MCViewPoint

By Travis Fisher and Gabriella Beaumont‐​Smith

“Specifically, in addition to the three concerns listed above, the Cassidy Carbon Tax:

1. Inappropriately delegates powers to the executive branch.
2. Improperly tasks the National Laboratories with establishing trade policy and the implied level of a carbon tax.
3. Incorrectly defines “pollution” exclusively as “greenhouse gas emissions.”
4. Creates an arbitrary list of 16 “covered products.”
5. Invites less carbon‐​intensive countries to impose a carbon tariff on the United States.

https://www.cato.org/blog/cassidy-carbon-tax-even-worse-advertised

The long‐​awaited text of Senator Bill Cassidy’s (R‑LA) legislation to impose a tax on imports based on “pollution intensity” was released on November 3. Fisher’s previous piece highlighted how Senator Cassidy’s concept of a “foreign pollution fee” is 1) a carbon tax on imports, 2) will hurt American consumers, and 3) lays the groundwork for a domestic carbon tax. Unfortunately, those facts remain upon inspection of the bill.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R‑SC) is a sponsor of the bill but Senator Roger Wicker (R‑MS), the other original co‐​sponsor of the legislation, withdrew his endorsement.

We’ve read the 92 pages of the Foreign Pollution Fee Act of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Cassidy Carbon Tax) so our audience doesn’t have to. There are several areas of grave concern, much of which relate to provisions in the bill that were not apparent in Senator Cassidy’s Foreign Affairs article, which explained the concept in broad strokes.

See the rest here

Be seeing you