Back in 2008, the Realo/Fundi split on climate change was obvious. A carbon tax was a tax, and everyone knew that Republicans wouldn’t tolerate new taxes. Cap-and-trade, on the other hand, was a market-based mechanism, not a tax, and had the support of John McCain. That was the way to go if you wanted to get something done.
We all know what happened. The Republicans changed their position and unanimously opposed cap-and-trade. Obama’s legislation passed the House, but could not survive the combination of the filibuster and opposition from both Republicans and energy-state Democrats in the Senate. Whatever progress was made during the Obama years was the result of the energy investment component of the stimulus and regulations, not legislation.
Joe Manchin and Jon Tester will never vote for either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. The filibuster is still in place. The likelihood of getting more than 60 Democrats in the Senate is very low. What are the Democrats to do?
It may be counter-intuitive, but a carbon tax, combined with more regulations and investments, has a better chance of success than cap-and-trade. A carbon tax is simpler and generates less bureaucracy; the funds can also be used for Republican-friendly causes, such as the preservation of some of the Trump tax cuts. Some GOP economists and energy companies have actually supported such a tax. It’s a long shot, but it’s not impossible.
After all, even Republicans have to understand we are already paying for climate change. We’re just doing it by picking up the pieces after disasters instead of providing mitigation up front. Does that really make sense as a national strategy?