Democrats are considering adding a carbon tax to their evolving budget reconciliation package. (Photo: Shutterstock)
Progressive Groups Warn Congress Against Including Carbon Tax in Reconciliation Package
"If lawmakers are really concerned about holding the costs of this spending bill, they should get rid of the billions of dollars we waste every year on subsidies to polluters."
Five progressive organizations on Tuesday urged top congressional Democrats to exclude a carbon tax from the sweeping budget reconciliation package they aim to pass this week following reports that the policy is under consideration in the U.S. Senate.
"Carbon taxes... do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters."
--Mitch Jones, Food & Water Watch
Given the Senate's current makeup and Democrats' refusal to abolish the filibuster, passing the Build Back Better package is considered essential to delivering on President Joe Biden's climate pledges. Backed by the latest science, progressives have repeatedly advocated against including "false solutions" that impede a just transition away from fossil fuels and exacerbate the climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Our Revolution, and Progressive Democrats of America made their case for leaving a carbon tax out of the package in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
While applauding Democratic leaders' efforts to generate the money necessary to combat the climate emergency, the groups warn of the expected harms of such a policy and argue that repealing fossil fuel subsidies "would provide a simpler and more robust revenue stream."
The letter came amid uncertainty over the fate of both the Build Back Better package and a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and just days after Wyden confirmed to The New York Times that in the face of opposition to the party's tax plan from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Schumer instructed him to craft legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions but also align with Biden's vow not to raise taxes on households making below $400,000.
As Wyden noted to the Times, a carbon tax remains a heavy push politically even if it comes with a dividend that would return a portion of the money to consumers. Of course, the more money returned to consumers in the form of rebates, the less revenue there is to spend on other programs--the point of instituting a carbon tax.
The potential impact that such a policy could have on families with lower incomes is among the concerns detailed in the groups' letter:
The Build Back Better Act is touted as the best shot to address the climate crisis, but it is also an opportunity to address the injustice and harms that fossil fuels bring to Black, Indigenous nations, and environmental justice communities. Including a carbon tax as a pay-for in this spending plan will further our dependency on fossil fuels and undermine efforts to eliminate and reduce pollution in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, this regressive tax will also undermine a key promise of President Biden to not raise taxes on people making under $400,000 per year, an increase that will be felt hardest among low- and moderate-income households who are least equipped to make investments necessary to avoid carbon emissions and these new taxes.
The organizations explain that fossil fuel interests support carbon taxes because they not only sustain but create more dependence on the industry by making social programs--like those proposed in the Democrats' package--reliant on revenue from polluters.
"This perverse relationship," the letter warns, "will cause us to choose between the health of vulnerable communities and our climate or funding government programs, a dichotomy we should avoid at all costs."
"The inclusion of a carbon tax," the letter continues, "would create an inequitable, discriminatory, ineffective, and ultimately regressive proposal that gives a green light for the biggest climate scofflaws to pay to pollute and maintain a harmful status quo."
Food & Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones echoed the letter's warnings and demands in a statement Tuesday.
"Carbon taxes have fallen out of serious climate discussions for good reasons: They do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters as a ploy to look concerned about climate while continuing business as usual," he said.
"If lawmakers are really concerned about holding the costs of this spending bill," Jones added, "they should get rid of the billions of dollars we waste every year on subsidies to polluters."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Five progressive organizations on Tuesday urged top congressional Democrats to exclude a carbon tax from the sweeping budget reconciliation package they aim to pass this week following reports that the policy is under consideration in the U.S. Senate.
"Carbon taxes... do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters."
--Mitch Jones, Food & Water Watch
Given the Senate's current makeup and Democrats' refusal to abolish the filibuster, passing the Build Back Better package is considered essential to delivering on President Joe Biden's climate pledges. Backed by the latest science, progressives have repeatedly advocated against including "false solutions" that impede a just transition away from fossil fuels and exacerbate the climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Our Revolution, and Progressive Democrats of America made their case for leaving a carbon tax out of the package in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
While applauding Democratic leaders' efforts to generate the money necessary to combat the climate emergency, the groups warn of the expected harms of such a policy and argue that repealing fossil fuel subsidies "would provide a simpler and more robust revenue stream."
The letter came amid uncertainty over the fate of both the Build Back Better package and a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and just days after Wyden confirmed to The New York Times that in the face of opposition to the party's tax plan from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Schumer instructed him to craft legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions but also align with Biden's vow not to raise taxes on households making below $400,000.
As Wyden noted to the Times, a carbon tax remains a heavy push politically even if it comes with a dividend that would return a portion of the money to consumers. Of course, the more money returned to consumers in the form of rebates, the less revenue there is to spend on other programs--the point of instituting a carbon tax.
The potential impact that such a policy could have on families with lower incomes is among the concerns detailed in the groups' letter:
The Build Back Better Act is touted as the best shot to address the climate crisis, but it is also an opportunity to address the injustice and harms that fossil fuels bring to Black, Indigenous nations, and environmental justice communities. Including a carbon tax as a pay-for in this spending plan will further our dependency on fossil fuels and undermine efforts to eliminate and reduce pollution in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, this regressive tax will also undermine a key promise of President Biden to not raise taxes on people making under $400,000 per year, an increase that will be felt hardest among low- and moderate-income households who are least equipped to make investments necessary to avoid carbon emissions and these new taxes.
The organizations explain that fossil fuel interests support carbon taxes because they not only sustain but create more dependence on the industry by making social programs--like those proposed in the Democrats' package--reliant on revenue from polluters.
"This perverse relationship," the letter warns, "will cause us to choose between the health of vulnerable communities and our climate or funding government programs, a dichotomy we should avoid at all costs."
"The inclusion of a carbon tax," the letter continues, "would create an inequitable, discriminatory, ineffective, and ultimately regressive proposal that gives a green light for the biggest climate scofflaws to pay to pollute and maintain a harmful status quo."
Food & Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones echoed the letter's warnings and demands in a statement Tuesday.
"Carbon taxes have fallen out of serious climate discussions for good reasons: They do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters as a ploy to look concerned about climate while continuing business as usual," he said.
"If lawmakers are really concerned about holding the costs of this spending bill," Jones added, "they should get rid of the billions of dollars we waste every year on subsidies to polluters."
Five progressive organizations on Tuesday urged top congressional Democrats to exclude a carbon tax from the sweeping budget reconciliation package they aim to pass this week following reports that the policy is under consideration in the U.S. Senate.
"Carbon taxes... do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters."
--Mitch Jones, Food & Water Watch
Given the Senate's current makeup and Democrats' refusal to abolish the filibuster, passing the Build Back Better package is considered essential to delivering on President Joe Biden's climate pledges. Backed by the latest science, progressives have repeatedly advocated against including "false solutions" that impede a just transition away from fossil fuels and exacerbate the climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network, Our Revolution, and Progressive Democrats of America made their case for leaving a carbon tax out of the package in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
While applauding Democratic leaders' efforts to generate the money necessary to combat the climate emergency, the groups warn of the expected harms of such a policy and argue that repealing fossil fuel subsidies "would provide a simpler and more robust revenue stream."
The letter came amid uncertainty over the fate of both the Build Back Better package and a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and just days after Wyden confirmed to The New York Times that in the face of opposition to the party's tax plan from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Schumer instructed him to craft legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions but also align with Biden's vow not to raise taxes on households making below $400,000.
As Wyden noted to the Times, a carbon tax remains a heavy push politically even if it comes with a dividend that would return a portion of the money to consumers. Of course, the more money returned to consumers in the form of rebates, the less revenue there is to spend on other programs--the point of instituting a carbon tax.
The potential impact that such a policy could have on families with lower incomes is among the concerns detailed in the groups' letter:
The Build Back Better Act is touted as the best shot to address the climate crisis, but it is also an opportunity to address the injustice and harms that fossil fuels bring to Black, Indigenous nations, and environmental justice communities. Including a carbon tax as a pay-for in this spending plan will further our dependency on fossil fuels and undermine efforts to eliminate and reduce pollution in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, this regressive tax will also undermine a key promise of President Biden to not raise taxes on people making under $400,000 per year, an increase that will be felt hardest among low- and moderate-income households who are least equipped to make investments necessary to avoid carbon emissions and these new taxes.
The organizations explain that fossil fuel interests support carbon taxes because they not only sustain but create more dependence on the industry by making social programs--like those proposed in the Democrats' package--reliant on revenue from polluters.
"This perverse relationship," the letter warns, "will cause us to choose between the health of vulnerable communities and our climate or funding government programs, a dichotomy we should avoid at all costs."
"The inclusion of a carbon tax," the letter continues, "would create an inequitable, discriminatory, ineffective, and ultimately regressive proposal that gives a green light for the biggest climate scofflaws to pay to pollute and maintain a harmful status quo."
Food & Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones echoed the letter's warnings and demands in a statement Tuesday.
"Carbon taxes have fallen out of serious climate discussions for good reasons: They do not reduce emissions, they put a squeeze on working families, and they are embraced by polluters as a ploy to look concerned about climate while continuing business as usual," he said.
"If lawmakers are really concerned about holding the costs of this spending bill," Jones added, "they should get rid of the billions of dollars we waste every year on subsidies to polluters."