants as food since that’s your argument.
Supporting your arguments that you make is important. Get to it. Be sure to show your work.
If you can’t or won’t do that, then you’re just another ranting idiot with a keyboard.
Today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration — 422 ppmv — is the highest in nearly 15 million years. So plants have not evolved for a 1200 ppm environment.
CO2 emissions from the massive burning of 40 gigatonnes of fossil fuels annually goes almost entirely into the oceans and atmosphere, where it adds to the GHE, and drives modern day climate change.,
You read it here first folks. Plants did not evolve and have no ability to use higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than exist today for photosynthesis.
I think its fun to expose the climate cult deniers as the idiots with keyboards that they actually are.
Dummy. Can’t you read? I said Co2 ppm hasn’t been as high as 422 ppm in several million years, so contrary to your post, they haven’t evolved for a 1200 ppm Environment because today’s species never saw 1200!! Pretty stupid you are