For anyone who doesn’t like taxes, I have some bad news.

Unless North Carolinians fight back, new taxes are coming soon. There also are going to be new policies that increase corporate subsidies, disproportionately harm the poor, and restrict personal freedom.

This barrage of bad public policy will come to North
Carolinians courtesy of an advisory group on global warming formed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This group (Climate Action Plan Advisory Group, or CAPAG) recommended 56 policy proposals that touch upon almost every facet of life, from what cars we drive to what is taught in schools.

A special legislative commission is reviewing the options and will decide which ones to recommend to the full legislature by April 1, 2008.

If you think the 56 options aren’t going to become law, be aware that some of the recommended options already became
law last legislative session, including extra charges on electricity use.

Let me address just five options:

1) Indoctrination: The state would impose a global warming-friendly curriculum throughout the education system. For example, primary and secondary school students would be required to learn about how their consumer choices impact greenhouse gas emissions.

2) New Environmental Taxes on Cars: One of the options would require vehicle owners to pay a special tax when they register their vehicles at the Division of Motor
Vehicles. The amount of the tax would be based on a “green standard” that accounts for fuel efficiency and emissions. If you drive an SUV, you would pay a very high tax. If you drive a hybrid, the tax would be lower.

Another similar option would require a car tax designed to change the “fleet mix” in North Carolina. In other words, there would have to be a tax so high that because of the tax, people would want to buy “environment-friendly” cars and manufacturers would want to sell “environment-friendly” cars.

3) Wind Turbines in the Mountains and on the Coast: Buried in one of the options is a recommendation to make it easier to build wind turbines in the mountains and on the coast.

The option recommends a weakening of the Mountain Ridge
Protection Act (knows as the Ridge Law) that prohibits most tall structures from being built in the mountains. Such a change would permit massive industrial wind turbines, which can be as tall as 400 feet or about the size of a 40-story skyscraper, to be built on the mountain ridges of western
North Carolina.

4) Energy-Rationing Scheme: In order to restrict energy use, there would be a carbon dioxide (CO2) cap and trade program. Most energy production comes from the use of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide. Therefore, any limits on carbon dioxide are limits on energy use.

In a CO2 cap and trade program, the government imposes a limit on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted. Any regulated entity would have to own a permit to emit each ton of carbon dioxide. If a regulated entity does not have enough permits, it could buy additional permits from another regulated entity.

The purpose of such a program is to build in a cost (i.e. tax) for emitting carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, as the
Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly explained, a cap and trade program would result in higher costs for consumers. It also would harm the poor disproportionately. The poor spend a greater share of their income on energy than other income groups, and as a result would bear the greatest cost. (It is a regressive tax.)

5) High-Density Living (i.e. Smart Growth): Public policies would be promoted to encourage high-density living. One of the policies to achieve this objective would be development impact fees (taxes on the sale of houses). These are the same taxes that were shot down convincingly by local communities across the state in the past election.

Other options include restrictions on development, taxpayer-funded corporate subsidies, government-mandated changes to auto insurance so individuals pay more when they drive more, and additional taxes on electricity use.

Assume the extremists are correct and global warming really is going to cause catastrophic events if nothing is done about it (an incorrect assumption). Do you think restricting our ability to address the problem by rationing energy and harming the economy and poor is a good solution?

If a catastrophe is coming, wouldn’t it make more sense to reduce any restrictions so we could let North Carolinians use their ingenuity to build wealth and identify the solutions needed to address any crisis? Personally, I believe in North Carolinians and their ingenuity.

North Carolina is at a crossroads. The state could adopt policies that harm its citizens in the name of environmental extremism and special interests. In the alternative, the state could reject the 56 options. It may be late in the “game,” but fortunately these options aren’t law yet. Let’s hope we take the right path.