There is a school of economic thought (with former Bush administration economist and Mitt Romney advisor Greg Mankiw leading the charge) that supports Sen. Mark Warner’s belief in carbon taxes as a better way to mitigate pollution, increase energy efficiency, reduce traffic congestion and much more, than, say, Rube Goldberg schemes like cap-and-trade. Here is a video of Warner reiterating his support for the idea:
That’s a very, very tough political sell. Greg Mankiw wrote:
Is it conceivable that the policy wonks will ever win the battle with the campaign consultants? I think it is. Even after a $1 hike, the U.S. gas tax would still be less than half the level in, say, Great Britain, which last I checked is still a democracy. But don’t expect those vying for office to come around until the American people recognize that while higher gas taxes are unattractive, the alternatives are even worse.
As much as the policy wonk in me would like to see the Senate candidates debate the utility of Pigouvian taxes, the RPV video shows that this simply won’t happen (not that I support carbon taxes — they are regressive, silly and leave out the real elemental mastermind behind our woes, foibles and discontent: silicon).
As a matter of politics, especially in state that still produces coal, and is seeking to become a substantial natural gas producer, taxing carbon is political poison.
Or at least it is according to the conventional Republican wisdom. With Warner’s Democratic base, the idea doesn’t hurt him at all. And if anything, Warner needs to curry favor on carbon because of his past schizophrenia on the issue of oil and gas exploration.
But perhaps a much simpler explanation is that Mr. Warner wants to make sure that, if it’s needed, Tom Steyer will spend a few dollars in Virginia to help rally the climate change faithful, just like he did for Terry McAuliffe last year.
