Today's column: Carbon tax will harm Sparrows Point
The global economy has done its part: Russia's SeverStal has agreed to buy the Sparrows Point steel mill and invest in badly needed upgrades.
Now Maryland politicians should do theirs. If they insist on steeply taxing Sparrows Point's steelmaking process -- the upshot of global warming legislation being debated in Annapolis -- all the rubles in the world won't let the Point thrive.
The governor and General Assembly seem to get how a 6 percent tax on computer services will transport Maryland jobs elsewhere. They don't get how what may be an even bigger tax will hurt a company that employs 2,500 Marylanders at good wages.
The rest is in Wednesday's paper.
Comments
I live in Dundalk. I have a hard time seeing the Democratic majority sticking up for working class like us. The results speak for themselves. The working man has been losing jobs in this State for various reasons overtaxation, overregulation, and no regulation on illegal immigrants. I respect Speaker Busch; at least he's stuck to his guns on slots, having some principle. Even though I disagree with him, I see he has principles. And could somebody tell how big a difference reducing carbon in the fairly small State of Maryland will help global warming? I mean common sense people, really!!!
Posted by: Ballz Mahoney | March 25, 2008 9:50 PM
Jay, the Sun keeps saying that the Point employs 2500 people. That number is the number directly employed by Mittal. There are actually close to 6000 people employed at the point, which included a floating number of between 3000 & 3500 contractors, and roughly another 1000 - 1200 people who's business' only function is to support this massive plant's needs.
Posted by: Bill Goodman | March 26, 2008 6:21 AM
The problem with the column is that somewhere somebody eventually needs to deal with the carbon emissions. If we rule out steel plants in Maryland for regulation, then we rule out all steel plants in the US, right? And why not rule out power plants for regulation too while we're at it? Seems to me that by allowing the market to bear the costs of the carbon being emitted, we taxpayers will be less likely to be bearing the inevitable costs of not doing anything at all.
Another point: the thing about the global warming bill is that it's all not about steel plants and power plants, but it's about carbon reductions. If the state were to commit to a more comprehensive plan to reduce carbon from all sectors of the economy -- sprawl-induced transportation emissions in particular -- the impacts on Sparrow's Point could be minimized.
Posted by: TJH | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM
The problem with including Sparrows Point in legislation to cut carbon emissions by 25% is that the technology DOES NOT exist to get us there! It would be a no brainer to just legislate it done, why not mandate that all cars have to get 100 MPG by 2012. The technology doesn't exist for that either.
If Sparrows Point is made to reduce CE by that number, it would be forced to shut down because it is impossible, no matter how much money is thrown at it in upgrades or fines/tax penalities, to meet that criteria.
Posted by: Bill Goodman | March 28, 2008 5:35 PM