Re: Taxing Energy

I’m with Ramesh on this one.  (Sorry, Iain.)  I think that a deal, such as that outlined by Inglis and Laffer, is definitely worth taking (and have tepidly endorsed a deal of this sort in several NRO columns in the past few years, e.g. here and here).  I explained some of my reasons on the Volokh Conspiracy here on Sunday.  One reason that is worth highlighting is that a “just say no” position, such as that outlined by Jim Manzi in the December 1 NRODT — even if successful in defeating cap-and-trade legislation — would not prevent the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.  Now that the EPA has regulatory authority to control GHGs under the Clean Air Act, such regulation is a certainty.  Indeed, it is compelled.  So, if no climate change legislation passes, we will be stuck with even more onerous and unwieldy command-and-controls regs on carbon dioxide.  This reality does not require preemptive compromise, but I think it does add to the argument for an ambitious deal, of the sort Inglis and Laffer have proposed.

Jonathan H. Adler — Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in environmental, administrative, and constitutional law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Most Popular


Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More