In Support of a Carbon Tax

            I recently found myself browsing through John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, and in doing so found an application of his logic to our present-day world.  Mills thoughts on taxing alcohol and stimulants can be directly applied to supporting a carbon tax on today’s overly indulgent United States.  Though it may at first seam like a bit of a stretch, further investigation will demonstrate this connection.

            Mill begins his debate by justifying the opinion that believes taxing “stimulants for the sole purpose of making them difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable”.  The argument against such a tax is strengthened when Mill points out that the poor would be disproportionably affected.  But, in classic Mill fashion, he details these opinions not because he shares their conclusion, but because they are necessary elements of the truth.

            We see this in Mill’s defense of taxing alcohol: “[t]hese considerations may seem at first sight to condemn the selection of stimulants as special subjects of taxation for purposes of revenue.  But it must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable...It is hence the duty of the State to consider, in the imposition of taxes, what commodities the consumers can best spare...Taxation, therefore, of stimulants...is not only admissible, but to be approved of”.

            So how does Mill’s defense of a stimulant tax apply to today’s discussion on taxing carbon dioxide emissions?  To see its application we use Mill’s simple logic that if taxes are inevitable, it is the government’s duty to tax that which its populace can spare.  So, if we can prove that Americans can spare some of their carbon emissions, we can justly assert that a carbon tax is in order.

            Through a simple examination of the relative comfort and carbon footprint of the United States compared to the rest of the world’s, we can see the correlation between comfort-something which can be reduced without fatal repercussions-and carbon emissions.  (There are, of course, exceptions to this correlation, the United States isn’t the only country to blame, but we must not let the faults of others justify our own.  It should also be noted that we are not speaking of inequalities within America, merely the country as a whole).  Through this correlation, we see that we the American people can afford to reduce our carbon emissions, (this of course says nothing of the fact that we cannot afford NOT to reduce our carbon emissions), and thus under Mill’s logic, a carbon tax is justified.                              

            Although this is a regressive tax, directing the tax revenue to such projects as public transportation can alleviate this inequity.