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.
The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU!!!!!
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.
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?
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but Article I Section 10 specifically forbids the States from using Tariffs to regulate commerce.
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)
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".
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.