Minnesota Introduces World's First Carbon Tariff 303
hollywoodb writes "The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations, but between two states. Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota. To encourage the switch to clean, renewable energy, Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders, but the utility companies that operate in MN have, over the past decades, sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota, which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff."
Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Score:2, Interesting)
What's unconstitutional about it?
Re:Its about time (Score:2, Interesting)
Please define 'dramatic' in numerical terms.
Re:culmination of quite a long attempt (Score:5, Interesting)
SO i can pass a bill in my state that allows me to tax your state? I think I see a solution to our states fiscal problem.
It's Even More Complicated Than that (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, this requires Minnesota to prove that the coal generated electricity is a threat to health and or safety of its citizens. That's going to be hard to do. But as your other post pointed out [slashdot.org], they've been going about this for quite sometime but I'm sure every year they feel closer to being able to prove this is legal on account of public safety.
Probably Wind Incentives to Companies (Score:5, Interesting)
This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies. How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation? What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?
Minnesota has grown to be fourth in Wind Power generation [windpoweringamerica.gov]. And if you look at time lapse growth [windpoweringamerica.gov] they're really pushing that. The weird thing about it is that they're not even one of the prime wind resource states [windpoweringamerica.gov] although I will testify that the wind gets ridiculous out there. Now, you probably already know this but Tim Pawlenty (Republican) [state.mn.us] is the governor of Minnesota and of course is going to try to get a bid for the presidential run in 2012. On his about page:
implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025
As a moderate Democrat, I was kind of afraid when he almost got a bid in 2008 ... because he's actually not that bad of a candidate. He doesn't talk like a moron and he's got his head in a lot of the right places. If he would cut the Christian God talk out of his speeches, I'd probably be on board. Sorry to get offtopic but I'm trying to say that this tariff would probably be a huge in road for him to moderates if he could pull it off. I'm certain he's not the prime motivator behind this but I would bet that they'd take the taxes from this and dump it into wind incentives. They're racing against Iowa in the wind department. California and Texas are too big and too prime locations to take on for Megawatt generation from wind power.
That is where I bet they would take this money: incentives to corporations for wind power.
Re:Constitution: Article 1, Section 10. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not specifically a tariff, because they charge all electricity sold in MN the same cost, whether generated in- or out-of-state. That makes it more of a sales tax, which is constitutional.
Re:I guess the State of Minnesota... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Score:3, Interesting)
Article I Section 10 States can't create Tariffs.
Personally, this is my most hated part of the Constitution- it prevents economic experimentation and competition between the States.
Re:Its about time (Score:2, Interesting)
And what would you say when the economy is booming? And risk being accused of stopping a big boom and putting us into a recession?
The fact is there is no good time to switch away from a cheap, well-established source of energy. But if we don't start doing it soon, when that source runs out, we won't have the technology or the infrastructure to replace it. And that would truly be a disaster of epic proportions. So I say kudos to Minnesota for trying. No doubt they'll make some mistakes and learn from them, to the benefit of everyone.
Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Score:4, Interesting)
Article I Section 10 States can't create Tariffs.
Personally, this is my most hated part of the Constitution- it prevents economic experimentation and competition between the States.
I take it that you haven't read any early American history.
The tariff wars between New York and New Jersey were legendary, and were an explicit reason for this clause being put into the Constitution in the first place. For the few brief years after the Battle of Yorktown and before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, New York and New Jersey engaged in a trade war the likes of which have only been seen between England and France... perhaps even worse. Much of this centered on Manhattan and New York City, where goods in transit across the Hudson River were heavily regulated and there were bands of pirates/smugglers and other kinds of incredible headaches for all involved. Taxes of over 100% and even up to 1000% on some goods were imposed just to cross the Hudson River. It nearly started an all out war between those two states, where both armies and navies were being assembled for just that very purpose, and some shots were exchanged between uniformed military forces of both states.
There is a good reason why this clause was put into the Constitution in the first place, and a damn good reason why it should be respected and not tampered with for even a well meaning cause like "global warming".