Jon Mays’ column, “How to move toward electrification,” correctly recognizes that transitioning to a zero greenhouse gas economy will be challenging and will require action by California’s Legislature. Indeed, every level of government will need to act. He’s also right to worry about how a poorly designed transition might burden the poorest among us. But we can alleviate — even eliminate — those financial burdens if people simply paid the cost of the transition proportional to the pollution they create.
By implementing a fee on carbon pollution, price increases on polluting products will cause everyone to choose cleaner options, and heavy polluters (the richest among us) will pay the lion’s share of the cost. Furthermore, by distributing the revenue generated by the fee to all households equally through a monthly dividend check, most households (particularly the most needy) will see a financial gain that will help them pay bills and/or electrify their homes. To ensure that the poorest households can afford the full cost of electrification, we can easily adjust how the fee’s revenue is distributed.
It was only a matter of time before the carbon credit scam was brought into the conversation. Sorry, Mr. Mattlage, but this scheme has been shown to be wealth redistribution that will hit everyone in the form of more expensive goods and those who will be hit hardest are those in the middle and lower classes. Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about the “reverse” wealth redistribution scheme in which those with less financial means who can’t afford electrification are subsidizing the costs for people with greater wealth via rebates and tax credits. BTW, the price-on-carbon link you provide at the end addresses only America. Last I checked, America is not the only country on Earth and any supposed benefits being touted are based on the flawed analysis that only America exists. I imagine China, India, and other developing nations will soon surpass America in carbon emissions.
Mr. Y is incorrect in implying that the US (I assume that is what he means by "America") would be alone in putting a price on carbon. Many countries, including most of our large trading partners, have instituted some form of national carbon pricing. The countries that already put a price on carbon include Argentina, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the Ukraine, and other countries are considering it. This information is readily available from many reputable sources, including an article on the International Monetary Fund website published on July 21st 2022, which said that 46 countries were pricing emissions through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes and others were considering it.
That is just great Laura B - but can you also illustrate how that carbon fee has benefitted the environment and the folks who pay for this fee/tax? It is just another feel-good way to rip us off while claiming that the fee is saving the world. I have asked my relatives in the Netherlands about any distribution from this levied fee. They are not even aware of what the carbon fee is and where it is applied.
We have such a tax already in California, Cap and Trade, which is collected by the utilities. From time to time a proportion is given back to us on our utility bills. Does anyone know how much is left deposited by the various bureaucracies and utility accounts before we see some of it? What has this program done for California? It makes the carbon traders very rich. I know, I was involved in it.
Mr. Van Ulden, I am no expert on how these many other countries have implemented a price on carbon and how well their schemes work, and it seems you are no expert either. I was simply pointing out to Mr. Y that he was incorrect in saying that the US would be alone if it introduced a price on carbon.
Since you're so concerned about burdens on taxpayers, why don't you respond to my request to you to acknowledge the burden on taxpayers of having to subsidize the fossil fuel industry?
You are wise not to waste your time answering LauraB's question regarding taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Taxpayers do not own the uncollected taxes, nor are they giving their tax dollars to the industries. In fact, taxpayers are saving money.
Actually, LauraB, I never said the US was alone. If you re-read my statement, you can see I’m referencing Mr. Mattlage’s link, whose contents address only America, similar to Mr. Mattlage in his letter. Regardless, I guess that price on carbon hasn’t stopped, or curtailed, a number of countries continuing to emit carbon. But perhaps there’s a loophole, does this carbon tax apply to governments? For instance, the UK fired up coal generators because their “green” energy couldn’t keep up. Germany, last year, purchased over 44 million tonnes of coal, mostly from Russia. China purchased $114 billion worth of oil from Russia (while increasing coal mining operations in China) and is planning to build almost 200 coal power plants this year. Although not in your list, India is planning on importing 33 times more oil from Russia than last year and their current energy usage is provided mostly by coal (75% or so). Overall global use of coal has climbed to a record high of over 8 billion tonnes. But not to worry, any fossil fuels curtailed by America or other nations putting a price on carbon will be happily consumed by other nations at what they hope is a lower price.
Meanwhile, as CA attempts to outwit Mother Nature, over 50% of California’s electricity has been supplied by natural gas power plants for at least the past twenty years. CA wildfires in 2020 created enough carbon emissions to offset 16 years of reductions, twice over. If CA were really serious about climate change and emissions, instead of taking money from the poor and giving to the rich, California would put that money towards forest management and wildfire prevention, to the benefit of everyone.
Alan - this is a false premise. As has already been bantered about in previous letters, the proceeds from such a tax are in reality not returned to the citizens at large. They are in practice spent by the government on projects that they seem more important. There may be some residual benefits, as other articles have pointed out, but do not by any stretch of the imagination make up for the associated increased costs due to the carbon tax. The quoted website of the Citizens Climate Lobby overlooks important details and paints a rosy, idealized but unrealistic picture.
You are incorrect Dirk. It's actually not structured as a tax, but as a fee. A tax has the primary purpose of raising revenue, usually for the government to use as they wish. If the government imposes a carbon tax, it’s implied that Congress would use the revenue for something potentially not even related to climate. CCL is advocating for a carbon fee, where the revenue does not go to the government but instead is returned in the form of a dividend to the American people.
Westy - you can call it what you want but the fee will add to our cost of living. That may semantically not be a tax but the end result is the same. The increased cost will not be offset with any fee revenue distribution. You can count on that. Compare that with Biden's statement that nobody who makes less than $400K will see a tax increase. However, the inflation rate is 8%, not a tax perhaps but whatever you call it, it is a burden.
Mr. Ulden, how about the burden on the tax payer of the tens of billions a year we spend subsidizing new fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption?
You do seem super selective in what you consider to be a burden and what you don't. In addition to the subsidies we give to the oil industry, as LauraB points out, is the burden of pollution on the lungs of people and the planet.
Dirk, the proposal would fix in law that revenue from the fee would be placed in a trust fund that disperses all the revenue except for administrative costs, oil, gas, and coal used for purposed not require its being burned, and CO2 captured and permanently sequestered. This means the vast majority of the revenue will be distributed to consumers. Independent analyses have shown that roughly 2/3 of consumers will be not be made financially worse off by this law and most would be made better off, particularly the least-well off among us. The only people made worse off are the polluters. If the US Treasury does not follow the law, they would be sued by any number of organizations (left, right, and center). A bill was introduced in the last Congress that mostly embodies CCL's proposal. You can read it here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307/text?s=9&r=12&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22carbon+fee%22%5D%7D#toc-H34B02681FD7341F4B3AEDD403B4A8570. It might help you avoid making simple mistakes in assessing the proposal.
AlanM, if we take your numbers at face value, we can infer this carbon fee wealth redistribution scheme will take money from the 1/3 and give it to the 2/3. But that's discounting the fact that everyone will now have to pay more for their energy, hitting the least-well off among us, because anyone paying into this fund will pass on their costs to the consumer. It appears the only ones making out like bandits are likely the ones receiving guaranteed "administrative" costs.
Meanwhile, Antonia Timmerman penned an article regarding, “The dirty road to clean energy: How China’s electric vehicle boom is ravaging the environment” (https://restofworld.org/2022/indonesia-china-ev-nickel/) that includes associated pictures. An interesting read… And let’s not forget the increasing problems with hazardous waste due to solar panels that will or have reached the end of their useful life.
Terence, I'm beginning to think you are trying not to understand. Maybe this will help: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act.
AlanM - I’m beginning to think you don’t want to understand. The link you’ve referenced provides additional support that the carbon fee is a wealth redistribution vehicle that will include increases in energy prices. To quote from the Executive Summary, “Because higher-income households purchase far more carbon-intensive goods and services, distributing dividends equally implies that average low- and middle-income households receive more in dividends than they pay in increased economy-wide prices for goods and services resulting from the carbon tax.” and, “Energy prices rise but do not skyrocket.” And that’s assuming higher-income households purchase far more carbon-intensive goods and services.
Now if we hop onto that train… With the current reverse wealth redistribution of using taxpayer money to subsidize “green” improvements, lower- and middle-income households who are supposed to see a net benefit are already in the red because they can’t afford the upfront costs to take advantage of any “rebates” they’re paying into. Meanwhile, for those folks who installed solar, partially on everyone’s dime, their carbon-intensive goods and services consumption will decrease, potentially decreasing their “contribution” to the carbon fee, thus leading to less “free” money to lower- and middle-income households. Now I have made a few assumptions, similar to that of the study you’ve referenced. BTW, I would like to hear your thoughts on the dirty road to clean energy and “green” hazardous waste.
Charging a fee to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is no more a "wealth redistribution scheme" than charging a fee to dump solid waste into a landfill. How revenue for either of these fees is used is worth thinking about. In the case of the carbon fee and dividend proposal, the revenue goes to people on an equal basis. That's because we all (rich or poor) have the same claim to protecting our atmosphere. People who use the landfill at a high rate should pay more than those who don't. People who use the atmosphere as a carbon sink should pay more than those who don't.
AlanM – I’m becoming quite sure you don’t want to understand. You’ve provided a link that explains how the carbon fee is a wealth redistribution scheme in addition to how it will raise energy prices, and now you don’t believe the conclusions of your referenced report? Instead you’re trying to forge a link by comparing apples to oranges? Even if someone thought apples were oranges, it doesn’t change report conclusions. Instead of pushing a flawed carbon fee scam, perhaps you can tell us why folks, such as COP climate conference attendees, are telling us to save the planet when they are polluting to their hearts’ desires. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on the dirty road to clean energy and how to manage “green” hazardous waste.
Electrification is a laudable goal but can't expand until our grid is expanded significantly. Our current grid can’t support our current needs without blackouts. Expanding the grid will require significant increases in our electric bills to pay for it. We also have to wait for the cost of green energy to decrease and be available 24 hrs a day. We have the time to do this because even if CA electrified everything tomorrow it would have no measurable effect on global temperatures.
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!
(18) comments
It was only a matter of time before the carbon credit scam was brought into the conversation. Sorry, Mr. Mattlage, but this scheme has been shown to be wealth redistribution that will hit everyone in the form of more expensive goods and those who will be hit hardest are those in the middle and lower classes. Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about the “reverse” wealth redistribution scheme in which those with less financial means who can’t afford electrification are subsidizing the costs for people with greater wealth via rebates and tax credits. BTW, the price-on-carbon link you provide at the end addresses only America. Last I checked, America is not the only country on Earth and any supposed benefits being touted are based on the flawed analysis that only America exists. I imagine China, India, and other developing nations will soon surpass America in carbon emissions.
Mr. Y is incorrect in implying that the US (I assume that is what he means by "America") would be alone in putting a price on carbon. Many countries, including most of our large trading partners, have instituted some form of national carbon pricing. The countries that already put a price on carbon include Argentina, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the UK and the Ukraine, and other countries are considering it. This information is readily available from many reputable sources, including an article on the International Monetary Fund website published on July 21st 2022, which said that 46 countries were pricing emissions through carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes and others were considering it.
That is just great Laura B - but can you also illustrate how that carbon fee has benefitted the environment and the folks who pay for this fee/tax? It is just another feel-good way to rip us off while claiming that the fee is saving the world. I have asked my relatives in the Netherlands about any distribution from this levied fee. They are not even aware of what the carbon fee is and where it is applied.
We have such a tax already in California, Cap and Trade, which is collected by the utilities. From time to time a proportion is given back to us on our utility bills. Does anyone know how much is left deposited by the various bureaucracies and utility accounts before we see some of it? What has this program done for California? It makes the carbon traders very rich. I know, I was involved in it.
Mr. Van Ulden, I am no expert on how these many other countries have implemented a price on carbon and how well their schemes work, and it seems you are no expert either. I was simply pointing out to Mr. Y that he was incorrect in saying that the US would be alone if it introduced a price on carbon.
Since you're so concerned about burdens on taxpayers, why don't you respond to my request to you to acknowledge the burden on taxpayers of having to subsidize the fossil fuel industry?
Mr. van Ulden,
You are wise not to waste your time answering LauraB's question regarding taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Taxpayers do not own the uncollected taxes, nor are they giving their tax dollars to the industries. In fact, taxpayers are saving money.
Actually, LauraB, I never said the US was alone. If you re-read my statement, you can see I’m referencing Mr. Mattlage’s link, whose contents address only America, similar to Mr. Mattlage in his letter. Regardless, I guess that price on carbon hasn’t stopped, or curtailed, a number of countries continuing to emit carbon. But perhaps there’s a loophole, does this carbon tax apply to governments? For instance, the UK fired up coal generators because their “green” energy couldn’t keep up. Germany, last year, purchased over 44 million tonnes of coal, mostly from Russia. China purchased $114 billion worth of oil from Russia (while increasing coal mining operations in China) and is planning to build almost 200 coal power plants this year. Although not in your list, India is planning on importing 33 times more oil from Russia than last year and their current energy usage is provided mostly by coal (75% or so). Overall global use of coal has climbed to a record high of over 8 billion tonnes. But not to worry, any fossil fuels curtailed by America or other nations putting a price on carbon will be happily consumed by other nations at what they hope is a lower price.
Meanwhile, as CA attempts to outwit Mother Nature, over 50% of California’s electricity has been supplied by natural gas power plants for at least the past twenty years. CA wildfires in 2020 created enough carbon emissions to offset 16 years of reductions, twice over. If CA were really serious about climate change and emissions, instead of taking money from the poor and giving to the rich, California would put that money towards forest management and wildfire prevention, to the benefit of everyone.
Alan - this is a false premise. As has already been bantered about in previous letters, the proceeds from such a tax are in reality not returned to the citizens at large. They are in practice spent by the government on projects that they seem more important. There may be some residual benefits, as other articles have pointed out, but do not by any stretch of the imagination make up for the associated increased costs due to the carbon tax. The quoted website of the Citizens Climate Lobby overlooks important details and paints a rosy, idealized but unrealistic picture.
You are incorrect Dirk. It's actually not structured as a tax, but as a fee. A tax has the primary purpose of raising revenue, usually for the government to use as they wish. If the government imposes a carbon tax, it’s implied that Congress would use the revenue for something potentially not even related to climate. CCL is advocating for a carbon fee, where the revenue does not go to the government but instead is returned in the form of a dividend to the American people.
Westy - you can call it what you want but the fee will add to our cost of living. That may semantically not be a tax but the end result is the same. The increased cost will not be offset with any fee revenue distribution. You can count on that. Compare that with Biden's statement that nobody who makes less than $400K will see a tax increase. However, the inflation rate is 8%, not a tax perhaps but whatever you call it, it is a burden.
Mr. Ulden, how about the burden on the tax payer of the tens of billions a year we spend subsidizing new fossil fuel exploration, production and consumption?
You do seem super selective in what you consider to be a burden and what you don't. In addition to the subsidies we give to the oil industry, as LauraB points out, is the burden of pollution on the lungs of people and the planet.
Dirk, the proposal would fix in law that revenue from the fee would be placed in a trust fund that disperses all the revenue except for administrative costs, oil, gas, and coal used for purposed not require its being burned, and CO2 captured and permanently sequestered. This means the vast majority of the revenue will be distributed to consumers. Independent analyses have shown that roughly 2/3 of consumers will be not be made financially worse off by this law and most would be made better off, particularly the least-well off among us. The only people made worse off are the polluters. If the US Treasury does not follow the law, they would be sued by any number of organizations (left, right, and center). A bill was introduced in the last Congress that mostly embodies CCL's proposal. You can read it here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307/text?s=9&r=12&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22carbon+fee%22%5D%7D#toc-H34B02681FD7341F4B3AEDD403B4A8570. It might help you avoid making simple mistakes in assessing the proposal.
AlanM, if we take your numbers at face value, we can infer this carbon fee wealth redistribution scheme will take money from the 1/3 and give it to the 2/3. But that's discounting the fact that everyone will now have to pay more for their energy, hitting the least-well off among us, because anyone paying into this fund will pass on their costs to the consumer. It appears the only ones making out like bandits are likely the ones receiving guaranteed "administrative" costs.
Meanwhile, Antonia Timmerman penned an article regarding, “The dirty road to clean energy: How China’s electric vehicle boom is ravaging the environment” (https://restofworld.org/2022/indonesia-china-ev-nickel/) that includes associated pictures. An interesting read… And let’s not forget the increasing problems with hazardous waste due to solar panels that will or have reached the end of their useful life.
Terence, I'm beginning to think you are trying not to understand. Maybe this will help: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act.
AlanM - I’m beginning to think you don’t want to understand. The link you’ve referenced provides additional support that the carbon fee is a wealth redistribution vehicle that will include increases in energy prices. To quote from the Executive Summary, “Because higher-income households purchase far more carbon-intensive goods and services, distributing dividends equally implies that average low- and middle-income households receive more in dividends than they pay in increased economy-wide prices for goods and services resulting from the carbon tax.” and, “Energy prices rise but do not skyrocket.” And that’s assuming higher-income households purchase far more carbon-intensive goods and services.
Now if we hop onto that train… With the current reverse wealth redistribution of using taxpayer money to subsidize “green” improvements, lower- and middle-income households who are supposed to see a net benefit are already in the red because they can’t afford the upfront costs to take advantage of any “rebates” they’re paying into. Meanwhile, for those folks who installed solar, partially on everyone’s dime, their carbon-intensive goods and services consumption will decrease, potentially decreasing their “contribution” to the carbon fee, thus leading to less “free” money to lower- and middle-income households. Now I have made a few assumptions, similar to that of the study you’ve referenced. BTW, I would like to hear your thoughts on the dirty road to clean energy and “green” hazardous waste.
Charging a fee to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is no more a "wealth redistribution scheme" than charging a fee to dump solid waste into a landfill. How revenue for either of these fees is used is worth thinking about. In the case of the carbon fee and dividend proposal, the revenue goes to people on an equal basis. That's because we all (rich or poor) have the same claim to protecting our atmosphere. People who use the landfill at a high rate should pay more than those who don't. People who use the atmosphere as a carbon sink should pay more than those who don't.
AlanM – I’m becoming quite sure you don’t want to understand. You’ve provided a link that explains how the carbon fee is a wealth redistribution scheme in addition to how it will raise energy prices, and now you don’t believe the conclusions of your referenced report? Instead you’re trying to forge a link by comparing apples to oranges? Even if someone thought apples were oranges, it doesn’t change report conclusions. Instead of pushing a flawed carbon fee scam, perhaps you can tell us why folks, such as COP climate conference attendees, are telling us to save the planet when they are polluting to their hearts’ desires. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on the dirty road to clean energy and how to manage “green” hazardous waste.
Electrification is a laudable goal but can't expand until our grid is expanded significantly. Our current grid can’t support our current needs without blackouts. Expanding the grid will require significant increases in our electric bills to pay for it. We also have to wait for the cost of green energy to decrease and be available 24 hrs a day. We have the time to do this because even if CA electrified everything tomorrow it would have no measurable effect on global temperatures.
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.