“Let it be noted that a Koch organization cosponsored a pro-carbon-tax event, and may the three other campus organizations reciprocate by bringing in a strong voice against pricing carbon dioxide–even that of the world’s leading energy philosopher, Alex Epstein, who would lambaste Inglis’s talk title as fatally imprecise.”

On August 27, The College of Charleston is hosting a Forum on Free Enterprise Solution to Climate Change. The speaker is Bob Inglis, a former Congressman (R-SC) who lost a reelection bid in 2030 with 29 percent in the Republican primary, partly due to his alarmist/activist position on climate change, cinlduing advocacy of a carbon tax.

Since his defeat, Inglis founded RepublicEN, “a nationwide group of free-enterprise solution to climate change.” Inglis, holding an undergraduate degree in political science from Duke University and a J.D. from the University of Virginia, runs republicEn within the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

Inglis’s talk next week came to my attention because a cosponsor of the event is the Center for Public Choice & Market Process, a Koch-funded center run by my friend Pete Calcagno. Other sponsors at the College of Charleston are the Department of Political Science, the Sustainability Institute, and the Master of Environmental Studies.

Let it be noted that a Koch-funded organization cosponsored a pro-carbon-tax event. And may the other three co-sponsoring organizations have the commitment to open debate to reciprocate by bringing in a strong voice against pricing carbon dioxide–even that of the world’s leading energy philosopher, Alex Epstein, who would lambaste Inglis’s talk title as fatally imprecise–nothing will “solve” climate change.

Five Questions for Inglis

Here are some questions that Inglis should consider in his talk, questions that surely the audience will have in mind.

1. What is “conservative” or “Republican” about introducing a qualitative new tax to the existing corpus of federal taxes, especially one based on an exaggerated Malthusian alarm about what is arguably a nonpollutant (carbon dioxide (CO2)?
2. Short of a constitutional amendment (and even that might not be enough), what is to keep politicians from spending the money rather than “dividending” the collected revenue (e.g. H.R. 6463, the recent Curbelo $23 per metric ton tax)?
3. What are the energy price effects and the climate effects of your proposal?
4. Can your new tax be implemented without tariffs against goods imported from countries that do not have similar tax regimes? If so, what does this do to investment and import decisions from the US side. If not, what does this mean regarding the growth of government?
5. Can your tax be implement without equity adjustments? If so, what does this mean for lower-income consumers? If not, what does this mean for the growth of government?

Let the best ideas win at the Inglis seminar next week in Charleston.