The modest fee — 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide — probably won’t be enough to force companies to reduce their emissions, but backers say it sets an important precedent in combating climate change and could serve as a model for regional air districts nationwide.

“It doesn’t solve global warming, but it gets us thinking in the right terms,” said Daniel Kammen, a renewable energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s not enough of a cost to change behavior, but it tells us where things are headed. You have to think not just in financial terms, but in carbon terms.”

This type of policy is typical of environmentalist thinking. Results do not matter. What matters is addressing the problem, not actual results. If results mattered and they wanted to actually reduce emission, then they would charge a tax high enough to change behavior.

Because this tax isn’t designed to charge behavior, the entire point is to raise revenue. I wish people like Daniel Kammen were honest about that. The point is to create a fund to pay for pet projects. The story reports that “If approved, the fees are expected to generate $1.1 million in its first year to help pay for programs to measure the region’s emissions and develop ways to reduce them.”

If the Bay Area Air Quality Management District wanted to reduce emissions, they wouldn’t need a $1.1 million fund to pay their favorite consultants or to do pet projects. They would just increase the tax. If they increase it high enough then emissions will fall. Easy enough.

If the environmentalists that control the Bay Area Air Quality Management District truly believed in the their actions and the dangers of increasing carbon dioxide levels, they would levy a high enough tax to create behavior. Obviously this isn’t about changing behavior. It is about making a statement. Don’t these guys care about the environment?