Frequently Asked Questions



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMS is an organization of conservative leaders with experience in business, government and thought leadership who know that markets and economic incentives are the most powerful drivers of change. We aim to educate conservatives on the benefits of market-oriented solutions to one of America’s most pressing economic challenges: advancing clean energy and reducing carbon pollution. AMS backs a policy that would eliminate harmful regulations, replacing them with an alternative carbon tax policy that would produce more growth and jobs than regulations, when paired with pro-growth tax reforms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. We do not engage in electoral politics on behalf of any candidate, campaign or party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMS is comprised of conservatives and Republicans who are pro-growth. It aims to promote market-based principles, not regulations, for pro-growth solutions to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMS backs a policy that would eliminate harmful regulations, replacing them with an alternative carbon tax policy that would produce more growth and jobs than regulations. A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels and other products and processes that generate emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. For more details, click here.

A carbon tax policy that would replace other less-efficient regulations would achieve significant carbon-emission reductions in a more cost-effective way. There are a number of estimates of the expected reduction in emissions from various carbon tax proposals. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (2013) estimates that a $25/ton carbon tax on electricity generation, manufacturing, and transportation – with the tax rate rising 2 percent faster than inflation each year – would result in emissions falling from the sources subject to the tax by roughly 10 percent in the first decade. To learn more, click here.

A carbon tax policy would be far simpler to administer than either regulations or cap-and-trade. It would affect a far smaller number of entities—and, it would remove power from government bureaucrats to meddle with private-sector decisions.

 

The current regulatory path is not working and is harming growth and jobs. According to EY, the expansion of regulatory CO2 controls will cost each household an average $1,310 annually in additional economic burden. But we still need a solution to clean energy and carbon pollution. The carbon tax policy we favor would actually increase GDP and jobs because it’s pro-growth. According to EY, a carbon tax substituted for expanding regulations, and used for a corporate rate cut, would produce an economic benefit of $2,940 per household annually.

 

To learn more about conservatives who support eliminating harmful regulations, and replacing them with an alternative carbon tax policy, click here.

 

China is now making huge investments to become the global leader in clean-energy technology. The U.S. is at risk of falling behind in this key global growth sector. A revenue-neutral carbon tax policy could unleash American innovation to become a global leader in this field – without growing the government. To learn more, click here.

 

AMS supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax policy to replace harmful regulations. EY recently estimated that a $20 per ton carbon tax could raise $930 billion over the ten-year budget window, a $40 per ton tax would raise $1,590 billion, and a $60 per ton tax would raise $2,070 billion. This would be available for pro-growth tax reductions.

The revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the corporate income tax, the individual income tax, and the payroll tax, among others. In particular, the corporate income tax has a large negative impact on economic growth because it imposes an especially high tax burden on savings and investment. This reduces capital formation, which in turn hinders worker productivity, and thus over time acts as a drag on wages and income. According to EY, a carbon tax substituted for expanding regulations, and used for a corporate rate cut, would produce an economic benefit of nearly $3,000 per household annually.

Using the proceeds of a carbon tax to pay a rebate or dividend would produce no additional economic growth or jobs. For more details, click here.

Conservatives embrace market-based approaches that limit government versus regulatory approaches that grow bureaucracy and harm growth. Current environmental regulation picks winners and losers, harms economic growth, costs jobs, and stifles innovation. By advocating for an energy policy that resists far-reaching regulatory regimes, conservatives can offer the alternative of a revenue-neutral carbon tax policy that includes pro-growth tax reforms.

According to EY, the 2013-2016 climate regulations are estimated to reduce GDP by nearly 1% in the long run, or more than $1,300 per household per year. This is a hidden tax on the people. Instead, a conservative carbon tax policy that is revenue-neutral, replaces these regulations, and reduces carbon pollution by the same amount, could add up to 2 percent to GDP in the long run, or nearly $3,000 per household annually. For more details, click here.

The expansion of regulatory controls is harming growth, and should be repealed – and that includes most climate regulations. For more details, click here.

Innovation is certainly needed, and we need even more of it. But the best way to accelerate innovation is not through subsidies and regulations. Rather, a revenue-neutral carbon tax policy that replaces regulations would stimulate American innovation without the heavy hand of government command and control.

Download PDF