I must say, I’ve found this discussion quite useful, and am even somewhat persuaded, not by the philosophical arguments, nor the public-choice arguments — which all, I think, cut both ways — but by the geographic distribution issue raised by my friend Iain Murray. I am, in fact, far more ambivalent about the RNCT than it would seem from public discussions which are, by their nature, somewhat polarized endeavors, and that ambivalence has grown a bit from this discussion.

A question for Iain and Jim, however. Let’s assume that you’re correct, and middle-states are going to pay more in carbon taxes. I’ve always expected that to be the case, given that they use more coal power generation — but as Willie Sutton said, one robs banks because that’s where the money is. Similarly, if you’re going to knock emissions down, you’re going to have to go where the emissions are. But why could the federal government not simply issue a rebate tied to the level of coal-based energy in a region’s system? I’d think that would be a simple enough calculation to do, and there is certainly precedent in the federal government collecting a national levy, but redistributing it to states unevenly.