HSBC: Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says

“Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.” [Bloomberg]

HSBC must think that we live in a dictatorship.


  1. Tax bills must be originated in the House of Representatives. How likely is a carbon tax to pass a GOP House?
    The president is constitutionally incapable of levying taxes on his own, though this prez seems to ignore these little ol’ nasty things.

  2. Don’t you know? Obama has nullified the constitution simply because it gets in the way of him doing what he wants to do. All he has to do is issue an executive order and what he wants will be made so. If none of the 1000 or so executive orders he has already issued have not been opposed, why do you think any of another 2000 or so will be?

    Welcome to the brave new world of Obama’s second term in which he will be able to be more “flexible” in his efforts to change America to become more to his liking.

  3. Emissions fees aren’t taxes. Title V and PSD sources pay fees for tons of pollutants. Typical NOx, PM, VOC, SO2 fees are $50/ton. If they can’t pass the tax, why not a CO2 pollution fee.

  4. Boehner is open to “new revenue” and Dems are saying it’s time those GOP compromise. Obama is still anti-carbon even if he finds the term “climate change” inconvenient. Not that this “news” item isn’t prospecting by HSBC and others. Ricahrd Sandor, Chicago futures guru, was the founder of the defunct Chicago Climate Exchange and still wants to prove he was “right.” Chevy started advertising the Volt again the day after the election. The anti-carbpon forces are coming full force and they don’t care if they have to do it without global warming.

  5. Bob. I’m aware of the “fee” charade that Obama can employ. The headline doesn’t mention it, and the headline was what I was reacting too. Sadly, our political establishment is all too well versed in semantic mendacity.
    OTOH, the GOP House still holds the reins on EPA funding appropriations, so even the charade has it’s limit if there’s enough spine to use it. I’d say, give em the Big Bird.

  6. I’ve got some back-and-forth on this topic.
    A “carbon tax” to reduce CO2 emissions and affect the climate is, nearly all people here agree, absolutely pointless. CO2 is a beneficial element and its affect on climate and weather is negligible.
    Any additional taxes in a time of economic sluggishness are foolish on their face. When the horse is laboring uphill, only cruel people and fools put more weight in the cart.
    On a longer-term scale, though, a carbon tax would work out to a consumption tax. Consumption taxes have their place in a revenue scheme; in the end, it becomes a kind of national sales tax. That can be a fiscal benefit when used wisely — but who reads this site and trusts the government to act wisely with taxes?

  7. In case you hadn’t noticed Congress has ignored his abuse of the legislative system as well. Not once has congress challenged any of Obama’s EOs.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *