At one time, a popular metaphor for government overreach was to say that it wanted to tax the very air that we breathe. After all, what could be a more basic right than to consume that most essential tonic of life, available everywhere and essential to life every moment?

Leave it to the Democrats and their carbon tax to want to tax the very carbon dioxide that we and the world of plants breathe.

We Republicans say that taxing carbon dioxide is a bad idea for several reasons:

It is a highly regressive tax, placing the greatest burdens on those who can afford it the least.

The working poor, often juggling two jobs, are highly dependent on their cars and use them heavily. Their cars tend to be older and less fuel efficient. Likewise, they are less likely to be able to afford the latest in energy-efficient heating in their homes and energy-saving appliances. A carbon tax hits that segment of the population the hardest, perhaps harder than any other tax. The most regressive tax ever?

It is a direct restraint on commerce and industry.

People generally act in ways to reduce their taxes. The hope of advocates for a carbon tax is that the tax will motivate businesses to find efficient ways of producing their product with less carbon dioxide byproduct. However, it is also a truth that people tend to reduce their taxes in the simplest way possible. In this case, the simplest way is to just produce less. Less industry. Less commerce. Less growth. Less prosperity.

Its anti-competitive.

The greatest gains for the environment have been made when the government sets a standard and then steps back to allow the marketplace to empower the competitive forces to achieve efficient and effective solutions. Good examples are automotive fuel consumption and ozone killing chlorofluorocarbon reductions. A carbon tax inserts the government into the business practices of industry without setting a clear standard.

As a hidden tax, a carbon tax is far too easy to raise without raising public outcry and opposition.

King County may well be able to afford a $50 billion mass transit system so they are free to park their cars and vote in increases to the carbon tax and punish the rural counties for their continuing dependence on the evil gasoline. The rural counties do not share King County’s luxury.

Its objective is vague and open-ended.

We can all sign on to improving the efficiency of our cars and our appliances. However, what is the purpose of carbon reduction beyond high-minded platitudes? Sure, if we do nothing, the oceans may rise. But, how much must we do? How much carbon must we eliminate? And, how much global reduction truly falls within our capacity to reduce? Scientists, even those who have signed on to the proposition of catastrophic climate change, disagree. How are we supposed to understand and support something we may not understand?

Donnie Hall is State Committeeman for the Clallam County Republican Party. See clallamrepublicans.org.