This past year has been difficult. We experienced the most destructive fires in California’s history, record-breaking summer heat across the western United States, hurricanes Michael and Florence, and many other weather extremes. Globally, 2018 is expected to be the fourth hottest year on record — just behind 2015, 2016 and 2017. Scientific reports link these events to our emissions of greenhouse gases.
To avoid worse climate catastrophes, we must create a modern, zero-carbon economy. It’s a big challenge, but fortunately the world is waking up to it and solutions are available. Congress is exploring two important ways forward: HR 7173 — The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend (EICD) Act and the Green New Deal (GND). The EICD Act is a bipartisan bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch and co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto. The GND has been proposed by U.S. Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and is supported by U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo. The approaches are different but mutually reinforcing.
Economists across the political spectrum agree that the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on them. The EICD Act does exactly that by charging oil, gas and coal companies a low but steadily increasing fee on the greenhouse gases that their products emit. To protect consumers from pass-through price increases, 100 percent of the revenue from the fee would be distributed to American households on an equal per capita basis. Roughly two out of three American households would see a net increase in their disposable income, especially low and median-income households. The act would create 2.1 million jobs over the next 10 years. Emissions would fall 40 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050 from 2015 levels. All in all, the EICD Act is sound policy — good for people, good for the economy and environmentally effective.
The Green New Deal is not yet fully described, but Ocasio-Cortez has called for the creation of a select House committee to work out the details, saying that the resulting legislation would be “the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation.” She does propose, however, seven very important goals, including the decarbonization of all energy production, manufacturing, agriculture and transportation; an efficient “smart” grid; weatherization programs; technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere; and the export of green technology. The proposal relies on bold, monumental public spending similar to what as has been spent on our wars.
Proponents of both approaches understand the urgency of the crisis. Both say that their path forward is timely and necessary. Happily, there is no need to decide between them since we can pursue both at the same time. Indeed, they are mutually reinforcing. The EICD Act would mobilize private investments (totaling $2.4 trillion in 2017), launch clean technologies, change consumer behavior and promote weatherization and innovation. No economic sector would be unaffected by an economy-wide carbon fee. At the same time, many elements of the GND would accelerate the adoption of technologies and solutions that the EICD Act is designed to stimulate. Implementing both would advance the goals everyone seeks.
Currently, the GND has support from Democrats only. It is likely to meet stiff resistance from Republicans for the foreseeable future, but it sets a clear marker for where we must go. Meanwhile, the EICD Act has bipartisan support and is expected to be reintroduced in the next Congress. This makes near-term action possible. The EICD Act would be a first, immediate and major step toward the meaningful climate action envisioned by the GND. Reps. Speier and Eshoo should work together vigorously to pursue both approaches.
Alan Mattlage is a retired librarian who holds a Ph.D. in political philosophy from the University of Illinois. He is a member of the San Mateo County chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
First thing we should do is eliminate private airplane flights in America. The elites will show that they are serious and would be a good sign before leveling a regressive tax on our poor. If not, you will have the rioting that you had in France.
Yes! Why even bother with the paid deniers and front groups who thrive creating the delay of a false climate debate? A revenue neutral carbon fee but with a 100% dividend, makes enormous sense (cents, too)! ! Conservative and liberal economists and scientists say it is the best way to create healthy pollution free communities and limit climate change. It is not a tax. This way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly check, for example. That would protect us from price spikes in dirty energy. Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages. or "externalities", they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard School of Medicine). It would more rapidly limit further pollution than by regulations alone, as happened in BC Canada with a similar, popular policy. BC lowered emissions and also lowered taxes with their fees. A study by respected non-partisan Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9 million additional jobs in 20 years, while reducing carbon emissions 50% in that time, as fees stimulate low carbon technologies . http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/REMI-National-SUMMARY.pdf To those who reject the science: perhaps nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the dividend) in your pockets? To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate trauma is worth it. For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Elon Musk was asked "what can we do? " Musk: "I would say whenever you have the opportunity, talk to the politicians.,,,,. We have to fix the unpriced externality [social cost]. I would talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry."
All good stuff We also need to counter the now built in 'subsidy lobby' the hydrocarbon industry has amassed. Recently the subsidies for solar and electric vihicles have been attacked but the giveaways to the Exxons of the country live on. That really distorts the free market and prolongs the agony and the danger. We will also need to counter the unions of oil workers and coal miners that have to be provided with help in the transition. If left to hang out and dry they will oppose any change as they are now doing. The really good news is that technology is marching on and batteries and more efficient solar panels are pricing out the fossils, human and otherwise. Still it's an 'all hands on deck' approach that's needed. Bravo Alan.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
First thing we should do is eliminate private airplane flights in America. The elites will show that they are serious and would be a good sign before leveling a regressive tax on our poor. If not, you will have the rioting that you had in France.
Yes! Why even bother with the paid deniers and front groups who thrive creating the delay of a false climate debate?
A revenue neutral carbon fee but with a 100% dividend, makes enormous sense (cents, too)! !
Conservative and liberal economists and scientists say it is the best way to create healthy pollution free communities and limit climate change. It is not a tax. This way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly check, for example. That would protect us from price spikes in dirty energy.
Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages. or "externalities", they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard School of Medicine).
It would more rapidly limit further pollution than by regulations alone, as happened in BC Canada with a similar, popular policy. BC lowered emissions and also lowered taxes with their fees.
A study by respected non-partisan Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9 million additional jobs in 20 years, while reducing carbon emissions 50% in that time, as fees stimulate low carbon technologies . http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/REMI-National-SUMMARY.pdf
To those who reject the science: perhaps nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the dividend) in your pockets?
To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate trauma is worth it. For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Elon Musk was asked "what can we do? " Musk: "I would say whenever you have the opportunity, talk to the politicians.,,,,. We have to fix the unpriced externality [social cost]. I would talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry."
All good stuff We also need to counter the now built in 'subsidy lobby' the hydrocarbon industry has amassed. Recently the subsidies for solar and electric vihicles have been attacked but the giveaways to the Exxons of the country live on. That really distorts the free market and prolongs the agony and the danger. We will also need to counter the unions of oil workers and coal miners that have to be provided with help in the transition. If left to hang out and dry they will oppose any change as they are now doing. The really good news is that technology is marching on and batteries and more efficient solar panels are pricing out the fossils, human and otherwise. Still it's an 'all hands on deck' approach that's needed. Bravo Alan.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.