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 $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders, but the utility companies that operate in MN have, over the past decades, sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota, which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff."
It's not nearly that clear in this case. The tax is only applied to companies doing business in Minnesota, and is only assessed on the portion of their business considered to impact Minnesota (i.e. emissions actually generated in Minnesota, emissions imputed to electricity transmitted in Minnesota, etc.). It's at least arguable that that doesn't violate the dormant commerce clause: MN isn't specifically taxing only imports and exempting in-state MN electricity generators, which is the usual inter/intra-state disparity in treatment that caused constitutional problems; nor is the state attempting to tax companies that don't do business in MN.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.