Representative John Dingell posted his carbon tax proposal today and is asking for public comment. He was interviewed about it by Newsweek.

In a previous post I talked about why I think a discussion of carbon taxes is a distraction from the focus we need on how much and how fast to reduce global warming pollution.

In an interesting twist, Rep. Dingell calls for a carbon tax in addition to an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. The Energy and Commerce Committee, which Dingell chairs, has jurisdiction over the latter, but not the former, so he posted his tax proposal on his personal web site, not the Committee web site.

Whatever the merits of Mr. Dingell’s tax reform proposal it is important to recognize that it would be unlikely to produce additional environmental benefits on top of a well-designed cap on global warming pollution. A comprehensive cap that reduces emissions at least 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 will drive down emissions by requiring an allowance for each ton of global warming pollution emitted. This will send a price signal to the market and also guarantee actual emissions reductions. Properly crafted, a cap and trade proposal will reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost, without the need to resort to an additional carbon tax.

Furthermore, the value of emission allowances within a cap and trade can be dedicated to promoting energy efficiency, deploying clean energy technologies, and preventing adverse economic impacts on low-income consumers. Revenues raised by a carbon tax, on the other hand, would be subject to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. In any event, so far there are no indications that the Ways and Means committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, is interested in actively considering a carbon tax.