Republicans Are Finally Talking About a Carbon Tax. Not in a Good Way.

They called it “detrimental to the United States economy.”

Jan-Otto, Getty Images

The House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a symbolic resolution that calls a tax on carbon “detrimental to the United States economy” in a 229 to 180 vote.

Sponsored by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La), the resolution rejects a carbon tax by listing a dozen different reasons it is harmful, with statements like, “a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity.”

In reality, a carbon tax is a versatile tool that can be structured to limit the impacts on average Americans. The money raised by a tax on carbon emissions can be returned to taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, making it revenue-neutral, or used for specific programs, such as those helping low-income Americans. Their versatility is the reason some conservatives, some representatives from industry, and economists consider carbon taxes to be the best policy for addressing runaway greenhouse gas emissions. But most Republican politicians typically won’t even consider the possible approaches. As former GOP-congressman-turned-climate-advocate Bob Inglis pointed out:

The vote still serves as a revealing, if crude, measure of where Republican politicians currently stand on the need to address climate change. Two years ago, Scalise sponsored a similar resolution and House Republicans voted for it. This time, a total of six Republican broke with their party, while seven House Democrats also broke with their own party in order to reject a carbon tax.

Despite the continued reluctance to accept the science behind climate change among Republicans, one positive development over the past two years is the Climate Solutions Caucus. With an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the bipartisan caucus has grown rapidly to 86 members but continues to face criticism for providing political cover to Republicans who don’t otherwise embrace pro-environmental policies.

Three of the six Republicans who voted against the anti-carbon tax measure are members of the caucus and are facing competitive reelection battles this fall. They include caucus co-chair Carlos Curbelo (R-Fl), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa), and Mia Love (R-Utah). Caucus member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) is retiring, and the two other Republicans who voted against are Francis* Rooney (R-Fl) and Trey Hollingsworth (R-Indiana).

The rest of the 37 Republican members of the Climate Solutions Caucus voted in favor of Scalise’s resolution.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fl.) joined six other Democrats and broke ranks with her fellow Democratic members of the Climate Solutions Caucus to reject a carbon tax. Murphy’s office did not return a request for comment. 

“The fact that six Republicans voted ‘no’ on an anti-carbon tax resolution is an indication that there are cracks in the wall separating Democrats and Republicans on climate change,” Mark Reynolds said in a statement on behalf of the advocacy group Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which lobbies members to join the caucus and endorse a revenue-neutral carbon tax. “The Republicans who voted against the resolution this time around are basically saying we need to keep our options open when it comes to solving climate change.”

R.L. Miller, a climate activist who runs the PAC Climate Hawks Vote, has been far more critical of what she sees as greenwashing of the GOP and has taken to calling the Climate Caucus the “peacock caucus.”  

The caucus is a joke, or it would be were climate change not so serious,” she said. “Fact check: we’re not going to advance climate solutions with bipartisanship.” 

Soon, we’ll have another litmus test for the Republican party. Curbelo is introducing a long-awaited $23 carbon tax bill on Monday, which was first reported by E&E News. The question is: Will he get any support from his fellow Republicans?

*Correction: The original version of this story misidentified Rep. Tom Rooney (R-TK) as Francis Rooney.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate