A Bold Claim: The ESSEX Carbon Tax Is “Conservative”?

By David Flemming

If you happened to be reading the ESSEX Plan Carbon Tax for the first time, you might ask yourself, “why did they choose $40 per ton of CO2?”

According the the ESSEX proposal, $40/ton of CO2 “is the same level the Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends suggests as a starting price,” a federal carbon tax proposal that was authored by Reagan and Bush’s administration cabinet secretaries. With this in mind, the  ESSEX authors of the proposal make the fascinating claim that “the ESSEX Plan is more conservative than the Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” (CCCD).

ESSEX is indeed less grandiose than the CCCD. That does not make it ideologically “conservative.” Whereas ESSEX would be phased in over 8 years to $40/ton, the CCCD would start at $40 a ton and go up from there. Since ESSEX takes less money from the pockets of hardworking Vermonters than the CCCD, it can crudely be called “more conservative,” in the sense that a 50 watt electric shock to the groin is more compassionate than a 100 watt shock.

But choosing the better of two bad options is hardly something conservatives would like to be known for. Indeed, while the conservative tent is open to a wide range of ideas, it would be difficult to call the ESSEX carbon tax truly “conservative.”

According to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, conservatives can be broadly classified into 9 distinct ideological camps today. While some of these 9 might object more adamantly than others to ESSEX, none of these 9 brands of conservatism would gain much from the ESSEX Carbon Tax.

To briefly explain ESSEX as it relates to 5 of these 9 types of conservatism:

  1. “Classical liberals favor a free economy and embrace the continuing truth of Adam Smith and F. A. Hayek, which means they see the place of virtue in forming productive citizens.” ESSEX would allow Vermont’s government to favor large corporations that use extensive amounts of electricity, at the expense of small businesses that rely more on fossil fuels. The government favoritism outlined in ESSEX is antithetical to free markets and the classical liberal ideal.
  2. “Neoconservatives hope to continue “the tradition of aggressive American exceptionalism rooted in both American military power and confident ideological leadership.” In contrast to strong ideological leadership, adoption of the CCCD or ESSEX carbon tax would signal a willingness to let progressive ideas guide Vermont and America, so long as those ideas have a conservative rubber stamp on the actual policy proposal.
  3. “Traditional Conservatives are concerned about the effects of both the modern economy and big government on ‘social ecology,’ which sustains dignified relational life rooted in particular communities.” While ESSEX tries to throw rural communities a bone with a rural rebate, Vermonters who use extensive amounts of fossil fuels for heat will end up with higher costs of living and communal decline.
  4. “Populist Conservatives tend to be less concerned about limiting the size and scope of the government in favor of stronger and smarter leadership to protect the dignified lives of ordinary Americans.” The ESSEX carbon tax would hurt blue collar workers who rely on fossil fuels. Even when the growth of government is not a concern, a carbon tax doesn’t make much sense as policy.
  5. “Growth Conservatives think the main reform America needs today is to cut taxes and trim regulations that constrain ‘job creators.’”Adopting a carbon tax that would force Vermonters to give even more of their income to government is hardly a recipe for job creation.

All 9 types of conservatives have nothing to gain and a lot to lose under ESSEX. For that matter, many moderates and progressives concerned about the impact of ESSEX on poor Vermonters are likely to reject this carbon tax when they see its economic costs. At its base, the ESSEX Plan is a radical environmental policy that will do little to make Vermont’s environment more resilient, and will do a lot to make Vermont’s economy unresponsive to the Vermonters who need it most.

David Flemming is a policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Hot Skillet September 21, 2018 at 9:55 pm

This claim is erroneous, the earth is not millions of years old.
The windmills are some of the cause of different weather.
They suck in air like a whirlpool. They vibrate like a concrete vibrator, thus turning soil earth into mush and they will sink. in Fact did in England.
Wind and solor are subsidized by the US Government, that is the only reason to erect them, we all pay or as of now we borrow the money to pay.
electric cars, etc have to have a power plant somewhere for them to get power.
A hybrid has to have a gas engine to make power.
Who ever said on the digger that hydro is not sustainable must have had hose apples.
for breakfast.
Quebec Hydro is the best way to go, because it is not affecting any of our rivers and is nearby and much cheaper.


Hot Skillet September 21, 2018 at 9:57 pm

The name implies a tax, that is just what it is, a sneaky tax for the politicians to carry on their misfit deeds.


William Hays September 22, 2018 at 5:58 pm

David: when speaking of electricity, please capitalize “Watt”, named after my ancestor James Watt. Thank you. Q: which is more annoying to the groin, when applied? Watts, Volts, or Amperes (all attributed to their discoverers)? No. I won’t participate in a test.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

A Response to “Who’s Really Politicizing Our Kids”

June 13, 2019 by Rob Roper The following is in response to a letter that appeared in the Caledonian Record on June 10th by Steven Isham.  To the...

VPIRG’s Plastic Agenda

June 12, 2019 By John McClaughry The plastic bag ban is sitting on Gov. Phil Scott’s desk. If he signs it, Statehouse Chronicle writer Guy Page reports, a working...

The Blittersdorf Special

June 11, 2019 By John McClaughry Remember the Champlain Flyer? That was Howard Dean’s commuter train that ran 13 miles from Charlotte to Burlington. After three years’ operation...

Roll Call! Senate Blocks Amendment to Remove Insurance Innovation from Bill (7-22), 2019

S.131 – AN ACT RELATING TO INSURANCE AND SECURITIES (BARUTH AMENDMENT) FAILED in the State Senate on April 3, 2019 by a vote of  7-22  . Purpose: The Amendment called for removing...

California Prison Drugs

June 7, 2019 By John McClaughry Steven Greenhut, writing in the Orange County (California) Register, makes an interesting point about drugs in prisons. He quotes a San Francisco...