On the recordJune 10, 2016
Let me just read a couple of items from Mr. Dotson's letter. He points out that ``top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution.'' He cites Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, who says: ``Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.'' ``In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents-- representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in jurisdictions where carbon pollution is currently priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes place.'' That is in America right now. There is no acknowledgment of that in this debate. We could have talked about that in the committee. ``The price on carbon in California,'' referenced by my friend, Mr. Huffman, ``is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton . . .…
Source
govinfo.gov




