Are Carbon Taxes the Answer?

Judging from the controversy any kind of taxes raise, I'm guessing the topic of a carbon tax will cause a brawl, but let's just stop for a minute to consider the possibility. What's the big idea? A refundable tax on carbon?

CNN Money reports that it works like this: Each time a refinery, coal mine or natural gas well produces a ton of carbon dioxide by burning fuel, a fee will be levied to that institution.

The fee, pro-business types will be happy to hear, is absorbed by the consumer. The idea is that consumers won't like this and will thus stop buying from those whose prices are jacked up due to using the most carbon-heavy fuels or operating inefficiently.

But didn't I hear the word "refundable"? Apparently consumers would see the fees returned to them via direct monthly cash deposits or reduction in another tax. Though this sounds complicated, it would apparently require little extra bureaucracy.

The argument for it is that it's simple, doable, transparent and most likely effective. The argument against it is that it will be hijacked by special interests who will lobby for exemptions from the IRS. Some won't like it because they don't like any taxes (even if they like roads and stoplights and public schools, but that's a discussion for another forum) and some won't like it because they don't believe in global warming in the first place and will see this as an unfair hindrance to our economy.

So which is it? An elegant solution or a hindering farce?

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng