SF To Tax Bakeries, Gas Stations, Refineries for CO2 Emissions

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
sf to tax bakeries gas stations refineries for co2 emissions

If you had any doubts that Californians are serious about de-warming the planet, San Francisco regulators are determined to remove your lack of faith. The New York Times reports that "Air quality regulators in the San Francisco Bay Area appear set to begin charging hundreds of businesses in the region for their emissions of heat-trapping gases." Ready, set, appear set! The Old Gray Lady reports that the proposed tax on greenhouse gas "pollution" is a pittance– just 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide emitted– and will hit some businesses (e.g. Big Oil) harder than others. "Regulators indicated that the fee could raise $1.1 million annually. Refineries, power plants and cement plants would pay nearly 90 percent of total fees. The largest gas stations might be charged $1 a year; the Safeway bakery that supplies bread to all stores in the Bay Area would pay $85 a year. The biggest emitter of the gases, the Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would have to pay $195,355, based on 2005 emissions of 4.4 million metric tons." To paraphrase Horton, a tax is a tax no matter how small. And while it would be difficult [politically] to hit-up local residents for CO2 emissions at the user end of the equation (say, a thousandth of a penny per box of organic Raisin Bran), I wouldn't it put it past these guys.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 28 comments
  • Hoove Hoove on Apr 17, 2008

    Imagine if Americans stopped talking so much... huge CO2 reduction. A breathing tax would be great, maybe our government issued RFID chips could monitor breathing and send a bill when we over emit.

  • Shaker Shaker on Apr 18, 2008

    We have upset the "natural carbon cycle" by taking trillions of tons of carbon sequestered millions of years ago and releasing it into the atmosphere in a few hundred years. We have cut down vast forests, whose main job in nature is to maintain the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere that allowed animal life to evolve (yes, evolve) to its present state. We should attempt to undo what we've done, and we should start soon. But, the lame-o politization and left/right crap will delay any real action. I weep for everybody's grandchildren, as our desire for material wealth could be destroying our only home. (oooh, sounds so 'socialist'!)

  • Kwanzaa Kwanzaa on Apr 18, 2008

    Could be? How about this...the demand for certain things, including forested products...leads to an INCREASE in supply!!! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030502075957.htm Wow, absolutely amazing...Supply and Demand still holds true today as it ever did. Same goes for any other natural resource...minerals, oil, etc. Yes, that's right...the more demand for oil, the more OIL!! If it can be extracted for a profit...it will. Go weep for your own grandchildren. Better yet, perhaps you may be better off not having them. Those grandchildren grow up wanting automobiles, homes, Nikes, beef, air travel, etc. That's right...if anyone wants to "do good"...stop having children. Once your genetic code has reached the end of the line, we will be much better off. And no, that's not meant to be a "flame", it's the truth. Following some people's argument, we cannot or should not live in a civilized manner, so let's not have people to demand such civilization.

  • Shaker Shaker on Apr 18, 2008

    Yes, my last post was a bit of a "bait". I'm consistently amazed at the vehemence of average citizens on both sides of the issue, while the 'powers that be' in control of our lives are perfectly happy to spur this debate; they'll decide when to allow the truth to be revealed.