Slashdot Mirror
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."
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 $6 per ton tax; here's a 1994 report by a MN environmental group as well. Major attempts seemed to happen every 3-5 years.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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?
The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU!!!!!
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.
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.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
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.
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?
What's unconstitutional about it?
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.
Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
Just the vibe of the thing...
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
To live in Minnesota!
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
I smell War! North Dakota should invade!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
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).
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.
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.
My work here is dung.
-- what's next? A fat tax? If so, Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion.
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.
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.
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.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
"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.
Minor nit pick, they weren't not given the authority; they were told no that's congress's domain.
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.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
The summary is bad - they are taxing all electricity sourced from coal, not imported electricity.
Learn about Photography Basics.
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."
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Die? This has already been smacked down, the eventual court case and what not are just formalities.
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).
because they are taxing people within their state, for consuming things within their state?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
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.
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.
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.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Lots of haphazard things these days. Somebody is going crazy... Let's think about that for a sec.....
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.
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
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
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.
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".
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
im sure all 17 people are gonna be pissed off.
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.
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Possibly correct- depending on how it's enacted. Every article so far refers to it as a Tariff- a tax on imports.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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).
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).
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Minor minor nit pick- Article I Section 10 explicitly forbids the States from doing so *without* explicitly giving Congress the power to do so.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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)
BC, a province of Canada, has had a carbon tax for several years.
Just to blow your mind that extra little bit.
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.
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.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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.
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
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.
A quick grep of the constitution shows no references to vibes.
Google is your friend
"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.
-Styopa
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?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Well, they finally did it.
They found a way to tax the air we breathe.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
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.
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.
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".
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?
Jesus, she'd crush you. And you can forget going back door; you're not getting through there without an extension pole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Meanwhile North Dakota is hoping that Global Warming will mean that they can finally change their name to "Tropical Dakota".
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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! =)
Your brain is not a computer.
Even if it was unconstitutional, surely the planet is more important than a bit of paper written by slavers two hundred years ago?
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.
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.
Your brain is not a computer.
Constitutional law smackdown in 5.. 4.. 3..
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:
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!"
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?
The Gospel according to lolcat
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.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
More idiocy from Minnesota. The wrestler governor, the comedian senator, now this. Geez! There seems to be no hope for these people.
Heard any good sigs lately?
I wonder if anyone who isn't Australian would ever get the joke...
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.
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
-- --- Learn language vocabulary with mnemonics: http://www.memorista.com
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.
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.
Iron rusts - stainless steel be a far better material.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Careful... do you even realise you have the word “mons” in yours?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
When a troll makes a good point, does anyone hear it?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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.
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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
Jesus was a liberal
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.
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
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.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.