Gary Johnson continues to stutter as the Libertarian Party nominee. Perhaps libertarians are holding him to a higher standard, but Johnson is proving that he is in way over his head as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate.
Speaking in an interview with Juneau Empire, the former New Mexico Republican Governor confirmed that he supports the view that climate change is being caused by man. Although this can often be debated, Johnson’s next comment surprised many libertarians.
Here is what the website reports:
To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.
“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” but at the same time, he says the United States is only “16 percent of the (global) load” of carbon, and “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”
“The rest of the world has to catch up with us,” he said.
But who would impose this fee? If it’s the government then this mandated fee would be a tax.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times earlier this month, the two-time presidential candidate revealed that he was in favor of a carbon tax.
“I’m open also to the notion of a carbon tax,” Johnson said. “That it does have an impact, that it ends up being revenue-neutral. I’m not looking at this as a revenue generator, as much as there are costs associated with, there are health and safety issues with carbon.”
A carbon tax is essentially a tax on living and will do nothing but hinder the free market economy even further. As free market economist Robert Murphy writes:
“Proponents of a carbon tax swap deal are right when they claim that the gross harms of a new carbon tax can be partially offset if its receipts are used to reduce other taxes. However, they typically leap from this true claim to the unjustified conclusion that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will be a “win-win” for the economy — by reducing distortions from the tax code as well as providing environmental benefits. On the contrary, it is theoretically possible and empirically likely that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will impose more deadweight loss on the economy, offsetting at least some of the potential environmental benefits.”
What is wrong with Gary Johnson? Is it a matter of political expediency? Is it a matter of distorting the libertarian message?
Everything from adding Mitt Romney to his administration to supporting the United Nations, Johnson is really discrediting the libertarian movement with each interview he partakes in.
Tho Bishop of the Mises Institute was right: Johnson needs to listen to the Mises U 2016 lectures.
So in a purely Libertarian government, who pays for the cost of pollution? Who protects the many people from the few who poison the water and air? Because if you believe climate science, then that’s the next logical train of thought. (If you don’t believe climate science then note that is an entirely different argument).