Minnesota Introduces World's First Carbon Tariff

hollywoodb writes "The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations, but between two states. Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota. To encourage the switch to clean, renewable energy, Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders, but the utility companies that operate in MN have, over the past decades, sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota, which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff."

Comments

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

This is totally unconstitutional, but I wonder how long the legal battle will take before this idea dies...

afterall, post 9/11 sneak&peak is still on the books in spite of america's 4th amendment...

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Disgruntled Goats]

What's unconstitutional about it?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Cryacin]

Just the vibe of the thing...

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you back that any more than "just the vibe of the thing"? Putting ellipses at the end of something doesn't make it any deeper or more thoughtful of an opinion, you know...

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[wiggles]

Interstate trade is regulated by Congress, according to the constitution. Courts have held that all taxes on trade between states are an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The only exception is alcohol, which is granted an exception by the 21st amendment.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[osu-neko]

This isn''t a tax on trade between states. It's a tax on carbon. It's perfectly neutral in theory -- no matter where your carbon-based energy comes from, it gets hit with the tax. Now, it's true that much of MN's coal-based energy comes from ND, so the law will impact imported power more than local power, but a luxury tax on high-priced wines is not unconstitutional because more wine is grown in California and imported to Minnesota rather than grown in Minnesota. This is no different. There's nothing unconsitutional going on here, it's a spurious argument being raised by people who oppose a carbon tax in principle.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Interstate trade is regulated by Congress, according to the constitution. Courts have held that all taxes on trade between states are an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The only exception is alcohol, which is granted an exception by the 21st amendment.

Is this the argument Amazon uses to further it's tax collection evasion campaign?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax is a Tariff, which by definition, is a tax on imports. Minnesota can tax consumers directly for the carbon they use if they so choose, but they may not tax imports of coal into their state. They can tax the use of coal by utilities in their state, but not the importation of coal into their state. If indeed this is a tax on imports of anything (except alcoholic beverages) from North Dakota, then the courts would strike that down in a preliminary hearing.

This has nothing to do with your political leanings; it's pure constitutional law as I (I'm not a lawyer) understand it.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[wizardforce]

Only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. States can't levy tariffs on each other's goods because they were not given the constitutional authority to do so.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[digitalunity]

A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.

It's kind of funny the Scientific American article says "that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity". I'd hardly call this unfair. More poignantly, I'd say that's the purpose of the bill, and if North Dakota is suing my state, it's because the bill will work.

Yes, this may marginally increase the cost of manufacturing some kinds of goods but the overall impact will largely affect the utilities.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[jgtg32a]

Minor nit pick, they weren't not given the authority; they were told no that's congress's domain.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[digitalunity]

That may be commonly understood by laymen but there must be some wiggle room. How else do you explain the widely varying taxation rate on tobacco sales? Some states have very small tax, like Missouri with their $.17 per pack tax, or Rhode Island with their $3.46 per pack tax.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Disgruntled Goats]

Except they aren't regulating interstate commerce. They are only taxing energy companies within their state and only based on the impact of their emissions within the state (assuming they do business in other states).

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[AvitarX]

because they are taxing people within their state, for consuming things within their state?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[nsayer]

Except that they presumably are not applying those same taxes to their own state residents. In other words, they have constructed an elaborate system that results in a tax paid only by folks from out-of-state. That is clearly unconstitutional.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Interstate trade is regulated by Congress, according to the constitution. Courts have held that all taxes on trade between states are an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The only exception is alcohol, which is granted an exception by the 21st amendment.

You do realize that some states have a usage tax on items purchased in other states. So if you purchase something from Amazon, depending on your state, you need to pay the usage tax on those goods.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[sillybilly]

Lots of haphazard things these days. Somebody is going crazy... Let's think about that for a sec.....

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[nsayer]

Oops. I had the story backwards. I had it that ND was imposing this tax on electricity leaving for MN, not the other way 'round.

It's still unconstitutional, though.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

That usage tax also happens to be the exact same amount as the states sales tax, excluding any locally imposed sales tax.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Montezumaa]

Are you intentionally being an idiot, or is this just by mistake? We are not talking about some super-elitist asshole, probably like yourself, who is getting charged tax on his luxurious wine collecting habits; we are talking about a junk tax, based on junk science, on good and services people need. You can avoid purchase alcohol, tobacco, and other good that, to the normal person, would be considered a luxury. Just how many people will survive without access to reasonably priced energy?

Did you know that it is a crime in many states for people with children to not have energy to run a unit to heat a home? What do you think is required to run a heating unit? Energy. Tax schemes, such as "Cap and Trade" and other schemes that are similar to it will end up ruining economies all over the world to offset less than five percent of the Carbon Dioxide emissions across the planet. Even then, CO2 emissions will not ever be reduced, as these tax schemes are really just a means to adjust more money from the hard-working middle class into the pockets of the elitist. From there, the money will be either given to the lazy entitlement crowd, or the proceeds will be kept by those that take it.

I cannot wait for 2010 and 2012, when we can, hopefully, replace the idiots in control and get a more sensible government in power. Democrats and Republicans alike are to blame for this mess and it is my hope that someone with sense and usefulness comes into power, but God help us if it were Sarah Palin. I agree with 99% of her views, but he is not fit to run a daycare, much less the United States. Perhaps a decent contender will come out that will show himself or herself to be a worthy opponent to Obama and Ralph Nader.

One last point: If there ICJ were looking for someone to bring into its "kangaroo court", then it should set its sights on Al Gore and the "Climate Change" crowd. They have perpetrated one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in the history of the world, the likes of which will make Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme look like a liquor store robbery.

As for you, I would suggest that you take(or retake, as the case may be) a college-level American Government class...hell, go take a high school level civics class, and you will see why this "carbon tax" is illegal. I am not paid to teach, so I will not put anymore effort in explaining the situation to you.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Montezumaa]

Here is a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

While I hate using Wikipedia links for discussions, I doubt you could afford to access scholarly material on the matter.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[aurispector]

Well, that makes you a raving lunatic teabagger because anyone who questions the noble purpose of carbon reduction is obviously insane and/or mentally deficient. A pox on your "constitution".

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Article I Section 10 States can't create Tariffs.

Personally, this is my most hated part of the Constitution- it prevents economic experimentation and competition between the States.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the vibe of the thing...

Dennis Denuto strikes again!

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Possibly correct- depending on how it's enacted. Every article so far refers to it as a Tariff- a tax on imports.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[sexconker]

It's better than the argument that the government uses to triply tax sales.

Pay your sales tax for New York (you live there), and Texas (where you were when you ordered it), and Montana (where the item will be used).

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which raises another interesting point: Since when has business been able to violate our free speech rights? Why should *ANYBODY* be blocked from receiving scholarly material on the Commerce Clause by an inability to pay?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Minor minor nit pick- Article I Section 10 explicitly forbids the States from doing so *without* explicitly giving Congress the power to do so.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[md65536]

It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe, and... uh...

No, that's it. It's the vibe.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Attila Dimedici]

This isn''t a tax on trade between states. It's a tax on carbon. It's perfectly neutral in theory -- no matter where your carbon-based energy comes from, it gets hit with the tax. Now, it's true that much of MN's coal-based energy comes from ND, so the law will impact imported power more than local power, but a luxury tax on high-priced wines is not unconstitutional because more wine is grown in California and imported to Minnesota rather than grown in Minnesota. This is no different. There's nothing unconsitutional going on here, it's a spurious argument being raised by people who oppose a carbon tax in principle.

Except that this isn't a tax on carbon, it is a tax on electricity based on how that electricity is generated. If that electricity is not generated in Minnesota, Minnesota is not constitutionally allowed to regulate how it is generated. Electricity generated using coal is indistinguishable from electricity generated by any other means.
Minnesota cannot legally tax carbon that is released in another state.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Toonol]

Yes, it's the argument that Amazon correctly uses to point out that they are not constitutionally obliged to pay state/county/city sales taxes in every state/county/city.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[KeensMustard]

A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.

Google is your friend

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Khyber]

Wait, so if I buy a PS3 in Tennessee, and with it in my possession move to another state and use it there, I have to pay another tax on it?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Marginally increase the cost of manufacturing? Electricity costs are about the most basic and pervasive costs you can have in any manufacturing process.

Of course now that almost everything is manufactured in China, I suppose that a tax on goods produced in Minnesota is mostly irrelevant. Look around to where Tonka Trucks are now made, which is an example of supposed American manufacturing prowess and ingenuity. This once famous Minnesota company is now nowhere to be found at all, and instead has been bought out by a huge international conglomerate and all of the manufacturing jobs that were once in Minnesota are now done by Chinese speakers in one form or another. It all started with some outsourcing to Mexico back elsewhen.

I could name other major Minnesota companies that have made a huge impact on the world and have faced similar kinds of very interesting ends. Some that are still around and others that have been absorbed and are good and dead. Minnesota was once the center of some significant manufacturing for America, but good bye to that kind of lifestyle.

The sad thing is that once a tax like this gets passed, it will almost never get repealed no matter how much the ordinary citizens hate the thing.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

To ditto the anonymous coward who responded here, this is indeed a tariff and unconstitutional authority grab. There is indeed a good reason why the constitution explicitly prohibits states from imposing a tariff against each other. At the very least, read up on the tariff wars between New York and New Jersey if you want to get a history lesson to find out why the constitutional prohibition was put in against tariffs in the first place on the state level. The only taxes of this nature can be done by the Federal government, and even then only on goods imported into the USA, not on stuff manufactured for export.

For many, many years the import duties were about the only substantial form of revenue for the Federal government as well, so it will be a power jealously guarded by the feds as well.

As to if this particular "fee" or "tax" applies as a tariff, that is certainly up to debate on this issue. It is also a state sovereignty issue, where Minnesota doesn't have any sort of constitutional authority to regulate utilities in another state. If that is how North Dakota decides to generate income and revenue for its citizens, Minnesota can't impose any sort of regulations on that generation.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and in terms of the electricity coming into Minnesota via "importation", it will be very difficult to actually regulate how that electricity is generated in the first place for a place that is outside of its own borders. If they want to impose a fee for coal plants within their own state, they certainly could do that... but it isn't the same thing.

Too bad that far too few people have actually read the U.S. Constitution any more.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

I wonder who, exactly, is the raving lunatic here?

A "pox" on the U.S. Constitution? Yeah, I'd like to see you live for more than a month without it... regardless of where you live in this world. Without that document and the governments created by it, this would would be a hellish place to live.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Wait, so if I buy a PS3 in Tennessee, and with it in my possession move to another state and use it there, I have to pay another tax on it?

Yes. You may get a credit for taxes previously paid to another state government, but if the tax rate is higher in the new state that you are moving to.... you would be liable for the sales taxes in the new state.

It is a tax that is seldom enforced, but it is on the books of most states. In Utah (where I live) you have to declare those taxes on your annual income tax return. Most people put "0" in that part of the return to keep it simple, and it usually doesn't prompt an audit when you put in zero, but it is a tax you are legally obligated to pay. Other states may have other policies, but it all ends up being the same... that you have to pay sales taxes and you can't make an end-run around it.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Further minor nit pick - It does give Congress authority to act and collect tariffs in the following sections:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(Art I, Sec. 8, clause 1)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 3)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

(Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 5)

Section 10 didn't need to explicitly give Congress the authority, because the earlier sections explicitly gave that authority to Congress.

It should be pointed out that importation duties were one of the very first significant sources of revenue for the federal government under the Washington administration, and still are a rather important source of revenue to this day. This is an exclusive authority restricted only to Congress, unless it is a part of a state compact... which also requires congressional authority.

You can't get away from federal authority on this matter, and a state can not unilaterally act in this manner.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Article I Section 10 States can't create Tariffs.

Personally, this is my most hated part of the Constitution- it prevents economic experimentation and competition between the States.

I take it that you haven't read any early American history.

The tariff wars between New York and New Jersey were legendary, and were an explicit reason for this clause being put into the Constitution in the first place. For the few brief years after the Battle of Yorktown and before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, New York and New Jersey engaged in a trade war the likes of which have only been seen between England and France... perhaps even worse. Much of this centered on Manhattan and New York City, where goods in transit across the Hudson River were heavily regulated and there were bands of pirates/smugglers and other kinds of incredible headaches for all involved. Taxes of over 100% and even up to 1000% on some goods were imposed just to cross the Hudson River. It nearly started an all out war between those two states, where both armies and navies were being assembled for just that very purpose, and some shots were exchanged between uniformed military forces of both states.

There is a good reason why this clause was put into the Constitution in the first place, and a damn good reason why it should be respected and not tampered with for even a well meaning cause like "global warming".

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[MrHanky]

Let me guess: you're the kind of person who wouldn't spot a joke if it wore a red nose, a wig, and big flabby shoes, right?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[timpaton]

A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.

It may surprise you to learn that there is more than one constitution in the world. Only some of them deal with the compulsory acquisition of property.

This thread is going straight to the pool room.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Let me guess, you're the one who found this guy to be "insightful"?

Read the other posts by this guy, and then come back with your own conclusion. Most of them are just like this one, and full of ad hominem attacks.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if this makes much difference. I live in Rochester Minnesota. I can see our municipally owned coal-fired power plant from my deck. I expect it to be taxed for its carbon use too. It is not just power from North Dakota or just from out of state. Our little coal burner is not the cheapest so it tends to get throttled down much of the time.

This may make wind cheaper than coal for Rochester Public Utilities. We get some increase in energy prices. That translates into a lower standard of living. However we are also removing a subsidy for activity that I believe has a big negative impact on the quality of life. Which stems a perpetual decline in the standard of living. Twenty years from now wind may well displace coal. The costs are dropping and installation is ramping up. The US is wind rich. We have coastal winds. We have the winds of the great plains. We may need to curtail operations at times because of flying critters. We need some way of throttling or solar and levelling but this is not an extravagant departure from the most economical route of energy production. It may indeed be the most economical route if we account for the hidden costs of burning coal/carbon. If we don't take this step now we might not ever be able to afford to.

It is big government. That does not mean it is stupid government. Minnesota climate can extract some severe penalties for carelessness. Minnesota voters are highly literate and reliably independent. We are not real big on abusing power either. There is something called Minnesota Nice. It is somewhat akin to Southern Courtesy but less formal and perhaps less classy. We can change this policy when we need to.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[FiloEleven]

To ditto the anonymous coward who responded here, this is indeed a tariff and unconstitutional authority grab.

Look on the bright side! At least it's an unconstitutional authority grab by a state instead of the federal government! =)

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[drsquare]

Even if it was unconstitutional, surely the planet is more important than a bit of paper written by slavers two hundred years ago?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[smashin234]

In other words, MN is doing the right thing by making those bastard polluter's pay their indulgences ..

Only one way to get into heaven, and that is to force people to pay for carbon.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[mysidia]

Regulation of interstate commerce is a right reserved for the federal government, and see Quill Corp. v. North Dakota of 1992, and in particular, Art I Section 8 clause 3 of the US constitution:

The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ..
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
...

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[interkin3tic]

Why is basically screaming "FOUL!" the first post? The constitutionality of this is the most boring aspect for me personally, and almost none of us are really lawyers let alone supreme court justices. I'm sure the legislators would tell you it's a publicity stunt to raise the issue to a generally apathetic public. Next they might try some type of tie in with the "Jersey Shore" cast.

If we're going to get bogged down on constitutionality, what can Minnesota do constitutionally to accomplish it's goals? Cry while the power companies dance around saying "Ha ha you can't touch me! Lalalalal! Burning coal in a different state! Suck it environmentalists!"

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Monsuco]

Let me guess, you're the one who found this guy to be "insightful"?

Let me guess, we are about to be lectured by a guy with the word "cum" in his username?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Dr Damage I]

The constitutionality of the thing is important here because Minnesota is acting AFAICT beyond it's authority. Governments acting beyond their authority is a bad thing even if what they are trying to acomplish is laudable necessary and just . I have no authority to charge a toll on people walking past my home without entering my property. If I try to do so, I am either a criminal (if I use force in demanding the toll), or liable under civil law for fraud/whatever (if I do not use force). When a government acts beyond its authority (as delegated to it by its constitution) to act, it has become lawless. Lawless governments are (IMO extremely interesting, if not places that I would choose to live.

As to what Minnesota could do to accomplish its goal, Minnesota could cut the power transmission lines from states that fail to regulate electricity generation in ways that Minnesota likes (assuming the power transmission lines are the property of the state of Minnesota; cutting federally owned power transmission lines might carry certain... complications, shall we say?) or they could tax Minnesota residents for using power that is not certified to be green. How that certification (of out of state electricity sources) would be managed without falling foul of constitutional limitations is yet another interesting discussion (IMO, naturally). Neither option would be nearly as popular with the residents of Minnesota as a tax on all those wuffians on the far side of the Minnesota border... which kinda suggests why the Minnesota government chose the route it has taken. It also suggests why allowing states to impose tariffs on trade with other states might be a bad idea.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Muskstick]

I wonder if anyone who isn't Australian would ever get the joke...

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Paleolibertarian]

It's unconstitutional because of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the federal constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce_clause

It's what stops states from taxing the citizens in another state among other things. This is a tax on the free trade of electric power between Minnesota and North Dakota which congress has prohibited via the ICC.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's just not funny.. Ever thought of that?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[jandersen]

They can tax the use of coal by utilities in their state, but not the importation of coal into their state.

But is this not simply a tax on the use of energy produced by burning coal? No problem there, then.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[j-beda]

Electricity generated using coal is indistinguishable from electricity generated by any other means.
Minnesota cannot legally tax carbon that is released in another state.

As science-minded people, of course we see that there are not multiple "types" of electricity (or perhaps more accurately "electrical power"), but I wonder if legally there can be.

If there was some sort of MN certification authority for "organic" food, and non-organic food was taxed differently that organic food, would MN be allowed to tax non-certified food from out of state at the non-organic rate? They seem to be allowed to prohibit certain food from out of state under various health reasons according to someone else who linked to court cases about the MN food inspection. What about safety standards? California seems to be able to set vehicle emission standards for in-state sale - Dimedici's argument seems to be based on the idea that the regulation specifies some sort of specific product, a CA emmissions automobile is physically different than a non-CA emmissions automobile. This seems like a pretty reasonable position, but then again, legal truths are often not particularly "reasonable" in my observation. Hasn't the US Supreme Court ruled that Tomatoes are vegetables, while biologically they would be classified as fruits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

For some standards (EnergyStar and Underwriters Lab http://www.ul.com/ for example) two identical products could exist where the only difference is their certification by those bodies - could MN tax ES or UL certified products differently? If the answer to that is "yes", then having a tax on non-certified energy production would not seem to be different.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he was joking?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Taxes of over 100% and even up to 1000% on some goods were imposed just to cross the Hudson River. It nearly started an all out war between those two states, where both armies and navies were being assembled for just that very purpose, and some shots were exchanged between uniformed military forces of both states.
 
Why were they trying to economically invade each other's territory to begin with? What sense did it make to ship goods across the Hudson that were already in existence in the other territory?
 
I would have gone to war over that as well- and the answer SHOULD have been an utter ban on interstate trade in anything made in the other state. As it stands, 250 years later NYC economically dominates the whole bloody country with a tyranny far worse than any trade war. Maybe what we really need is to return to individual state currencies and NO trade between the states, after the damage the big bank mergers have done.
 
  There is a good reason why this clause was put into the Constitution in the first place, and a damn good reason why it should be respected and not tampered with for even a well meaning cause like "global warming".
 
And in return, we've got a tyranny of the Eastern Seaboard over the rest of the United States- including people living over 3000 miles away.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which bugs the hell out of me for reasons OTHER than CO2 reduction; it effectively prevents any sort of economic experimentation in subsidiarity among the States, because it prevents protection of local markets.

Which has now, in the last years of the first decade of the 21st century, allowed the Manhattan Island Bankers to effectively pull off an economic coup that Congress seems powerless to respond to.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[clone53421]

Read the other posts by this guy, and then come back with your own conclusion.

I count some +22 modpoints... to your +3, if I don’t count this miserable thread (which would bring it to -1).

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[clone53421]

Careful... do you even realise you have the word “mons” in yours?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[clone53421]

When a troll makes a good point, does anyone hear it?

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[DaleSwanson]

Trade makes things cheaper. What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida? Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Trade makes things cheaper.
 
Which is exactly the problem: cheaper stuff fails in the primary duty of having an economic system supported by government, which is to provide living wage jobs for one's own citizens.
 
  What if my state can only produce a small amount of oranges, should I pay 10x as much for them instead of importing them from Florida?
 
Yes, which would encourage farmers in your state to grow more oranges, thus employing more people. The problem with efficiency and economy of scale is that it directly causes unemployment, and thus welfare.
 
  Isolationism is never beneficial in the long term to the states involved.
 
But it is beneficial to the INDIVIDUALS involved, and thus, if you're for freedom and individualism, you should be for protection of the economic conditions that employ the most people, rather than that which produces the cheapest goods. Subsidiarity states that nothing should be done in a more complex way than is necessary- and trade is complex.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[DaleSwanson]

The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.

We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.

I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[scot4875]

New jobs will be created by those unemployed people.

Maybe at the rate of 1 in 100 jobs to unemployed people.

If you think that a significant percentage unemployed people will spontaneously create new jobs with all their newly-found free time, you're delusional.

--Jeremy

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[DaleSwanson]

If you think that a significant percentage unemployed people will spontaneously create new jobs with all their newly-found free time, you're delusional.

I don't think that at all, and wasn't trying to imply that large amounts of unemployment was good. Merely arguing that it isn't a universal bad thing. That it does in fact lead to progress. Without the freeing up of people to do new jobs those new jobs would never be created.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The problem is that the geography of my state means that it is much more difficult to produce oranges here. Let's say it is easier to produce apples here. Doesn't it make more sense to produce 1000 tons of apples here and trade 500 tons to FL for 500 tons of oranges. Sure we would have the same amount of food but we would gain diversity.
 
Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.
 
  We could do away with all unemployment by doing away with all modern farming technology. 95% of the population could spend 12 hours a day 7 days a week doing manual labor in order to provide food for all. Then every one would be employed, but less happy. I would rather be unemployed for a time then know I would spend the bulk of my life doing mindless manual labor.
 
I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...
 
  I have no problem with innovation or efficiency doing away with jobs. New jobs will be created by those unemployed people. That is progress. Look at all the jobs people are free to do today because they no longer need to farm.
 
Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[DaleSwanson]

Yeah, but that's not what happens, is it? That would make sense. Instead, you get idiocy like the fact that New York State and Washington State both produce the same amount of apples- yet 60% of the Apples sold in Manhattan come from Washington State, flown cross country at a huge waste of fuel, while New York State apples end up rotting in the warehouses.

Well if that happens some one pays for that fuel. To them the Washington apples are worth the added cost of the fuel. Why not let them pay to have them shipped if they want them? If NY apple farmers can't compete then they need to find something they can do instead. Forcing the citizens of NY to buy the NY apples will only prop up the NY apple industry which clearly is inferior in some way to the WA one. Again in the long term this will hurt the people of NY. They will eat inferior apples and prevent them from finding something they can do better than the people of WA.

I'm not sure I'd end up less happy doing mindless manual labor, than choking to death on the fumes of fossil fuel usage. In addition to that- there's this new idea called PERMACULTURE- in which 95% of the population can spend just 5-6 hours a day providing food for all...

Those aren't the only choices though. We can not do manual labor and live in a world with reasonable amounts of pollution. As for permaculture, I see three possibilities. Either it increases food yield greatly, it requires a fundamental change in people's lifestyles, or it doesn't work. If it increases yield then I'm sure it will be utilized. If it requires people to fundamentally change their lifestyles then most people won't do it voluntarily. Most people enjoy their current lifestyle and simply won't change. Plans that require most people to change are flawed for this reason.

Look at the 25% of the population that would love to be able to farm, but instead are pushed onto welfare.

If we are talking about the US population then I'd bet a good chunk of the population on welfare could in fact work extreme hours and get off welfare. However, what reason would they have to do that? The economy won't handle massive sudden changes. However if some people on welfare were willing to work very hard long hours I'm sure they could find employment somewhere. I'm not trying to say they are lazy, I wouldn't want to work long hard hours, especially if I already had a source of income.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[LWATCDR]

States are forbidden to tax interstate commerce that power is granted to congress with the exception of alcohol. This would be a from of Tarriff and as such would be unconstitutional. Odds are the courts will uphold this and congress will not touch this because of the disaster that this could cause.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[LWATCDR]

The answers are no. California was granted the right to impose their own air quality standards way back when because of the terrible air quality issues in California at the time. That was granted by an act of the US congress so it was constitutional.
All states can tax alcohol as as that right was given in a constitutional amendment.
It is simple.
1. A state can not regulate an industry in another state.
2. A state can note tax interstate commerce.
So MN could tax ALL electrical power or it could tax coal fired plants in state but it can put a special tax on electricity that comes in from an other state just because it thinks that it comes from coal fired plants.
  Just like California can not forbid you from drive your none California emissions car in California.
Here are the rules.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29.htm
You are only not allowed to register a new car bought from out of state but they can not tax that car or forbid you to buy.
Florida used to have an impact fee for cars bought out of state even if they where old. If you bought any car into Florida it was a $500 fee. That was thrown out as well.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well if that happens some one pays for that fuel. To them the Washington apples are worth the added cost of the fuel. Why not let them pay to have them shipped if they want them? If NY apple farmers can't compete then they need to find something they can do instead. Forcing the citizens of NY to buy the NY apples will only prop up the NY apple industry which clearly is inferior in some way to the WA one. Again in the long term this will hurt the people of NY. They will eat inferior apples and prevent them from finding something they can do better than the people of WA.

And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.
 

Those aren't the only choices though. We can not do manual labor and live in a world with reasonable amounts of pollution. As for permaculture, I see three possibilities. Either it increases food yield greatly, it requires a fundamental change in people's lifestyles, or it doesn't work. If it increases yield then I'm sure it will be utilized. If it requires people to fundamentally change their lifestyles then most people won't do it voluntarily. Most people enjoy their current lifestyle and simply won't change. Plans that require most people to change are flawed for this reason.

It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.

If we are talking about the US population then I'd bet a good chunk of the population on welfare could in fact work extreme hours and get off welfare.

They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Khyber]

that is such bullshit. I paid taxes on it once where I bought it. So if I pay for a meal on teh border, eat it, and go into another state (i'm still using it) I'd have to pay any higher sales tax on that as well? That's what I'm pulling from this conversation. What a load of nonsense.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[j-beda]

OK, that seems to clear up the automobile example, but what about the "certification" example? Can MN tax non-Energy-Star certified appliances at a different rate than ES-certified ones? If they can do that (and it seems reasonable that they could) then implementing a different tax rate for power generation depending on what level of "non-pollution" certification a producer has would seem to be equivalent. Or you could just tax the bejesus out of all electrical rates, and give rebates to those who can document specific levels of non-pollution.

California seems to have enacted energy consumption legislation for TV's, even those manufactured outside of the state which might be viewed as messing with inter-state commerce.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[DaleSwanson]

And when the only real inferiority is advertising, the people of NY have indeed been hurt- by a fraud that is creating unemployment among their neighbors that they also have to pay for. There are loads of similar examples.

In that case yes the people of NY have made a bad choice and are paying for it. However, they made the choice and they pay for it. The other option is to remove their freedom of choice and with it the possibility to make good choices. For every example of trade that hurts one party there is an example of trade that benefits both. I, and I think most people, would rather have the freedom to make the bad choices with the hope of making good ones rather than have that decision made for me. That is the problem with freedom, often times people won't make the best decision. But as a society most of of us agree we'd rather have freedom even with the risk of bad choices.

It would certainly require a change of diet- to native foods rather than invasive ornamental monocultures. But now that the First Lady has accepted this idea that local foods are fresher and better, that a garden is more productive than a lawn, we might yet see that change.

Well if it requires a lifestyle change it almost certainly won't happen. People simply aren't willing to make permanent major changes in large numbers. I highly doubt that the we'll see a significant increase in home gardens in a decade. I agree it would be good if we did. I just don't think it is very likely.

They could work NORMAL hours and get off welfare, if we'd just stop with the agricultural subsidies and foreign trade. But like you say- there's no reason to do that as long as you have no solidarity with your neighbors and don't understand the principle of subsidiarity, choosing instead to worship at the altar of David Ricardo's unproven theories.

I too am very much against farm subsidies (and most others), but again I think trade is good. Eliminating foreign trade may very well lessen US unemployment, but you also have to consider foreign employment. Trade brings balance, and in the long term that will benefit both parties. It comes down the the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Six billion people working together will make more progress than Six billion people working independently.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[LWATCDR]

Nope even the energy star thing may be iffy but there is a clear difference.
There is no difference between electricity made by coal and electricity made by gas or nuclear. It is just electricity. The only way than can do this is buy saying that x% of power made in this other state is made with coal so we tax x% of the power we import into our state at this rate... Which becomes a tariff.
Now if there was any difference between coal produced power and gas produced power at the point of consumption then maybe you could some how get away with this but there isn't. Unless congress grants them an exemption this is unconstitutional.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Teancum]

Who ever said that the law had to make sense. The state governments want their money, and if you live in that state you can't do things like purchase items in another state to avoid paying taxes.

Supposedly we live in a representative democracy, so take it up with your elected representatives next time they come by asking for your vote. If you think this is bullshit, tell those folks precisely that, and make sure your voice is heard on this issue. Or run for political office and try to cut the bullshit from our government. There certainly are heaps of that stuff laying around most state capitals, not to mention the federal capital.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[j-beda]

There is no difference between electricity made by coal and electricity made by gas or nuclear. It is just electricity.

I agree with you, but the same argument can be made for a hairdrier with and without a UL certification, or an EnergyStar certification, or a potato with a "organic society" certification - the only difference may be an inspection process.

If (and I don't know if they can or not) a state can impose a tax based one a product's certification, and someone has already stated that MN in particular has a supreme court decision allowing them to do something similar for food inspection, then taxing based on the "pollution society" certification might be legally possible assuming it is applied without prejudice against all of the products, both in-state and out of state (and with the WTO and NAFTA involved, out of country too).

In any case, I suspect that the final outcome is not something that anyone can know before the courts decide - if it was so obviously one side or the other, either MN would not have tried to put the legislation in place or ND would not be getting ready for a legal challenge - presumably they both have competent counsel on their side.

Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[LWATCDR]

There is one other difference. On all the things you are talking about the sale of the product is happening in state. You can tax what ever you want in state. In the case of the power the purchase is being made out of state.
You can not tax somebody that buys a none Energy-Star TV and then brings it into state. If the state tried to make the store pay a tax on the wholesale purchase then yes it would be unconstitutional. If the state wanted to tax their own citizens for that power at retail it would be totally legal. It is the trying to tax the out of state companies for the carbon they produce that is not. Of course what the court will do is a mystery. Frankly some rulings of what is an is not Constitutional make me wonder if they are reading the same document that I am.

culmination of quite a long attempt

[Trepidity]

Minnesota's attempt to do this dates back nearly 20 years, long before the current global-warming political debate, so interesting to see it finally passing. I believe the first bill was proposed in 1992, which would've imposed a $6 per ton tax; here's a 1994 report by a MN environmental group as well. Major attempts seemed to happen every 3-5 years.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[geekoid]

SO i can pass a bill in my state that allows me to tax your state? I think I see a solution to our states fiscal problem.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

SO i can pass a bill in my state that allows me to tax your state?

Yes, in the same way that Use Taxes are a tax on a different state (in other words, it's not a tax on your state at all, it's a tax on users of a good or service who reside in the taxing state).

Maybe you should RTFA to understand how the tax actually works, instead of coming to some half-assed assumption?

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[nsayer]

The problem is that if the tax only applies to goods that are imported from a neighboring state, that's taxing interstate commerce, which is not allowed at the state level.

California can't put a special state tax on cheese imported from Oregon. This is exactly the same concept.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[rtb61]

A luxury carbon tax makes a lot more sense. Differentiating between the necessity of life and the luxuries and taxing accordingly should be the priority, especially as a lot of those luxuries are highly polluting and are really wasteful consumers of the planets limited resources. Those luxury carbon taxes should of course be applied continuously, as that v12 super car consume fuel at idiotic levels it should be taxed accordingly (perhaps any domestic vehicle that consume fuel beyond acceptable rates), same for the luxury yacht, private jet (perhaps even jet air flight generally), cosmetics, jewellery, luxury liners (find a stationary hotel people), mansions (as massive consumers of the planets resources and extreme energy sucking polluters), alcohol and various other recreational drugs and even junk food (double benefit on that one).

It is really rather obscene to consider that essentials should be taxed at the same rate as luxuries. It sends the worst possible message and does nothing to promote better behaviour, so zero percent tax on essentials and 100 percent or more (non tax deductible) tax on luxuries, if they absolutely need to be a pollution pus hogs to feed their ego than they should pay the price.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[mattack2]

Who gets to decide what is "essential"?

(At least most states, if not all) already don't collect sales tax on "food".. but even that can have weird cases where some things are taxed and some aren't.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[Teancum]

The problem with a tax like you are proposing here is that it can't be levied by a state government on goods imported from another state. Simply put, a state can't regulate the commerce of another state.

Furthermore, electricity is identical no matter how it is generated, so the source can't be distinguished unless you are explicitly engaging in that sort of regulation of entities in another state. Minnesota can regulate what is going on within its own borders, but that is the limit of what it can do. States can also regulate what comes into the state, but they can't tax those goods except to pay for the border stations... sort of like how states like California and Arizona regulate the importation of agriculture products going into those states and have inspection stations on the highways going into those states. They can pay a modest "fee" for fruit coming into the state to pay for those inspectors, but that is it. It can't be a true revenue source.

The same thing applies here for electricity.

If this was a federal tax, that would be a different story. But that would have to be an act of Congress, and not a state legislature.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[khallow]

Differentiating between the necessity of life and the luxuries and taxing accordingly should be the priority, especially as a lot of those luxuries are highly polluting and are really wasteful consumers of the planets limited resources.

That's pretty retarded. Government officials should never ever have the opportunity to decide moral issues like what is or isn't a luxury. I don't need a bunch of ignorant, puritan clowns taxing my actions, deciding for me what I should or shouldn't do. Call it a luxury I'm willing to do without.

Re:culmination of quite a long attempt

[Ferretman]

This is illegal and unconstitutional.

States can't tax imports from other states. The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted.

I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who don't understand the Constitution very well.

Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

No state may regulate interstate commerce. One can find that written in the U.S. Constitution. The legislature in Minnesota needs an education in civics.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Trepidity]

It's not nearly that clear in this case. The tax is only applied to companies doing business in Minnesota, and is only assessed on the portion of their business considered to impact Minnesota (i.e. emissions actually generated in Minnesota, emissions imputed to electricity transmitted in Minnesota, etc.). It's at least arguable that that doesn't violate the dormant commerce clause: MN isn't specifically taxing only imports and exempting in-state MN electricity generators, which is the usual inter/intra-state disparity in treatment that caused constitutional problems; nor is the state attempting to tax companies that don't do business in MN.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[gknoy]

Exactly. I think that MN would argue that they're not taxing interstate commerce, but ALL commerce that meets the criteria -- of which much happens to be out of state.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[geekoid]

Why don't they tax there own people who get power from coal plants?

If they truly want clean energy, and not revenue generation, that would be the logical way to go.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Trepidity]

Isn't that equivalent? It's more or less a sales tax on electricity, pro-rated by how much carbon was used to generated the electricity. They could collect the sales tax from the purchaser, or from the seller; usually sales taxes are collected from sellers, because it's easier to administer such a system.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[nsayer]

It's not nearly that clear in this case.

It's pretty clear that it fails the duck test. Whether that's enough for the courts or not (and the mere suggestion that it wouldn't be) might boggle the imagination.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[HeckRuler]

Could that possibly be because the title calls it a tariff?

This could an example of sensationalist reporting, or Minnesota is just playing semantics.

You can point to an platypus behind people and say "hey look at that duck" and depending how knowledgeable and gullible they are, they'll believe it's a duck. Nothing exists in a vacuum and this is why the article is filed under politics. This is also the reason Fox News throws out a lot of blips like "will Obama eat your children? more at 11."

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Attila Dimedici]

It's not nearly that clear in this case. The tax is only applied to companies doing business in Minnesota, and is only assessed on the portion of their business considered to impact Minnesota (i.e. emissions actually generated in Minnesota, emissions imputed to electricity transmitted in Minnesota, etc.). It's at least arguable that that doesn't violate the dormant commerce clause: MN isn't specifically taxing only imports and exempting in-state MN electricity generators, which is the usual inter/intra-state disparity in treatment that caused constitutional problems; nor is the state attempting to tax companies that don't do business in MN.

Except I am pretty sure that this tax would apply to an electricity distribution company (based outside of MN) that buys electricity from a company (that does not do business in MN) that generates electricity using coal. So, the tax would either apply to a company that does not generate electricity in any way (the distribution company) or to a company that does not do business in MN (the electric generating company). In both cases the tax would be on a transaction that did not occur in MN, because (in this case) there is no difference between the electricity and any other electricity once it gets to MN.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Teancum]

That is the question: Can they impose a tax based on how that power is generated, if it is generated in another state?

Presumably electricity that is generated from wind, solar, or nuclear power is not taxed in the same manner... so the question begs to be asked? Can you distinguish electricity made from other sources as something "different" from electricity made by coal? I think not.

Essentially, it turns this fee into a regulation of how power is generated in another state, where the state government has no authority to impose those regulations. It is a state sovereignty issue, where it could be argued by North Dakota that they can produce electricity with the most inefficient and wasteful methods using coal explicitly to produce CO2 as a matter of state policy, and there is nothing Minnesota can do to stop that. They can't selectively treat any kind of electricity as something different based on its source. Any fees on electrical power generation must be equally applied to all states, and to producers within its own state, equally.

Minnesota could regulate and impose fees on coal plants within its own borders, but apparently that has been happening and several Minnesota companies are going to North Dakota to generate that electricity due to cheaper costs and fewer regulatory hurdles being imposed by that state. This law is an attempt to stop that from happening, but the point is that North Dakota is another state. Of course there are many in Minnesota that think Fargo is simply the name for "West Moorhead", at least in the state legislature.

Re:Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal

[Teancum]

The Minnesota law isn't being called as a tariff, but rather that is what the popular press is calling it. Minnesota is simply calling this a power generation fee, something well within the authority of its utility regulation board/commission.

The problem is if it can be considered a tariff in the sense that it is targeting the interstate commerce of a commodity (in this case electricity) coming from another state and regulating how that commodity is manufactured. The argument is that it becomes a tariff when they have imposed some sort of regulations and have specified how that electricity is to be made in the first place (without coal to avoid this fee).

BTW, I dare you to show me when Fox News ever said "Will Obama eat your children?" An 11 o'clock news for "Fox News" is something I'd really like to see, as that presumes the late night news broadcasts of most affiliates, and Fox typically airs their evening news an hour earlier than their competitors at the local affiliates, of which really isn't "Fox News" either. Fox News might sensationalize mundane news stories, but this is going over the top.

Constitutional?

[sproingie]

It's great that they're pushing for cleaner power, but isn't this a textbook case of interstate tariffs that states are forbidden to enact?

Re:Constitutional?

[osu-neko]

It's great that they're pushing for cleaner power, but isn't this a textbook case of interstate tariffs that states are forbidden to enact?

No, it's not. States are free to tax things within their state all they want. If Minnesota wants to tax carbon, Minnesota can tax carbon. If people don't want to see carbon taxed, they can point out that most of the coal-fired energy used in Minnesota actually comes from North Dakota, and then pretend that this is a case of an interstate tariff when it's nothing of the sort. By lying about what it is, they can generate a lot of heat and fire the public up against it. Seems to be working, based on some of the posts I'm seeing here...

Re:Constitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

But aren't they taxing the energy that is being used in MN?

Re:Constitutional?

[InsaneProcessor]

They are not pushing for cleaner power. This is nothing more than another way to tax the people. A money grab. Who do you think will be paying this tax? The price of power will simply go up. We need to get rid of anyone that wants to raise taxes to grab more money.

Re:Constitutional?

[khallow]

If people don't want to see carbon taxed, they can point out that most of the coal-fired energy used in Minnesota actually comes from North Dakota, and then pretend that this is a case of an interstate tariff when it's nothing of the sort.

Except that it is a case of an interstate tariff. My prediction is that it will be overturned by the courts.

Re:Constitutional?

[osu-neko]

Except that it is a case of an interstate tariff. My prediction is that it will be overturned by the courts.

I'm sure it won't be, precisely because it's not an interstate tariff, no matter how badly the Dakotas wish it was. The motives may be ultimately the same as a protectionist tariff, but the action itself is perfectly normal case of taxation. You can't overturn a cheese tax just because a lot of cheese gets imported from Wisconsin, you can't overturn a wine tax just because a lot of wine comes from California, and they won't overturn a carbon-tax just because a lot of coal-generated electricity comes from the Dakotas.

Re:Constitutional?

[Chirs]

Hello....the price of coal-based power will go up, making it more economically feasible to produce power in a cleaner way. Once enough of that happens, the price goes back down due to economies of scale and commoditization.

Re:Constitutional?

[Attila Dimedici]

States are free to tax things within their state all they want. If Minnesota wants to tax carbon, Minnesota can tax carbon. ..

Absolutely, they can tax carbon....if that carbon is in MN. However, this law appears to also tax carbon in other states if it is used to generate electricity that is later sold in MN. If this tax only applied to electricity generated in MN, it would be perfectly legitimate, just as stupid, but legitimate.

Re:Constitutional?

[Teancum]

Even if this isn't a "tariff", it is a regulation on how power is to be produced by a governmental authority that is well outside of its jurisdiction. Permitting regulations of this nature essentially allow states to impose regulatory authority on how products are produced in other states, including child labor laws or if they are produced by unionized labor or not.

I'm sure the AFL-CIO would love to get some state like Michigan or even Minnesota in this case to pass a law that all goods sold in the state from elsewhere must be made by union labor. That would be essentially the same thing here.

This is a huge issue with potentially monumental consequences if it is permitted to stand as a law, where this would be a precedent setting case to allow states to essentially regulate how and where goods sold in their states can be made.

Re:Constitutional?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No, they're taxing the carbon emitted during the production of that energy. Want to avoid the tax? Use solar power. Or maybe hook Glen Beck and a bottle of gin up to a dynamo.

Re:Constitutional?

[FiloEleven]

By lying about what it is, they can generate a lot of heat and fire the public up against it.

Couldn't they just use that to generate power instead?

Re:Constitutional?

[InsaneProcessor]

And that will be you paying for it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Constitutional?

[scot4875]

I'll bet it will be overturned just like all those state cigarette taxes have been overturned.

--Jeremy

Church is in session

[Anonymous Coward]

  The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU!!!!!

Interstate Commerce

[BarefootClown]

I suspect this will die in court; the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved exclusively to the Federal government.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[lwsimon]

The summary is bad - they are taxing all electricity sourced from coal, not imported electricity.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[jgtg32a]

Die? This has already been smacked down, the eventual court case and what not are just formalities.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[nsayer]

Doesn't matter. California can't put a special tax on the sale of cheese produced in Oregon, even if it applies only to Cheddar and not Monterey Jack.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[Dog-Cow]

The situations do not appear to be the same. But I understand how an idiot like you would miss that.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[Teancum]

It would be more like California putting a special tax on Oregon cheese made from cows that have been given homone treatments or have been genetically modified.

It is essentially a regulation on how that product has been made, where the state legislature is creating rules for the creation of that product as it happens in another state. Just as cheese doesn't matter what cow has actually produced the milk to make the cheese, electricity doesn't matter where it has been produced either. If it has been made with nuclear or coal as the energy source, the electrons have the same "push" and deliver the same energy requirements to the end users.

This is Minnesota going beyond its authority and invading the sovereignty of North Dakota to regulate the power plants in another state.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[FiloEleven]

I'm not convinced either way. Perhaps a car analogy is in order.

California has stricter emissions standards for automobiles, most of which are not manufactured in CA itself. The only difference between cars allowed for sale in CA and cars that aren't is the level of emissions they...er...emit. The utility (getting from point A to point B) is identical, it is the external cost of greenhouse gases that are regulated against.

It should be noted that, according to Wikipedia's Emission Standard article, California "faces a court challenge from the federal government," and though it doesn't go into detail one would presume that the logic in play is similar. Also from the same article, "California and several other western states have passed bills requiring performance-based regulation of greenhouse gases from electricity generation," so this doesn't appear to be a novel idea. There are no references for it, so I can't speak to its truth or how contested the existing laws are. Perhaps someone living in one of those states can provide more information.

Re:Interstate Commerce

[Teancum]

The difference here is that California requires a different product for what is actually sold within their state. Yes, I thought of the California emission standards when this was brought up, and it is a similar kind of issue... a variation of the theme as well.

Nothing is so cut and dried when it comes to the law, and certainly this electricity "carbon tax" fee was thought to be proper or else it wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

The fact that this is going to be a contest of wills between two different state governments is what will make this an epic legal battle, and one that will almost certainly go before the Supreme Court. It will have precedent setting potential regardless of its outcome, either to open a whole new real of state taxes or to shut off a way for states to act. More likely, it will be some sort of weird compromise that will ultimately result, where the precedent still won't be so clear.

Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[GWRedDragon]

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[osu-neko]

Ah, thanks for the random constitutional quote. You failed to explain why you're making it, but I assume you're pointing out what the Constitution actually says, in case some people misremember this part of the constitution and thus mistakenly think what Minnesota is doing here is in any way unconstitutional. Since Minnesota isn't doing what this particular article forbids, it's perfectly constitutional, even if it does have a greater impact on ND than MN power companies.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[clone53421]

Except that it is putting a tariff on electricity generated in ND and imported into MN, which kinda is what that article forbids.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[geekoid]

they are laying a tax* on imports, specifically energy.

"carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, "

If you export you enerby to MN, they will tax it. It's pretty simple.

*imposts or duties

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[Trepidity]

It's not specifically a tariff, because they charge all electricity sold in MN the same cost, whether generated in- or out-of-state. That makes it more of a sales tax, which is constitutional.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[osu-neko]

Except that it is putting a tariff on electricity generated in ND and imported into MN, which kinda is what that article forbids.

Except that's not what they're doing. If they decide to tax cheese, and it turns out a lot of cheese is imported from Wisconsin, that doesn't make a cheese tax unconstitutional. They've decided to tax carbon. Will this disproportionally effect North Dakota? Yes. Does that make it unconstitutional? No.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[osu-neko]

they are laying a tax* on imports, specifically energy.

That's precisely what they aren't doing. They are taxing energy, yes. They have the right to do that, and there's no legal requirement to exclude imported items from any particular tax. A tax on cheese would apply to cheese imported from Wisconsin as much as on cheese made in Minnesota. It would not become unconstitutional if it turned out more cheese came from Wisconsin than locally made. Likewise, this energy tax is not unconstitutional, simply because it does disproportionally effect the Dakotas.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[ThePlague]

The thing is, they're not taxing electricity, which is the commodity that's actually being purchased in Minnesota, they're taxing carbon emissions which does not occur in MN.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Where do you find that information? I've been unable to find the bill- and all the reports on it so far label it as a Tariff, not a sales tax.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[Anonymous Coward]

this isn't a tax on cheese, it's a tax on cheese made from corn-fed cows. And the corn and cow are both in another state.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that it is putting a tariff on electricity generated in ND and imported into MN, which kinda is what that article forbids.

Except that's not what they're doing. If they decide to tax cheese, and it turns out a lot of cheese is imported from Wisconsin, that doesn't make a cheese tax unconstitutional. They've decided to tax carbon. Will this disproportionally effect North Dakota? Yes. Does that make it unconstitutional? No.

They have decided to tax carbon even if that carbon is not in Minnesota. That is unconstitutional. Minnesota has no authority to tax carbon in another state. This is like putting a tax on wood cut in a sawmill in ND (or any other state not MN) because there is asbestos in the sawmills insulation.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you export your burgers to Florida, they'll charge a sales tax.

Sorry dude, it's not a tariff.

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[JayWilmont]

they are laying a tax* on imports

They are not laying a tax only on imports - they are laying a tax on ALL coal-fired emissions (for energy used within the state of MN).

The BoingBoing article is quite bad in that it doesn't clearly distinguish between the effect/intention/politics of the legislation (screw ND coal companies) and what the legislation actually does (tax all coal-fired emissions).

Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.

[FiloEleven]

That should read, "This is like putting a tax on wood cut in a sawmill in ND (or any other state including MN) because there is asbestos in the sawmills insulation." But that analogy is inaccurate because in the real case the greenhouse gases are a consequence of the method of power generation, whereas the sawmill doesn't create more asbestos every time they cut wood.

The core question seems to be, "Can the means for producing a good be regulated when the end product is identical?" If we look at child labor as a parallel example, the answer to my knowledge appears to be "no," since laws preventing sweatshops in the US do not prevent the sale of sweatshop-made goods produced elsewhere. Yet if Wikipedia is to be trusted, California and several other states have "passed bills requiring performance-based regulation of greenhouse gases from electricity generation," so at the very least there is some inconsistency.

Its about time

[Jenming]

Not having a "tax" on environmental damage causes everyone who is effected by damage to the environment to subsidize industry that damages the environment.

While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0. If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.

Its also nice to see individual states take the lead in issues like this.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

Its also nice to see individual states take the lead in issues like this.

Yes, it is nice to see individual states taking a lead in dramatically raising energy costs, especially in a recession. It only further proves how utterly incompetent our leaders. While taking energy is stupid in the first place, even if a country or state is dead set on doing it, only a moron would do it DURING A RECESSION when people don't have the money to pay the tax. Taxing energy raises all costs - do you really thing the people of Minnesota can afford to pay more for heat, fuel for cars, food, lighting, clothing, and everything else right now? That's what taxing energy does - it raises the price of everything. This is an epic fail for Minnesota.

Re:Its about time

[maxume]

Please define 'dramatic' in numerical terms.

Re:Its about time

[swb]

Have you seen how grossly obese Margaret Andersen-Kelliher is? She likes to tax the way she likes to eat. There is no self-control there, only the willingness to keep gorging herself.

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

So with this new found money that they receive the intern further destroy the environment with what they purchase with it. Everything is about energy it's the one commodity that all others are derived from. Carbon extortion is what this is.

Re:Its about time

[clone53421]

I prefer to just quote Obama: electricity rates will “skyrocket”. That’s “dramatic” enough for me.

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxing energy raises all costs - do you really thing the people of Minnesota can afford to pay more for heat, fuel for cars, food, lighting, clothing, and everything else right now? That's what taxing energy does - it raises the price of everything.

Do you know what else taxes do? Pay for roads, schools, police, etc. Things which the people of Minnesota use. This money needs to come from somewhere.

That's the fallacy with the knee jerk reaction to taxes. The money isn't being put in a hole, or being shipped elsewhere. It's spent on Minnesota.

All taxes effectively raise prices, either directly (making things more expensive) or indirectly (reducing the amount of income you have to spend on them). Sane tax policy is picking taxes that do the least harm to the economy.

Further, consider the status quo where production/jobs are effectively being exported to ND from MN due to (commendable) environmental standards. Now, obviously ND thinks this tax is against their interests (otherwise they wouldn't be preparing a lawsuit). It's clear that at last ND thinks that MN will be — on aggregate — better off under this deal.

Re:Its about time

[martyros]

And what would you say when the economy is booming? And risk being accused of stopping a big boom and putting us into a recession?

The fact is there is no good time to switch away from a cheap, well-established source of energy. But if we don't start doing it soon, when that source runs out, we won't have the technology or the infrastructure to replace it. And that would truly be a disaster of epic proportions. So I say kudos to Minnesota for trying. No doubt they'll make some mistakes and learn from them, to the benefit of everyone.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

Wow, the liberals must have a lot of mod points today when they're not only modding me troll for pointing out that taxing energy dramatically raises the cost of everything, but they're modding you troll for using a direct quote from Obama about the effects of taxing energy!

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

There is no good time to tax energy, because it's a stupid thing to do. All I said was that if you're going to insist on doing something economically damning, don't do it during the second worst economy in the history of the country.

But if we don't start doing it soon, when that source runs out, we won't have the technology or the infrastructure to replace it.

When we actually are in danger of running out, people will start to change over. Why? Well first, because there will be people wanting to make money by being one of the major non-fossil fuel energy sources. Secondly, there will be the natural self-preservation instinct. Thirdly, as basic economics would teach you, as fossil fuels start to become scarce, the prices will go through the roof making the relative cost of non-fossil fuel energy incredibly low.

Believe it or not, free markets actually work - it's been proven. Free markets with no regulation tend to have some issues, but I'm not arguing against regulation - just excessive government controls that actually hamper the very goal the government claims to want to achieve.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

All taxes effectively raise prices, either directly (making things more expensive) or indirectly (reducing the amount of income you have to spend on them). Sane tax policy is picking taxes that do the least harm to the economy.

First, I never argued against taxes, I argued against taxing energy. Secondly, taxing energy makes EVERYTHING cost more. At every step of production, transportation, and sales, prices go up. It is the worst kind of tax because EVERYTHING relies on energy at some point in the production / sales chain. Even a book requires energy to get the lumber, transport the lumber, turn the lumber into paper, get the paper to the printing facility, run the printing facility, print the book, transport the book to the book store, and provide electricity at the book store. Then there's also the increased cost of paying employees more to deal with increased energy, as well as the increased cost of driving to the store to buy the book.

Those who support taxing energy may try to claim that it only raises the cost of fuel or running your computer, but in reality it raises the cost of everything you do and everything you buy.

Re:Its about time

[martyros]

Believe it or not, free markets actually work

Well, free markets do something. But saying they "work" is a bit dodgy. What, exactly is it that they do? Are you trying to say that a free market will always give the greatest amount of happiness, over the course of the rest of our species lifetime, to the greatest number of people? I think that's pretty obviously bullshit.

Morever, markets are well known to fail (meaning, "reach a conclusion we as a society don't like") under certain conditions. Externalities is a classic example, and carbon emissions is an externality. Since carbon-neutral is the only sustainable solution, the actual cost of dumping carbon into the air is either the cost of the damage done to the environment by it for as long as it's in the air (probably several hundred years at least), or the cost of removing it from the atmosphere. Both are pretty darned expensive; I'd be willing to bet it's a lot less than Minnesota's tax is.

So taxing the externality is really a way of making the market come to the truly optimal solution, taking into account true cost of the externality that is now conveniently free.

When we actually are in danger of running out, people will start to change over.

That's awful lot of faith you're having in people making the right prediction. If, as a whole, people are too optimistic about how long the fossil fuels will last, or about how quickly we'll be able to develop new technologies, we're totally screwed. "Market adjustment" here may mean mass starvation, anarchy, and cannibalism, until "the market adjusts" so that the number of mouths to feed is equal to the amount of food available to feed them. Almost this exact situation has already happened several times. Read "Collapse", by Jared Diamond, for a detailed investigation of how it happening to the Easter Islanders, the Anasazi Indians, and the Greenland Norse.

If you want me to believe that the market somehow won't fall into this trap of over-optimism, preventing us from investing in alternate energy sources until it's too late, you're going to have to have a bit more than a simplistic a-priori argument. The only evidence I've seen, including the recent financial crisis, leads me to believe exactly the opposite.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

Well, free markets do something. But saying they "work" is a bit dodgy. What, exactly is it that they do? Are you trying to say that a free market will always give the greatest amount of happiness, over the course of the rest of our species lifetime, to the greatest number of people? I think that's pretty obviously bullshit.

Actually, why do you think the US has the highest standard of living, best medical care, richest country in the world, etc? Could be be that we were the only country to ever use free markets? Nope, couldn't POSSIBLY be because of that!

Morever, markets are well known to fail (meaning, "reach a conclusion we as a society don't like") under certain conditions.

True, but you're ignoring the key words - under certain conditions. As I said, you can have regulation in a free market to prevent those certain conditions. You're arguing against free markets because every once in awhile things go wrong. I think most people would choose "occasionally going wrong" to "always going wrong", which is what happens when the government has insane amounts of laws about everything regarding companies.

Externalities is a classic example, and carbon emissions is an externality. Since carbon-neutral is the only sustainable solution, the actual cost of dumping carbon into the air is either the cost of the damage done to the environment by it for as long as it's in the air (probably several hundred years at least), or the cost of removing it from the atmosphere.

Carbon emissions are not an externality (unless you want to tax people for breathing), they are a fact of life. You can pass regulations against industries that pollute unnecessarily or mandate minimum MPG on cars (though those laws have problems, but that's another story), but taxing ALL energy is just idiotic and harms everyone except the super rich (which conveniently, are the politicians!).

So taxing the externality is really a way of making the market come to the truly optimal solution, taking into account true cost of the externality that is now conveniently free.

What cost are we paying for having cars and electricity? Seems to me that most people are pretty damn happy to have them. It's only the Luddites "technology will destroy the world!" people who think that having these things "harms" society - which is part of the definition of externality; it has to harm people / society.

That's awful lot of faith you're having in people making the right prediction. If, as a whole, people are too optimistic about how long the fossil fuels will last, or about how quickly we'll be able to develop new technologies, we're totally screwed.

You put your faith in benevolent rulers, I'd rather put my faith in people's survival instinct. Looking back at history, the benevolent rulers are the ones with a pretty bad scorecard. If you really think that companies that face not only going out of business but their entire standard of living for the people running them won't make damn sure to have a non-fossil fuel energy system set up, then you completely don't understand the innate desire to succeed (well, for most people).

Almost this exact situation has already happened several times.

Hardly. Technologically primitive societies that don't have entrepreneurship are completely different from the modern world. Not only do we know that eventually, we'll have to stop using fossil fuel, but we have very accurate ways of measuring the amount of fuel we have and are already working (even without government money) on alternatives. The only problem is that the alternatives aren't viable yet - but they're getting there. By the time we run out of fossil fuels, alternative fuels will be up and going just fine.

The only evidence I've seen, including the recent financial crisis, leads me to believe exactly the

Re:Its about time

[Rockoon]

The fact is there is no good time to switch away from a cheap, well-established source of energy.

If its NEVER a good time, then why do it?

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

That's the very question we should all be asking our government officials....

Re:Its about time

[FiloEleven]

While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0. If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.

So then...the tax levied in MN should be paid out in SD and wherever else the plants are? Something tells me that won't be as easy to push through the SD legislature...

Re:Its about time

[martyros]

Please, I beg you, start reading up on how governments have failed their people (in every country) again and again and again throughout history.

Well obviously governments fail -- just like markets. You seem to be making a false dichotomy here: either trust the government to do everything (Mao cultural-revolution style, where they replaced money with "chits" for individual goods, and regulated the production of everything), or trust the market to do everything (with the backdoor of saying they need to be "regulated" to avoid any criticism). Isn't it possible that both governments, and markets sometimes "work" and sometimes screw things up in a major way? Wouldn't it make sense to look at when they work the way we want, and when they don't, and use them each according to their strengths?

If the market "worked", wouldn't it have compensated for the government intervention with mortgages? On the contrary, the market did what markets do: optimize for whatever inputs are put into them. The government definitely didn't tell the markets to invent complicated derivatives that no one could understand and erroneously value them: the markets (or more accurately, the people in the markets) did that on their own.

In any case, as I said before, the Minnesota tax on carbon emissions (not on energy!) is an attempt to use the market to solve a problem. The fact that they're using a tax to do things economically, rather than simply passing laws about what you must / may not do, means that they do believe in the "free market" to solve problems and come up with the best solution.

Re:Its about time

[martyros]

Perhaps I should have said, "There's never a convenient time." Friends have said the same regarding children: there's never a time in your life when you say, "Right, we seem to have a bunch of extra money, lots of free time, way too much sleep, and nothing much to do. The perfect time to fill it with children!" Obviously some times are worse than others, but in the end you just have to do it and deal with the inconvenience. (Assuming, of course, that it's something you want to do.)

And like renewable energy / carbon emissions (related but actually separate ideas), there is a time factor: wait too long, and things become much more inconvenient; wait longer, and things become impossible.

Re:Its about time

[j-beda]

Actually, why do you think the US has the highest standard of living, best medical care, richest country in the world, etc? Could be be that we were the only country to ever use free markets? Nope, couldn't POSSIBLY be because of that!

What does it mean when none of your supposed results is factual (standard of living, medical care, richness), and your supposed reason (only country to use free markets) is also incorrect? Perhaps the rest of your comments are similarly inaccurate?

The highest standard of living currently seems to be Norway, with the US at 6:
http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1

The best medical care seems to be in France or Italy (at least in 2000), with the US at 37th:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The richest country in the world via GNP/capita seems to be Liechtenstein, with the US at #8, according to the CIA, slightly different rankings via other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The freest economy of the world seems to be Hong Kong, with the US at #6. Surely all of the top six have "free markets" to at least a similar level as the US:
http://www.heritage.org/index/

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, why do you think the US has the highest standard of living, best medical care, richest country in the world, etc? Could be be that we were the only country to ever use free markets? Nope, couldn't POSSIBLY be because of that!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!1

Re:Its about time

[Rockoon]

"We both just lost our jobs. Hey, lets have children!"

Re:Its about time

[martyros]

Heh -- don't miss the "bunch of extra money" condition. If you both just lost your jobs because you were bragging too much about winning the lottery, or because the company you started without venture capital was bought out for $10M, and you aren't too busy with travelling the world, looking for second homes in tropical locations, or what-not, then yeah, might be a convenient time to have kids. :-)

Re:Its about time

[BeanThere]

Incompetent? No, I think they know exactly what they're doing: Some bureaucrats smell a cash opportunity, and want to milk it. This is *especially* important during a recession, as they need to also justify their payrolls - now they can look like they're "doing something" while raising the cash to keep paying their salaries, whilst otherwise voters would send them to the streets.

Basically the economic climate naturally increases the pressure for smaller government, while those politicians who know they aren't doing much useful and thus could stand to lose their jobs from 'smaller government' have to try correspondingly harder to come up with some way to justify being paid by taxpayers and generate more tax income. It's like a huge network designed mainly to come up with ways to increase the amount of money flowing into it - basically by definition.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

If the market "worked", wouldn't it have compensated for the government intervention with mortgages?

That doesn't even make sense. The government forced them to do things that weren't financially sound. That's like you saying that if I was smart I'd have "compensated" for the money the government took from me in taxes.

Yes, sometimes markets fail, but governments always fail. We do use the government for the things that markets can't efficiently produce (roads, military, police, other emergency services) - but even though the government does a better job with those than the market could, the government still does a horribly inefficient job. If you have two options for a car, which one will you go with - the ones that is 90% reliable or the one that's 0% reliable? You're choosing the 0% reliable one, which no sane person would do.

In any case, as I said before, the Minnesota tax on carbon emissions (not on energy!) is an attempt to use the market to solve a problem. The fact that they're using a tax to do things economically, rather than simply passing laws about what you must / may not do, means that they do believe in the "free market" to solve problems and come up with the best solution.

It is a tax on energy because where do you think those emissions come from (other than humans, so it's nice to know that they plan to tax breathing now)? They come from gasoline, diesel, and power plants. Seeing as how only a small percent of our power comes from non-fossil fuel plants, they're taxing energy. If alternative fuels were feasible for providing energy for the entire country right now, then it would be a tax only on certain sources - but we're still decades away from that point.

It is not believing in the market to force people to pay more for all their energy usage, even that which is out of their control (such as the energy used to create the clothing they buy). Believing in the market would mean exactly what I said - when it becomes economically viable to change to non-fossil fuels, people will do it.

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

Please research the horrible biases used in most (if not all) of those studies, especially the one about medical care. The information is easily available, with many people who worked for the groups coming up with those numbers admitting that the numbers are horribly manipulated.

As for GDP/GNP per capita, that is not equivalent to "richest country". Yes, their average income may be higher (which it is, I'm well aware of Lichtenstein's position economically), but they do not have anywhere near the percentage of middle class or upper class people of the general population that the US has. The US still (well, for now) allows the poorest person the chance to become a billionaire - there are plenty of rags to riches stories in the US, yet not so many coming from socialist countries....I wonder why that is?

As for the freest economy, did I say we still have a free economy? No, I didn't, because we don't. We used to and that is what made us rich and powerful. Now we have morons like Obama destroying the very thing that made this country great, and it's been slowly happening for 100 years.

Re:Its about time

[j-beda]

Well, you claim they are biased, and maybe they are, but you have yet to support your contentions in any way, so my "biased" sources seem significantly better than your non-existent ones.

By what measure is the US at the top of the health care heap?

What are the odds in the US of starting out poor and ending up upper-middle-class? How do they compare to other nations? I certainly do not know, but I would bet that those "socialist" countries like Canada or western Europe have better odds than the USA. There are plenty of rags-to-comfortable stories coming out of socialis nations, and there seem to be fewer "rags" stories to start off with - is that such a bad thing?

Re:Its about time

[Totenglocke]

If you cared at all (which you don't), you'd look up how the numbers are fabricated by the UN / WHO to push socialism and punish the US for not being socialist enough. I've read multiple accounts and I even have a book with citations for it in this room, but I learned years ago on slashdot that the collectivists such as yourself don't care about facts, so I stopped wasting the time providing links. If you think that my claims are so unbelievable, do some research yourself.

As for "by what measure is the US at the top of the health care heap"? Well we have the shortest times for getting treatment, we have the highest number of hi-tech medical equipment per capita, we have the highest survival rate of premature births, the highest survival rate for cancer patients, we have access to the most advanced medicines and treatments, we have the highest number of doctors per capita - do you want me to continue?

Yes, we pay more, but when it comes to saving your life or the life of a loved one, wouldn't you rather pay more and have them live or pay less and have their odds of survival drastically decrease? There are many things that can be done to improve medical care in our country - but unfortunately, the government won't go near most of them (such as the fact that the government prevents insurance companies from being able to operate in all 50 states, and as a result suppresses competition and artificially raises prices). Is it perfect? No, no system ever could be. But it's a hell of a lot better than what the rest of the world has. Also, if the socialist "free" health care is so wonderful, how come the majority of people in socialist countries pay for private complimentary insurance?

What are the odds in the US of starting out poor and ending up upper-middle-class?

It depends on how hard you work - which is the problem because every year Americans get lazier and lazier. We have politicians saying "You're American, you deserve a good paying job without working for it just because you live in the US!", which only makes the problem worse. However, with just an average amount of effort it's very easy to go from poor to middle class - which is a hell of a lot better off than the typical person in a socialist country. I've personally known dozens of people who grew up in poor homes, some of them even welfare homes, and they went on to put out some effort in school, went to college, and now have good paying jobs and a quality of life they could only dream of as children. The opportunity is there for everyone, it's just a matter of deciding to work to get there. And that's the problem, too many people believe (as you do) that you should be given XYZ just because you're alive and decide to sit on the couch instead of working to improve their life.

How do they compare to other nations? I certainly do not know, but I would bet that those "socialist" countries like Canada or western Europe have better odds than the USA.

Really? You think countries with higher income tax rates (meaning less money), higher unemployment rates (meaning less opportunity to get a job and make money), and more restrictions on pretty much every aspect of their life have a better chance of working to improve their life? You either don't understand how motivation works or you're just willfully ignoring human nature in order to push your agenda.

There are plenty of rags-to-comfortable stories coming out of socialis nations, and there seem to be fewer "rags" stories to start off with - is that such a bad thing?

Yes, it is a bad thing because of how it's done. It's not done by promoting hard work and education, it's not done by providing incentives for people to succeed - it's done by punishing everyone and flat out stealing from those who do work hard to reward those who didn't. Socialism only works by taking money from those who worked for it and giving it to those who didn't. Would you consider robbing a bank or mug

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets could work if there were no externalities. But it's impossible to do that so regulations and taxes can be used to simulate the costs of those externalities.

Re:Its about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon emissions are not an externality (unless you want to tax people for breathing), they are a fact of life.

Ah, another idiot that can't distinguish between carbon emissions that are already a part of the carbon cycle that's been going on for billions of years and carbon emissions from carbon that's been sequestered from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. While you can't tell the difference between the CO2 emitted by either process one is part of a natural balance and the other is adding more carbon without a corresponding sink to balance it out.

Re:Its about time

[j-beda]

I'm sorry you do not feel I am worthy of being better informed. All of my research without your assistance seems to come up with information basically contradicting your statements. I guess the "socialists" have managed to hide the truth from my eyes?

Tax rates by country seem to put the US on the lower side of things for personal tax rates, but still comperable to Canada, and higher than Iceland, Ireland, and Australia, and the highest of the graphed countries for corporate tax rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

As for "by what measure is the US at the top of the health care heap"? Well we have the shortest times for getting treatment, we have the highest number of hi-tech medical equipment per capita, we have the highest survival rate of premature births, the highest survival rate for cancer patients, we have access to the most advanced medicines and treatments, we have the highest number of doctors per capita - do you want me to continue?

Humm, LA seems to have 12+ hour wait times in the emergency room, which doesn't sound great:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-er-wait-times-socal21-2009dec21,0,2238664.story

I can't think of how to search for "hi-tech medical equipment per capita", so could you let me know where to find that?

Premature birth survival rates are also hard to find for me at least, and as you noted, the birth survival stats are a bit hard to compare across countries and regions due to different reporting methods - if you had some references I would be interested if it wasn't too much trouble.

The US cancer survival rate seems among the highest, but clearly not THE highest, particularly if you are not white it would seem:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

The US is way down the list on doctors-per-capita, ranking 52nd on the list by nationmaster, and also mentioned in this piece on Forbes. Oh the Forbs article mentions "the amount of highly expensive medical equipment per capita" as being highest in the USA, but that the lead is shrinking.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

Heck, that Forbes article (are they a socialist rag? I thought they were sort of right-leaning?) seems to indicate they at least do not think "it [the US medical system]'s a hell of a lot better than what the rest of the world has."

The overall point seems to be that American citizens, as a whole, do NOT "have access to the most advanced medicines and treatments", in that a significant fraction of them have little to no access to primary health care that they can afford.

In my opinion, much of your opposition to various levels of socialism is well founded. There are downsides and disincentives inherent in any system trying to promote the collective good, however I think you are being willfully ignorant to think that the current situation in the USA is somehow vastly superior to situations in other places where different decisions have been made. One of the biggest problems in policy formation in the US is the instinctive fear or socialism and big government so what seems to happen is that we end up with the worst of both worlds - governmental programs that artificially alter the market, but do not actually benefit anyone but a few special interests. In the US we already have a whole lot of socialism, it is just half-assed and poorly implemented.

It's just gunna get pushed to the customers

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the region and if Minnesota goes through with this then Minnesota customers are the one's that are going to be paying for the carbon tax.

Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers

[maxume]

That's actually the whole point of it.

Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers

[Anonymous Coward]

People who pay the Windows tax are being discriminated against!

Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers

[smchris]

And if it doesn't go through, you can pay for your kid's asthma medication and you and the wife's emphysema before you die young. Your choice. Which option seems more intelligent to you?

Feel strongly about the issue. Left a good job in Baltimore a couple decades ago because I couldn't handle the blue "fog" (as the locals lovingly called it). Minnesota air, at least in the Twin Cities, is already surprisingly mediocre during inversions -- largely because we are 20-30 years behind many other U.S. metropolitan areas in mass transit. Which is not to compare against world-class mass transit of course. Essentially because we have a numb-nuts Republican "national-level-wanna-be" for a governor who wouldn't invest a dollar on the "commons" if you put a gun to his head, and because the state is half urban/half rural so the state congressmen from the rural areas couldn't care less if the cities choke in their own vomit of traffic jams.

North Dakota is like China except that in its case it's so _under_populated that environmentalism is something other people do. "How dare anyone suggest that North Dakota is a 'dirty state?'" Just isn't in their image of themselves. So how is Minnesota supposed to protect itself against that mentality when the winds usually blow west to east?

Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers

[guruevi]

Of course. And since companies won't like this they will either get an exemption or they will move out of state which will leave you without jobs (and thus no money) to pay for said electricity - see, problem solved, Minnesota will no longer have any carbon emissions, only methane emissions from their subjects rotting away.

Wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenhouse gases and global warming has been shown to be a hoax, yet these morons are dreaming up more taxes based on a lie. That just goes to show you it has nothing whatever to do with cleaning up the environment, but rather more and ever increasing control over peoples' money and lives.

Obvious, but...

[querist]

This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?

Re:Obvious, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pockets, sir. Pockets.

Re:Obvious, but...

[Trepidity]

How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?

It makes cleaner electricity generators more competitive because, as you point out, it raises the price of their competitors' product (electricity from coal-fired generators). A tax on a competitor is basically an indirect subsidy.

Re:Obvious, but...

[evilviper]

This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers.

The claim is used frequently, by people who have no business knowledge at all, and it's almost always used incorrectly.

In truth, higher costs are almost always only partially passed on to the customer, if at all.

It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.

Do you have any idea what subject you're discussing, or did you not make it through the summary?

We're talking about OUT-OF-STATE electricity. YOU (the consumer) will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be doing business with them directly, so it doesn't matter that you can't switch. Instead YOUR POWER COMPANY is the one doing business with them, and they sure as hell CAN switch to some other provider.

How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?

Go read the definition of a tariff. Why you think they don't work is beyond me.

When the "dirty" electricity is 5% more expensive, that means "clean" electricity becomes 5% less expensive, by comparison. So now there is a slightly larger curve where "clean" makes economic sense. Additionally, this opens the door to clean power plants using technologies which are 5% more expensive, but can now be profitable.

Re:Obvious, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing people are going to be using less energy at home, since prices will invariably increase. This could matriculate to a bad place, considering how cold it can get up north.

End result? Less energy being used, and less carbon being 'spilled' into the atmosphere. Win-Win I say!

Re:Obvious, but...

[X_Bones]

In certain states like Massachusetts, the power plants and the transmission wires are owned by different people. Residents can choose who they want to get their electricity from.

That way the local public utility infrastructure can be regulated by one set of rules, and the electricity providers by a different set. Makes sense to me. Now if we could only have the same separation of infrastructure and content with the cable companies...

Re:Obvious, but...

[ptbarnett]

You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.

In your state (and Minnesota?), that might be true. In mine, it's not. I have the choice of many power generation companies:

http://powertochoose.org/

I can choose variable rates or fix my electricity rate for up to 24 months. I can also choose electricity solely from renewable sources (it's usually a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour more, compared to non-renewable sources from the same provider).

Rather than imposing a tax on producers, Minnesota legislators should consider giving consumers this kind of choice and let each individual decide whether they want to pay more for electricity from a renewable source.

The funny thing is: renewable sources are reportedly the least popular in the most "liberal" parts of Texas. I guess that when it's time to write that check, the money in their wallet is "greener" than their desire to save the planet.

Re:Obvious, but...

[guspasho]

How exactly?

Easy. Just like you said, the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers. As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive, consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper, and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.

Also, there may be no choice between electricity providers, but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy. Portland General Electric does this. It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.

Of course, hydroelectric power is plentiful here.

I happen to favor this

[ihuntrocks]

At the risk of getting flamed and shot down, I have to admit that I actually favor actions like this. Will it hold up in a legal sense? Like the Queen's ass, that remains to be seen. However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure. Oh, I think you should be free to buy whatever you wish, but I think that freedom should include the freedom to have to spend all of your money on the stupid, inefficient, and harmful things if you so desire them. I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things. It's time the tables turned, in my opinion.

Re:I happen to favor this

[CannonballHead]

However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.

This is, of course, predicated on you believing AGW. Which appears to be up for debate. Significantly.

Re:I happen to favor this

[khallow]

However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.

How about the things such as coal burning plants which aren't "blatantly harmful" to human beings? I recognize there is some pollution issues with coal burning. It produces small amounts of sulfur dioxides, nitrates, and even introduces more radiation than nuclear plants. They also provide electricity to people and businesses. Benefits outweigh the minor harm.

I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things.

I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".

Re:I happen to favor this

[jamesh]

should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure

I prefer to think of it as balancing the books. If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up. This cleaning up can happen in various ways, in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution:
. The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air, and charges you an increased rate for doing so
. The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees, and on-charges you
. You plant some trees
. You pay a third party to plant some trees
. The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some trees

Obviously that's insanely simplified, but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.

Are such tariff's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days?

Re:I happen to favor this

[ihuntrocks]

Let me say, my post is actually more about efficiency versus inefficiency. Generating your power outside of your state and pushing it across inefficient lines (where the majority of our generated electricity is lost) is horribly inefficient. Inefficient use of finite resources IS blatantly harmful, to anyone involved. Furthermore, I was at one time, a Geology major, so I have never really bought into AGW. I'm not really arguing it from that standpoint.

However, when you look at what all it takes to run a coal power plant, in terms of construction, mining, transport of coal, and actual production versus other alternative methods, it is fairly easy to see that the more efficient use of resources and manpower lie with the alternative methods. Additionally, to place so much stake on a finite resource to provide for our insatiable, continued need for energy production over methods that are, over time period that we will need energy production, far less scare, is absolutely nonsensical to me.

I hope I have done something to further clarify my arguments here, and what my stance actually is.

Re:I happen to favor this

[ihuntrocks]

So long as those trees you plant aren't close enough to that coal plant to be effected by the acid rain (coal being made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, the byproducts of which will form carbonic and sulfuric acid in rain), and if they are far enough away to escape exposure to the mercury, uranium, thorium, and arsenic that are also byproducts of coal emissions. If so, that plan works wonderfully.

Re:I happen to favor this

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to volunteer to have the exhaust pass over your home? Do you even live within 10 miles of a coal power plant?

They aren't clean, and they cost lots of money each month to run.

Re:I happen to favor this

[khallow]

Inefficient use of finite resources IS blatantly harmful, to anyone involved.

If it is cheaper, then it isn't less efficient. And merely being relatively inefficient in the consumption of some resource isn't blatantly harmful to anyone.

Re:I happen to favor this

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone must not pay their own electricity bill. There are very few places where you get to choose where your power comes from.

As a result, the realistic effect of such a tax will be that people in Minnesota will pay more for their electricity, and get absolutely no gain out of it. However, the state will bring in more money in the form of tax dollars, which will be corruptly blown on just about anything but something people actually need. I'd say now is the time to start donating to some Minnesota State Senator's campaigns, to get the corrupt payoff when the money starts rolling in.

It's not like the government knows how to save money, even though that is exactly what they try to tell everyone else to do.

Re:I happen to favor this

[khallow]

Are you going to volunteer to have the exhaust pass over your home? Do you even live within 10 miles of a coal power plant?

I have before. And sure, I don't see the problem with having the exhaust pass over my house.

They aren't clean, and they cost lots of money each month to run.

Well, then I'm glad I don't have to clean one up or pay to keep it running.

Re:I happen to favor this

[NotBornYesterday]

I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".

Well, since toxicity is related to dosage rather than substance, one could argue that everything is harmful, and should be regulated, taxed, and carry a warning label, which is where a lot of the alarmists would like to take us.

That being said, coal-fired power plants suck ass is a major way, and fuck up the environment for lots of people who bear none of the benefits of that plant. The water here in the northeast has been plagued for decades by acid rain produced by power plants in the midwest. The local power producers there reap the benefits of cheap coal, allow the fallout to cause problems here, while they deny responsibility and refuse to modernize their equipment. They profit at the expense of my backyard.

I don't like the idea of a carbon tax, and I don't like the idea of over-regulating industry, or granting the government another revenue stream to become addicted to. However, I love seeing coal plants take a good kick in the nuts, because that's exactly what they've been doing to the rest of us for a long time now.

Of course, the problem here is that the coal plants won't suffer much ... it will all fall on the shoulders of consumers. Good luck to the unemployed folks in Minnesota paying their electric bill.

Re:I happen to favor this

[ihuntrocks]

I'm sorry, but you make a, sadly common, American/capitalist mistake here by giving price and cost equivalence. Just because the price is cheaper doesn't meant the cost is. You have to look at total cost in terms of calculating efficient use of resources. That may or may not include a straight monetary figure.

Re:I happen to favor this

[NotBornYesterday]

Well, to plant enough trees to compensate for the carbon we're throwing in the air, we'd probably have to reforest the Amazon for millions of years. Not that it's a bad idea, I just sayin' ...

Re:I happen to favor this

[s73v3r]

It doesn't even have to be about AGW. Go look at your average coal mining site. Go look at your average coal plant. There's a lot of crap that gets spewed out, and that crap can't be good for the environment or for you and I. There should be disincentive to doing those things, as the people who reap the benefits of causing pollution often aren't the ones who have to live with it, or pay the costs of it.

Re:I happen to favor this

[Randle_Revar]

>AGW. Which appears to be up for debate

LOL

Re:I happen to favor this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, of course, predicated on you believing AGW. Which appears to be up for debate. Significantly.

Burning coal harms people and earth in way more ways than climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal

Re:I happen to favor this

[CannonballHead]

That's fine, then. But "carbon credits" isn't the answer to getting rid of dirty coal plants. :)

Re:I happen to favor this

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Acid rain is only harmful if you're a huge wuss, obviously.

Re:I happen to favor this

[khallow]

You have to look at total cost in terms of calculating efficient use of resources.

Markets do an excellent job of that. The problem reduces to pricing in externalities. The use of resources for which you paid, isn't an externality.

Re:I happen to favor this

[khallow]

Scrubbers, which almost all coal burning plants in the US have, eliminated that problem.

Re:I happen to favor this

[ihuntrocks]

Markets do a piss poor job of that. Case in point: wire hangers. Cheap to make, cheap to buy, cheap to throw away. We don't really pay for the environmental impact of this. Enough are thrown away each year to account for enough steel to make thousands of new cars. But, hey, who cares if steel is steel and extraction is extraction? We're talking profit margins, something the market is quite adept at increasing, no matter the actual cost. We can't really afford to throw away thousands of cars the same way we do hangers, even though steel is steel and extraction is extraction. This is what I mean by price != cost.

Re:I happen to favor this

[xaxa]

Since when did the power company pay to clean one up anyway?

That's an externality you're missing. Some others:
- damage caused by coal mining (pollution of rivers, groundwater, air, damage to the landscape, noise, etc)
- damage to mine workers (health problems)
- pollution from burning the coal (acid rain, asthma, dust, radiation, mercury)
- waste ash + effects of disposal

Re:I happen to favor this

[tsm_sf]

This is, of course, predicated on you believing AGW. Which appears to be up for debate. Significantly.

Only if you're a conservative American. Curiously enough that's about the same demographic that still believes the earth is 6000 years old.

Seriously, guys. You were all saying that GW didn't exist a few years ago. Now it exists but isn't manmade. In 10 years you'll be saying that it exists, is manmade, but we can't do anything about it. Do you ever have a thought glennn beck doesn't think first?

Re:I happen to favor this

[Miamicanes]

> Case in point: wire hangers.

I beg to differ. Wire hangers are a universal building supply and tool, proudly serving next to duct tape and WD-40 as a universal tool and replacement part. Unlike any wire you can buy at Home Depot (at least, for less than $1/foot), clothes hangers are made from nice, stiff wire that can be bent into custom shapes without losing much of its strength in the process.

I shudder to think of what I'd have to do if I accidentally dropped something important (like keys) into a dirty toilet and didn't have a supply of wire hangers available to form into adhoc fishhook or tongs. If you're so green, PLEASE don't tell me you actually do something as environmentally incorrect as use wood paddles to stir paint. Use a repurposed metal coathanger, instead! After all, few things are more green than 'adaptive reuse' -- and few things are as suitable for wholesale daily adaptive reuse as metal clothes hangers! :D

Re:I happen to favor this

[BCoates]

We're not going to run out of iron. Ever. And the steel in a car is a tiny fraction of the environmental impact of the car over it's lifetime, so it's not like re-using enough wire hangers to equal the weight of steel in a car offsets the vehicle.

If you're going to look at the environmental impact of dry-cleaning, the washing process itself and the car trip to deliver a few shirts and the employees of the store dwarf a few coat-hangers. And the form the better part of the expenses of the company, and are where they try to seek savings, rather than a few hangers (aside from putting out a recycling box to make people like you feel better).

The market is creating incentives to conserve scarce goods. It's not infallible, but neither are the people who would substitute their judgement for that of people with skin in the game.

Re:I happen to favor this

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me say, my post is actually more about efficiency versus inefficiency. Generating your power outside of your state and pushing it across inefficient lines (where the majority of our generated electricity is lost) is horribly inefficient.

As an electrical engineer specializing in power systems, let me assure you that this is not correct. Losses in transmission and distribution systems are relatively insignificant. I have seen estimates between 5% and 10%. Wikipedia says 7.2% according to a 1995 study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses). There isn't a large electrical problem with losses in reasonable distance transmission. Economics are another matter, with costs being measured in the millions of dollars per mile.

Re:I happen to favor this

[csartanis]

I favor this as well. The disincentive of using stores of carbon as an energy source will push the development of cleaner (and now cheaper) ways of harvesting energy.

Re:I happen to favor this

[ichigo 2.0]

Indeed. Here in the EU companies bought up old coal plants in eastern europe that would have been shut down anyways due to them being uncompetitive and modernized/closed them to get carbon credits.

But AFAIK this article is not about carbon credits. ;)

Re:I happen to favor this

[CannonballHead]

No, but taxing "carbon emission" and "carbon credits" seem to have roughly the same idea behind them...

Re:I happen to favor this

[CannonballHead]

ou were all saying that GW didn't exist a few years ago. Now it exists but isn't manmade.

That's because "global warming" was typically used to refer to "man-made global warming."

And I don't listen to Beck, he's actually annoying to me.

They are building a border wall with cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are building a distributed system that will allow citizens to remotely view the cameras and report any carbon dioxide molecules that illegally cross.

I am proud

[haderytn]

To live in Minnesota!

This qwill fail;

[geekoid]

you can't tariff another state..you can TAX the hell out of electricity from that state. tariff and tax is not the same thing.

Re:This qwill fail;

[guspasho]

I may be wrong but I think that in this case, it is the same thing.

Re:This qwill fail;

[LostCluster]

futhermore, states can't tax cargo moving through... that's Interstate Commerce and only the feds can mess that up.

Them are fightin words

[Archangel Michael]

I smell War! North Dakota should invade!

Re:Them are fightin words

[swb]

Until not that long ago, wasn't North Dakota something like the world's #3 or #4 nuclear power? Between the missile silos and the airbases in Grand Forks and Minot, I think they had plenty of nukes.

Re:Them are fightin words

[osu-neko]

Alas, no. The nukes may be located within the Dakotas, but they belong to Washington, DC, which given the current administration, isn't about to nuke a blue state. :p

Re:Them are fightin words

[s73v3r]

Back during the Cold War, a lot of the nuclear missile silos were located in the Midwest, specifically the Dakotas and Montana. Growing up in SD, I would hear stories from teachers about practicing for fallout drills, because should such an attack come from those heartless bastard Commies, we would be one of the initial targets. Anyways, what you're referring to was the thought that should South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana secede from the nation and form their own, it would be one of the top 5 nuclear powers in the world.

Re:Them are fightin words

[swb]

They belong to whoever has them, the Federal government is merely confident in the loyalty of the soldiers in which they have entrusted them.

You don't own anything you can't carry in your own two hands at a run.

It's Even More Complicated Than that

[eldavojohn]

Those are all certainly good points but it's not nearly cut and dried unconstitutional as people are making it out to be. For example, I believe states can rightfully burden interstate commerce in the name of health and safety. Take an example from 1890 where states had different laws on the quality and inspection of meat that could be sold within their borders for human consumption. In the name of public safety, Minnesota was allowed to burden interstate commerce on foods not inspected within its borders after someone distributed rank meat acquired from Illinois and not certified by a Minnesota inspector.

Now, this requires Minnesota to prove that the coal generated electricity is a threat to health and or safety of its citizens. That's going to be hard to do. But as your other post pointed out, they've been going about this for quite sometime but I'm sure every year they feel closer to being able to prove this is legal on account of public safety.

Re:It's Even More Complicated Than that

[Red Flayer]

Now, this requires Minnesota to prove that the coal generated electricity is a threat to health and or safety of its citizens. That's going to be hard to do.

Au contraire, mon frere. This issue has been proved already in federal court, relating to federal lawsuits brought by NJ under the Clean Air Act to stop dirty coal-fired plants in upwind states (PA, OH, WV, maybe more).

Re:It's Even More Complicated Than that

[Montezumaa]

Nothing like that has been proven.

Of course

[lcoscare]

This will not likely reduce carbon, what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down. This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China. Companies in the US can't afford to meet all the environmental regulations, so they move to China, and continue to pollute. The end result is the same amount of pollution, and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations.

Re:Of course

[osu-neko]

The tax doesn't get evaded by moving the power-generation out of state. That's what has North Dakota hopping mad and bringing a lawsuit. The effect of this is not to move power generation out of state, that's already happened, the coal plants MN is drawing power from are in ND. What the expected effect is, is that by making imported power from ND more expensive, MN power companies will turn to wind farms and such, which, coincidentally, are being developed in MN. The end result is pretty much the opposite of what you assert -- bringing the power generation back home to Minnesota. The Dakotans are calling this protectionism. They may be right. However, it's not technically unconstitutional, since it's not a tax on imported power, it's a tax on a particular type of power that happens to be largely imported.

Re:Of course

[ari_j]

Except that Minnesota's tax is on electricity generated by coal plants anywhere, which is the source of the whole North Dakota thing. North Dakota has a huge electrical generating capacity, most of it from North Dakota coal with increasing portions from wind farms in various parts of the state, and exports a lot of that electrical power to Minnesota. Minnesota is doing nothing but increasing the price of electricity for its people.

Re:Of course

[Chirs]

You miss the point. They're increasing the price of electricity as currently provided in order to create incentives to provide alternate forms of electricity generation.

Coal is dirty and cheap. As long as it stays cheap, there is little incentive to use more expensive alternate sources. If they make coal artificially expensive, it becomes economically feasible to invest in alternate sources. Once they're commoditized, the alternate sources may become cheaper, bringing the price of electricity back down.

Re:Of course

[ari_j]

I don't miss that point. I was pointing out a different one that the parent had missed. Your point is valid, of course. But wind and other non-fossil-fuel energy sources are already highly subsidized. They likely won't develop much faster than the current pace, so this will just artificially increase the price of electricity for Minnesotans in the meantime. If the slight increase in development pace is worth that burden on consumers, then that's fine - I am not able to decide that one.

Making coal power artificially more expensive in dollars to accommodate for the non-fiscal costs to the environment, etc., is a goal that this tax does properly address. It doesn't, however, answer whether that's a good idea. What are the environmental costs of wind power? That question has not fully been answered, but at least we can be honest and say that wind power is not free to the environment, as it uses more acres of land than other sources and requires manufacturing processes that are probably less harmful than for solar panels, but how much less? I wonder how many gallons of diesel are burned by the trucks hauling the components of a wind tower to a farm, how long the wind tower has to be in operation to make up for that particular carbon footprint, and how that duration compares to the usable life of the tower.

It's even worse

[jvonk]

Everything is defined as interstate commerce now, at least when the Feds want it to be. Allow me to cite two Supreme Court cases:

Gonzales v. Raich - A woman in California grew medical marijuana (legal in CA) and gave it away for free, solely within California. This was defined as interstate commerce in the decision.

US v. Stewart - Stewart personally designed and built his own homebrew machine guns, not for sale. After he was busted by the feds, he lost the case but won on appeal. The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court. It was remanded by the Supreme Court back to the appellate court for reconsideration "in light of" Raich. This means that the Supreme Court considers Stewart's actions to be interstate commerce too.

In conclusion, "interstate commerce" is now de facto defined as "anything the Federal government wants to regulate, even if there is no commercial or interstate aspect". Naturally, I imagine that this flexible definition is reserved for the Feds use only--no doubt states will have to continue to use the actual definition (ie. what the Constitution actually means).

Re:It's even worse

[Trepidity]

Naturally, I imagine that this flexible definition is reserved for the Feds use only--no doubt states will have to continue to use the actual definition (ie. what the Constitution actually means).

As far as "what the Constitution actually means", it's not clear that there is actually a blanket ban on states regulating interstate commerce--- there is textually no such ban. It's been inferred from the commerce clause to form the so-called dormant commerce clause. But yes, under existing precedent the dormant commerce clause prohibits a much narrower range of things than the positive commerce clause enables, so states are not automatically prohibited from doing anything that Raich would permit to the U.S. government.

Re:It's even worse

[Montezumaa]

Is it just me, or did the government claim in Raich that consuming your own marijuana affects the interstate marijuana trade and that causes your marijuana or personal consumption to become interstate commerce? Is the government really trying to say that if I use marijuana I grow myself that I am hurting people who are importing marijuana? I know I must have read that wrong.

The Commerce Clause, while overused, is very clear. It does not talking about the possible effects on current interstate trade, but actual trade. Just because to build or grow something for myself, the courts cannot hold onto the possibility of adjustments to interstate trade. A person must be able to avoid taxation and control, if they wish, by making or growing a product for themselves. It is the foundation of the United States Constitution.

I am a strong conservative, but the Supreme Court violated the Constitution in Raich and Stewart.

Re:It's even worse

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In Article I section 10 there is textually such a ban on interstate tariffs.

Re:It's even worse

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Unfortunately for you and the rest of the normal people in this country, the Supreme Court could define the Constitution as Roast Beef and we'd all have to eat it.

Re:It's even worse

[larry bagina]

Yes. Also, women are scared of being raped and that prevents them from traveling to other states to go shopping. Also, there must be a gun-free zone around schools so a kids can go on field trips to other states to go shopping. The supreme court actually struck that one down (in 5-4 decision).

Re:It's even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Also, women are scared of being raped and that prevents them from traveling to other states to go shopping

Well, no. They just can't bring their gun with them. Seriously though, they should simply grow up and stop being so paranoid. That or just stay locked in their house, with the blinds closed, a shotgun facing the door, and an iron chastity belt on.

Crime just doesn't happen all that often.

Re:It's even worse

[mjwx]

Stewart personally designed and built his own homebrew machine guns

The word "homebrew' is not appropriate here, "homemade" is far more accurate as he was making the machine guns, not brewing them. Physical process compared to a chemical process.

Re:It's even worse

[jvonk]

Given this forum's audience, homebrew seemed a reasonable term/analogy. It seems it may have been too esoteric, though.

Re:It's even worse

[jvonk]

Thus if all your guns and ammunition are manufactured within the state you live, they can't bring a federal case.

Well, despite your assertion, that's exactly what they did in the Stewart case. Anyway, your arguments seem to be summarized by your final statement:

Which is that the federal government is in its rights to prevent the creation of an interstate market for an illegal good.

You beg the question... under which Constitutionally-enumerated power does the Federal government have the ability to designate machine guns or even drugs as illegal? Oh, right, the original theory they used was the interstate commerce clause--thus making your argument circularly referential.

Case in point: back in the beginning of the 20th century, the Powers That Be decided that drugs are bad (mm'kay?). They hadn't invented twisting the commerce clause beyond belief, so they attempted to tax it out of existence. That wasn't very effective as a total ban, so they decided to escalate.

Think of Prohibition. When it was imposed, Constitutional interpretation indicated that an entire amendment was necessary to ban alcohol. In today's world, this could be accomplished by a simple law under the twisted commerce clause theory.

Actually, I misspoke: in today's world, all it would take is a bureaucrat making a decision, much less a law or (god forbid) an amendment. Look what happened with MDMA -- the DEA criminalized its possession (ie. Schedule I) by regulatory fiat in 1985. No law, not even a Congressional debate.

We have certainly come a long way in Constitutional interpretation, and not necessarily in an intellectually honest fashion.

Re:It's even worse

[FiloEleven]

Is it just me, or did the government claim in Raich that consuming your own marijuana affects the interstate marijuana trade and that causes your marijuana or personal consumption to become interstate commerce? Is the government really trying to say that if I use marijuana I grow myself that I am hurting people who are importing marijuana? I know I must have read that wrong.

Nope, you read it right. It's the court that is wrong, and absurdly so. I recommend a read of Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion--it's pretty scathing and spot-on.

Re:It's even worse

[Ihmhi]

How the hell can that fly? Interstate. It literally means "between states", meaning if something doesn't cross a border than it isn't interstate commerce. You don't even need a law book to understand this - you just need a dictionary.

I'm surprised those cases haven't been completely thrown out.

Re:It's even worse

[Agripa]

Also, there must be a gun-free zone around schools so a kids can go on field trips to other states to go shopping. The supreme court actually struck that one down (in 5-4 decision).

And congress promptly passed it again with an added "insofar as the firearm has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" clause added.

I guess the State of Minnesota...

[ScientiaPotentiaEst]

... has such a surplus that it can afford to introduce yet another incentive to leave.

Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives? For example, when raising taxes, they calculate expected increases in revenue while underestimating changes in the behavior of the taxed. They always act surprised when the expected additional revenues don't materialize, or indeed revenues fall.

Perhaps it has something to do with most elected officials being lawyers and not businessmen, engineers, etc.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[ari_j]

Interestingly enough, North Dakota is one of the few state governments that has a surplus right now. A huge one. With the lowest unemployment rate (4.1%, low in any economy). Guess which industry can rightly take a lot of the credit for making that possible.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[osu-neko]

Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?

Huh? That's exactly what this is all about. They're trying to get people to stop using coal. They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive. If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[ScientiaPotentiaEst]

Yes. And by increasing the cost of energy, MN has introduced a dis-incentive for others moving there, spending there, investing there and creating industry there. That the power stations were built in ND illustrates the point. As ari_j noted, ND is doing well by it - at the expense of MN.

Besides, given the dubious rationale for raising taxes spouted by so many politicians recently, I suspect the real motivation of this new tax has little to do with the environment.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[simp7264]

He's saying they might not like the disincentive of paying more for electricity so much, they will take their business to another state. Causing a loss in tax revenue in the process of course.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?

They don't. They never do. They have fully considered the effects and concluded that collecting more money to redistribute to their favorites is more important than the standard of living of their subjects.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the lowest unemployment rate (4.1%, low in any economy). Guess which industry can rightly take a lot of the credit for making that possible.

The busing and transportation industry?

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[Attila Dimedici]

Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?

Huh? That's exactly what this is all about. They're trying to get people to stop using coal. They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive. If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.

Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric. As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN, this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in.

Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...

[csartanis]

So you're saying maybe it isn't a money grab after all?

Probably Wind Incentives to Companies

[eldavojohn]

This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies. How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation? What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?

Minnesota has grown to be fourth in Wind Power generation. And if you look at time lapse growth they're really pushing that. The weird thing about it is that they're not even one of the prime wind resource states although I will testify that the wind gets ridiculous out there. Now, you probably already know this but Tim Pawlenty (Republican) is the governor of Minnesota and of course is going to try to get a bid for the presidential run in 2012. On his about page:

implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025

As a moderate Democrat, I was kind of afraid when he almost got a bid in 2008 ... because he's actually not that bad of a candidate. He doesn't talk like a moron and he's got his head in a lot of the right places. If he would cut the Christian God talk out of his speeches, I'd probably be on board. Sorry to get offtopic but I'm trying to say that this tariff would probably be a huge in road for him to moderates if he could pull it off. I'm certain he's not the prime motivator behind this but I would bet that they'd take the taxes from this and dump it into wind incentives. They're racing against Iowa in the wind department. California and Texas are too big and too prime locations to take on for Megawatt generation from wind power.

That is where I bet they would take this money: incentives to corporations for wind power.

Re:Probably Wind Incentives to Companies

[ksheff]

I'm surprised that SD isn't ranked higher than it is. According those maps, quite a bit of the area near the Missouri river and west of it would be good places for wind generator farms. I suppose they could feed into the same grids that are supplied by the four Corps of Engineer dams that are on the Missouri in that state.

Re:Your First Premise Is

[Anonymous Coward]

P.P.S.: I will now seek a large Negroe to fellate. Auf wiedersehen!

All I can say is --

[dwiget001]

-- what's next? A fat tax? If so, Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion.

It is Obvious...Way to go MN!!!

[clonan]

Question...Why can't you change energy companies?

Energy has been deregulated for some time now. The owners of the power lines are forced to lease them to anyone. I live in Georgia and have the option of 3 different companies.

This law will encourage people to use power more efficiently. In addition it helps remove the subsidy that Coal powered electricity has enjoyed for most of the last century. (And yes it is subsidized through legal protections and by not having to clean up much of its environmental damage). This will also encourage the power companies to build / buy cleaner power to avoid the tax.

Since there is 1.5 lbs of CO2 (about) per KWH, we are talking about a tax of $0.004 to $0.02 per KWH. Or between 4 and 18 dollars per YEAR for the end user.

This won't affect end users much but would be expensive for larger industrial users. Since some forms of local generation are already almost competitive with coal, this law would encourage thoes people to install some non-CO2 emiiting power locally.

Finally, it also depends on what the money is used for. If it is just used for general funds or as a tax break for the wealthy it won't do much. If it is used to improve infrastructure, attact green tech, improve energy efficiency of clean up the environment then it is an EXCELLENT source.

Re:It is Obvious...Way to go MN!!!

[s73v3r]

I would assume he can't change energy companies for the same reason he probably can't change ISPs: Lack of Competition.

Ottertail Power

[rossdee]

"it's true that much of MN's coal-based energy comes from ND"

Big Stone is in SD. I think they get their coal from Montana. I know the Hoot Lake plant does.

Re:Ottertail Power

[osu-neko]

I stand corrected. There's a reason I usually just say "the Dakotas". XD

Different interpretations of the law

[stefanlasiewski]

There are multiple interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause. By some interpretations, States do have limited rights to regulate commerce with other states. Also, there seem to be additional interpretations of the law for state-owned services (See the paragraph on "In United Haulers Assoc. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)".

See the following site a good summary of some of the debates.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

"The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce. Second, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law. Third, it has been suggested that the Clause assumes that Congress and the states each have their own mutually exclusive zones of regulatory power. Under this interpretation, it becomes the job of the courts to determine whether one sovereign has invaded the exclusive regulatory zone of the other. Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause."

Re:Different interpretations of the law

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes, but Article I Section 10 specifically forbids the States from using Tariffs to regulate commerce.

Re:Different interpretations of the law

[sexconker]

There are multiple interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Yet only one is correct.

If the clause is ambiguous, then it must be rewritten.

If the clause is not strictly worded, then all powers are reserved by the states and the people, and the fed can't regulate it.

It's simple.

I'm not arguing for or against any side. I'm just sick of courts having to "interpret" what's written out in black and white.

Hell, I'm still pissed off that the rules for Settlers of Catan expansions don't specifically mention whether or not the city walls block the initial steal from a robber (I believe as written, they do, but we play as if they don't, since it keeps a bit more strategy going a bit more in the late game). I'm also pissed that they don't state what you get when you have a city on a gold mine. We play that you get 1 resource and 1 commodity of your choice.

(Wikipedia says
"When combined with Cities and Knights, the rules state that you are not allowed to take commodities instead of resources if a city is nearby."
but that's not in my rulebook, and I haven't seen that in the rules online, and the whole idea of gold was that it was tradable for anything, etc.)

Re:Different interpretations of the law

[IndigoDarkwolf]

Wasn't it a clause in H.R. 3590 to set aside the Constitution and grant full, absolute, and unrestricted power to the U.S. government over its subjects?

Re:Different interpretations of the law

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nah- that's just a natural consequence of how the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I Section 8, when even giving marijuana away for free to your neighbors without crossing a state line is considered interstate commerce.

Re:Different interpretations of the law

[IndigoDarkwolf]

I suppose my quip misses the point, though - if the national government intervenes, it'll be because they want to protect their turf, not because they actually think the state's doing anything that the President wouldn't sign into law in a heartbeat.

How wrong can a /. story be?

[bfree]

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands introduced a Carbon tax in 1990-1991. France and Ireland have just introduced their own and it appears that even in the US this isn't a first as Boulder Colorado (2006) and the "Bay Area Air Quality Management District" (2008) had already introduced Carbon Taxes.

Re:How wrong can a /. story be?

[fredan]

it's the world's first in Minnesota, duh!

America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah!

Tariff? nah

[butchersong]

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the legislation but it would seem to be constitutional. Obviously if the tax is on both on local energy produced as well as that from out of state it doesn't qualify as a tariff.

Maybe just the headline is misleading, but...

[hyades1]

British Columbia has had a carbon tax for a couple of years.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/29/bc-gas-prices-carbon-tax.html

Re:Maybe just the headline is misleading, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark has had "green" taxes (including the carbondioxide emission tax) since 1993.

Why?

[demonlapin]

This is like finding out that Canada or Russia supports a carbon tax - MN is one of the places on earth for which there is no downside at all to climatic warming.

Re:Why?

[ceoyoyo]

BC, a province of Canada, has had a carbon tax for several years.

Just to blow your mind that extra little bit.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

Well, it sort-of makes sense - BC is pretty dry, and pretty mountainous, no? So they stand to lose ski resorts without the compensation that Alberta and Saskatchewan have - that they'll be able to sell their energy resources and expand their arable land.

Besides, everyone in BC is stoned, so their stuff doesn't have to make sense.

Re:Why?

[demonlapin]

And thank you to the brilliant mod who rated this "overrated" before anyone else modded it. It's nice to know you guys are out there trying to have an honest discussion. Thankfully, I have plenty of karma to burn.

Pollution

[a whoabot]

Given the prevailing Westerlies, most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota, delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans. Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages, Minnesotans (and others further away) have to suffer the consequences without recompense.

Re:Pollution

[Zorbane]

Minnesota has 13 coal power plants while North Dakota has 6. Those westerlies you speak of must carry Minnesotan pollution off to somewhere else as well. I may not be qualified to give a lecture of the dynamics here...my guess (no offense) is that you are not either. However, considering that Minnesota has abt 9 times the population of North Dakota, I think it is safe to surmise there is not some disparity in the size or output of those plants in minnesota's favor. But surely, to take umbrage, and imply that Minnesotans and others take harm without adding their share of pollution as well is just silly.

Re:Pollution

[a whoabot]

Yes, and this carbon tax will apply just as much to the electricity from their plants as that from the ND ones. And I would assume that they would have to problem with other states applying a carbon tax to coal-derived power from Minnesota, but I suppose that may be presumptive.

taxing North Dakota, eh

[JeanBaptiste]

im sure all 17 people are gonna be pissed off.

Carbon Tax on imported goods

[cyberspittle]

There should be a carbon tax on imported goods. Of course that would upset the New World Order. However it would level the playing field against countires that have state-sponsored factories and subsidize gasoline.

Wonderful!

[Locke2005]

Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota. Wonderful! So Minnesota has deployed a large-scale working version of Maxwell's daemon, then? Or perhaps they've merely come up with a scheme to make generating power with coal in ND and then selling to MN less cost effective (which admittedly is perverting the free market to achieve a common good).

No action here folks, move along

[vik]

So in 2012 someone might think about taxing CO2 emissions. Not cutting them, taxing them. Too late.

What we need is action now. Action like massive taxes on the construction of fossil fuel-powered power plants, so that the CO2 absorbtion systems (i.e. trees) can be ready at approximately the same time as new emissions start, and alternatives can be financed before new power plant starts emitting.

Vik :v)

It depends; you can switch providers in NY

[jdmonin]

It depends on where you live. In New York state, you can pick your own energy providers. This includes "green" electricity from places like http://www.ecny.org/ . It's a great choice to have; I'd imagine other states will gain the same kind of option with time.

Just surrender the carbon...

[jameskojiro]

All people in Minnesota just need to surrender the carbon in their bodies at the border and the problem will be solved. IF they can return to the border to go back into the state they can have their bodily carbon back and it is up to them to get it back into their bodies.

Re:Just surrender the carbon...

[PGOER]

This is kind of like pollution, it just stops at the boarder, right? I'm sure the those chemicals respect interstate and political borders.

Re:Just surrender the carbon...

[jameskojiro]

Volatile Chemicals like sulfides and chlorofluorocarbons which are not found AT ALL in nature are one thing, gases that are also produced by nature from critters like CO2 are quite another.

Stop Sulfide and CFLs, give a rats ass about CO2 unless it start approaching 2% of the atmospheric composition.

Re:Just surrender the carbon...

[Xerolooper]

Volatile Chemicals like sulfides and chlorofluorocarbons which are not found AT ALL in nature are one thing, gases that are also produced by nature from critters like CO2 are quite another.

Stop Sulfide and CFLs, give a rats ass about CO2 unless it start approaching 2% of the atmospheric composition.

lol last time I checked the atmosphere was only 0.038% CO2 I think if it got to 2% we would all be dead already. I get your point though.

Big, but not "grossly obese"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "grossly obese" is a valid assessment. She's big, but not huge. Judge for yourself:

http://www.areavoices.com/CapitolChat/images/0429mnxgrsession-dd_speaker_1.jpg

To my eye, she's the kind of big woman who -- although standing no chance of auditioning for Baywatch -- could be great fun in the sack ....

Re:Big, but not "grossly obese"

[swb]

Jesus, she'd crush you. And you can forget going back door; you're not getting through there without an extension pole.

I'd say screw it to MN and just stop serving them

[DigitalReverend]

It's easy.

Dear Minnesota Consumer,

Your representatives wish to charge us tarriffs for the electricity we generate and send to your homes and businesses. After much analysis we have come to the conclusion that the cost of this tariff will make the cost providing reliable and inexpensive electricity to you, our consumers, prohibitive Therefore beginning 31 January 2010, we will no longer be providing electricity for any entity in Minnesota. We wish you luck with whatever power company in the future provides your energy.

Except...

[argStyopa]

"Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders" ...except the eco-stupid and eco-shortsighted have been opposed to the expansion of nuclear power, and the same groups have opposed the creation of any nuclear waste repositories, so power companies have been FORCED to meet demand by building plants in ND because it's really their only solution.

So, we have an increasing demand, an insistence that these needs be met, and walls dropped around any solution EXCEPT out-of-state coal or ng plants, and now they're going to be punished for choosing the cheaper solution.

Government by the people...brilliant.

Air tax

[ghostdoc]

Well, they finally did it.

They found a way to tax the air we breathe.

The original, Wickard v. Filburn

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Basically you can grow wheat, grind it up into meal, and then feed it to your chickens. All of this can happen and it never leaves your farm but it's still interstate commerce. (Don't ask me how this can possibly make sense since there's nothing being sold and nothing being transported between states.) I'm thinking the 2 you found probably referenced this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Re:The original, Wickard v. Filburn

[rogerz]

In all of these cases, the reasoning essentially went: since the activity can have some affect on the price of {guns,wheat,pot,etc.} in another state, you are engaged in interstate commerce.

This reasoning does imply that nothing is outside the commerce clause and therefore we have a recipe for dictatorship.

Minnesota Likes Their Ice Age

[Greyfox]

Meanwhile North Dakota is hoping that Global Warming will mean that they can finally change their name to "Tropical Dakota".

Commerce Clause?

[otis wildflower]

Constitutional law smackdown in 5.. 4.. 3..

no hope

[hisstory student]

More idiocy from Minnesota. The wrestler governor, the comedian senator, now this. Geez! There seems to be no hope for these people.

Ireland got there earlier, actually

[franoreilly]

Since the budget on 9th December, we've had a carbon tax in Ireland, at €15 per tonne. See http://www.moneyguideireland.com/new-carbon-tax-in-budget-2010.html

ix-nay on the ron-eye astity-chay elt-bay

[WinPimp2K]

Iron rusts - stainless steel be a far better material.

not unconstitutional and not a tarrif

[Anonymous Coward]

From what the actual text of the articles say, this is a tax on carbon emissions from electricity, meaning it applies to in-state generated electricity and to electricity generated in states other then ND, as well as ND. This law effects carbon-emiting plants in MN just as much as in ND, it just so happens that there aren't many coal-fired (the worst "offenders") plants in MN, due to their exsisting laws (or maybe because MN doesn't have good coal reserves... someone suggested that, I don't know). Since it seems to affect all elertical generators it is a normal tax, not a tarrif (tarrifs are spacificly worded so they only affect imports) and therefore perfectly constitutional.

I also want to say I like this because it is being done on a state level, rather then a federal level. Far to much is done on the federal level when the state level is more appropriate, and this seems to be a vary well crafted law which is designed spacificly to not run afoul of the constitution. good job MN.

I read all three articles, NOT ONE described a tarrif, but a normal tax. Although all three wrongly called it a tarrif in it's headlines (as did ./) so to all of you BUY A DICTIONARY! You all get a D+ on this assignment, spreading confusion via poor language usage is just bad journalisum.

Oninoshiko

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful.

What happens if ND decides to shutdown the generators rather than submit to this asinine tax?