If you’re concerned about the climate emergency and were plugged in to news sources yesterday, you probably know that the climate movement won a big victory: President Obama vetoed the legislation passed by Congress to approve the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
But there was another, less publicized, important development yesterday: the introduction by Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, with 16 co-sponsors, of the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act (H.R. 1027) in the House of Representatives.
The Healthy Climate bill uses a “cap and dividend” framework. It would legislate a steadily declining cap on carbon emissions, about 2% a year starting the year that it is passed, leading to an 80% reduction compared to 2005 levels by 2050. Coal, oil and gas companies that bring fossil fuels out of the ground or into the country would be required to buy permits at auction. The overall number of those permits would decrease as the cap declines, leading to rising permit prices. All of the money raised by this process, many hundreds of billions over the first decade, would be returned in equal amounts as “dividends” to every US resident with a social security number.
Given the absolute need for the federal government to enact a price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, this less publicized development is, arguably, as important as President Obama’s veto.
The fact is that there are several things which the climate movement must be doing:
1) Stopping the expansion of extreme energy extraction: tar sands oil, fracking, Arctic oil and gas drilling, mountaintop coal removal, and deep ocean oil and gas drilling in particular.
2) Accelerating the rapidly growing shift from fossil fuels to wind and solar as energy sources for electrical power.
3) Advancing local, state and federal legislation that incentivizes energy efficiency and renewables.
4) Supporting strong federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
5) Working to enact federal legislation that puts a price on carbon and other planet-heating greenhouse gases.
Given the power, wealth and greed of the fossil fuel industry and its ability, so far, to control almost all Republican congresspeople and a significant percentage of Democrats, it is not surprising that number five is the least developed of all of these.
That has to — absolutely has to — change.
As 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben emphasized on yesterday’s tele-press conference on the bill’s reintroduction, it makes “no sense to allow one industry to throw its pollution into the atmosphere for free. If anyone owns the sky, it’s not Exxon. It’s all of us.”
The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act would “accelerate very quickly the biggest job on the planet: getting rid of carbon,” added McKibben. “There would be no plan for Keystone XL if there was anything like a rational price on carbon.”
With Congressman Chris Van Hollen leading the way and the support of groups like 350.org, CCAN, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Biological Diversity, National People’s Action, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club, a strong, fair and commonsense federal solution to price carbon is finally moving forward. More information on this legislation can be found at http://climateandprosperity.org.
For more information on this new legislation:
Van Hollen moving climate change with 2016 leverage. CNN News. 2/23/15.
Focus legislative energy on a national carbon policy, not Keystone XL. Washington Post. 2/24/15.
Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends Policy Update: August 2014
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance legislation to put a price on carbon and return all or most of the proceeds to American families. We are pleased to support HR 5271, the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, “cap and dividend” legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in the House of Representatives on July 30, 2014.
We will be producing and distributing this occasional newsletter to keep others informed about developments with this bill and with other efforts to put a price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.
More information on the Van Hollen bill can be found at http://climateandprosperity.org.
In This Issue:
1. A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen
2. New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce
3. The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend
4. The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept
5. The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution
6. Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?
7. CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill
8. With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality
#1: A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (2 ½ minutes)
#2: New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce
“From the scorched earth of climate debates a bold idea is rising — one that just might succeed in breaking the nation’s current political impasse on reducing carbon emissions. That’s because it would bring tangible gains for American families here and now.”
Read the New York Times op-ed.
#3: The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend
“In short, the concept makes a lot of sense — in terms of promoting conservation, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases and supporting renewable energy — with the added benefit of making such a transition a bit easier for anyone with a valid Social Security number. It is the ultimate consumer-friendly approach to a rational U.S. energy policy with the chief shortcoming being that it doesn’t serve the agenda of any deep-pocketed special interest group and so may have trouble finding broad support in Congress.”
Read the Baltimore Sun editorial.
#4: The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept
“This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics, putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.”
Read the Washington Post editorial.
#5: The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution
“I’m a University of New Mexico student who works full time to make ends meet. I support this bill because I think we need to make the price of carbon-polluting energy sources reflect their true costs — in terms of the environment and our children’s futures, so we shift away from these sources to cleaner energy supplies. Secondly, I think regular people like me and my working-class family need to have help making the transition.”
Read the op-ed.
#6: Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?
“The bill would require companies to have permits to produce or import carbon-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The permits, instead of being allocated politically, would be auctioned off by the government, so they would get into the hands of the emitters who need them the most. A similar auction system drastically reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide—which causes acid rain—quicker and cheaper than experts expected.”
Read the full Bloomberg story.
#7: CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill
“The introduction of this legislation shows that we have moved legislators — especially Democrats — a long way toward revenue-neutrality in carbon pricing, as well the concept of returning revenue to households as dividends. This is an important step forward as we seek bi-partisan legislation, and we’re thrilled with Van Hollen’s bill from that standpoint.”
Read the CCL update.
#8: With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality
“One beauty of his proposal is that the income everyone receives would come without political or psychological stigma. The dividends couldn’t be criticized as reckless government spending or money taken through taxation. Nor could they be called a handout to the ‘undeserving poor.’ Dividends from common wealth would be a universal birthright, and that is a big part of their appeal. Chase down a copy of With Liberty and Dividends for All. It will challenge many of your assumptions about what we can accomplish within a market economy and within the framework of the commons. The reverberations from this short, readable and profoundly original book will be heard for years to come.”
Read the full review.
CCAN encourages readers of Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included.
Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.
Letter from the Director: Why I'm an optimist
Dear CCAN supporters,
They say you have to be an optimist to be an activist. So I guess I’m an optimist. Despite the admittedly dark days and setbacks that come with fulltime campaigning on global warming, I know that a totally clean-energy world is within our grasp in our lifetimes. I believe this with every fiber in my body. So yeah, I’m an optimist. And you should be too! Read through to the end of my column to see why.
But first, let’s not sugarcoat things. After a long career in journalism, I founded CCAN in 2002 because I had come to realize that nothing else – nothing – was as important as fighting global warming. We could cure cancer tomorrow but we won’t have good health if malaria spreads and heat waves and droughts leave us malnourished. We could end all wars forever, and we won’t have peace if warming-induced Frankenstorms like Sandy and Katrina batter our coastal cities. A wise scientist once said, “Climate is destiny. Change your climate and you change everything.”
Each time I read or hear of some new natural-world weirdness I look for the fingerprints of climate change and they are almost always there. The massive algae bloom in Lake Erie that recently contaminated the drinking water of more than 400,000 people in the Toledo, Ohio region? It wasn’t the heat this time. It was, according to a state official, the incredible increase in “extreme rain events” that have recently plagued Ohio. Scientists confirm that measurable and growing extreme precipitation events are being triggered by global warming in much of the country. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. But what goes up eventually must come down. And we’re learning that it tends to come down in bursts. Those bursting rain events this summer have swept record amounts of livestock waste and agricultural fertilizer into Lake Erie during concentrated periods of time that have in turn triggered unprecedented algae blooms that knocked out the drinking water to nearly half a million Ohioans.
Of course, similar disruptive events related to climate change are happening worldwide. A draft report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just released this week, states that climate change is now “severe” and “pervasive” and some characteristics of it are “irreversible.” The report is the scientific community’s starkest and most strongly worded warning yet of the dangers that lie ahead unless we act.
And so we must act. CCAN has never been busier in the fight to reduce carbon pollution in our region. We continue to battle the ridiculous and destructive proposal to build a fracked gas export facility at Cove Point in Maryland. We’re fighting drilling and new gas pipelines across the region. And we push just as hard for clean-energy solutions like offshore wind in Virginia and a mandatory doubling of clean electricity in Maryland.
But here’s the main reason — in addition to the historic People’s Climate March — that you should be an optimist despite the UN report and water contamination in Ohio and all the rest. On July 30th, prominent U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) introduced The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2014. I’ve never seen a more just and affective piece of legislation aimed at “de-carbonizing” the American economy. The Van Hollen bill puts a strong and transparent cap on carbon emissions, forces polluters to pay for any harm they do to the atmosphere, and rebates the collected money on a quarterly basis to every single American with a social security number. This idea could WORK. The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun agree. Now it’s our job to build a climate movement that persuades Congress and our President to embrace this policy before it’s too late.
Learn more about the Van Hollen bill at www.climateandprosperity.org. And stay tuned for exciting action alerts from CCAN throughout the autumn.
Your optimist,
Mike Tidwell
Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends – Aug 2013
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network: Mike Tidwell, Executive Director
Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, CCAN National Campaign Coordinator
August 29, 2013
In This Issue:
#1 Climate Wire (July 12, 2013): Prominent Dem Prepares Climate Bill
#2 Boston Globe (June 24, 2013): Environmentalists Call for a Mass. Carbon Tax
#3 Bob Inglis: Conservatives have a Climate Solution
#4 The Weekly Standard (July 8, 2013): Climate Change for the GOP; It’s time for a conservative alternative to liberal alarmism
#5 ClimateWire (July 2, 2013): Carbon tax could have no impact on the young and unborn
#6 Politico (June 21, 2013): Federal report backs carbon tax for climate goals, by Alex Guillen
#7 Realclearscience.com (July 10, 2013): How the GOP Could Win the Climate Debate
#8 Triplepundit.com (July 16, 2013): Can Republicans Take the Lead on Climate Change?
#1 Climate Wire (July 12, 2013): Prominent Dem Prepares Climate Bill
“Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is crafting a climate bill that would cap greenhouse gases on upstream emitters while providing payments to the U.S. public, a design that’s meant to deflate attacks about its effect on rising energy prices. The cap-and-dividend bill will be similar to a measure that Van Hollen introduced at the height of climate action in 2009, when his legislation competed with early iterations of the cap-and-trade bill proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The bills were introduced within days of each other four years ago. ‘Most of the arguments you hear from opponents trying to address this issue is the increased cost to consumers,’ Van Hollen said yesterday. ‘This addresses that issue directly.’”
Read the full article: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059984277
#2 Boston Globe (June 24, 2013): Environmentalists Call for a Mass. Carbon Tax
“A group of environmentalists plans to ask voters to make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to adopt a so-called carbon tax by imposing new levies on gasoline, heating oil, and other fossil fuels based on the amount of carbon dioxide they produce. The group, which has registered with the state as a political committee, is launching a campaign to place the issue on the ballot for the 2014 state elections. If approved, such a tax would add several cents to the price per gallon of gas and could generate as much as $2.5 billion in revenue a year, according to an economic analysis that was done for the group, the Committee for a Green Economy. In addition to lowering income and corporate taxes, the bill would set aside $100 million annually from carbon tax revenues to fund transportation improvements, limit increases in public transit fares, or pay down transit-related debt.”
Read the full article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/23/group-seeks-carbon-tax-combat-climate-change/EGvlBc9ltLUCskJPgad0fL/story.html
#3 Bob Inglis: Conservatives have a Climate Solution
“Inglis promotes the premise of a ‘100 percent revenue-neutral carbon tax.’ This tax would be paired dollar for dollar with a reduction in a pre-existing tax—thereby reducing taxes elsewhere. ‘No growth of government here,’ he stressed.’If you set the economics right, the consumer will drive innovation. That will include renewables, and we will have exciting breakthroughs.’ Inglis explained that a carbon tax would bring a realization, through comparison, that the cost of green energy is closer to the actual cost of fossil fuels. Repeatedly referencing the phrase ‘true cost comparisons between fuels,’ Inglis underscored the health related fallout from fossil fuels—impacting lives as well as the economy.”
Read the full article: http://www.momscleanairforce.org/2013/06/19/bob-inglis-conservatives-climate/
#4 The Weekly Standard (July 8, 2013): Climate Change for the GOP; It’s time for a conservative alternative to liberal alarmism
“Since carbon emissions do present a real problem, simply repealing the current regulations without replacing them would be both unwise and politically impossible. The least-intrusive and most economically beneficial way to deal with the problem appears to be a carbon tax, particularly a revenue-neutral carbon tax that could be used to offset and/or replace other taxes. As Florida State University economist Shi-Ling Hsu argues in his The Case for a Carbon Tax, such a tax would cause minimal dislocations, actually do quite a lot to reduce carbon emissions, and avoid the potentially destructive central planning implicit in almost every other solution, including the one Obama has proffered.”
Read the full article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-change-gop_738063.html
#5 ClimateWire (July 2, 2013): Carbon tax could have no impact on the young and unborn
“Carbon taxes could affect Americans differently depending on their age, with those born after 1995 generally feeling smaller economic impacts than today’s decision makers, a team of researchers found. People who are 18 years old or younger would pay about $10 a year or less under a policy that uses the revenue from a $30 carbon tax to reduce capital taxes, according to economists at Resources for the Future. Future generations would pay less than that. The tax would have no cost for those born between 2010 and 2030. Adult Americans, meanwhile, would see a range of possible impacts. People born in 1945 would pay the most under the tax swap scenario, about $40 a year, because they have less retirement income to invest and would benefit the least from cuts to capital taxes. The research shows that people born between 1950 and 1965 would come out ahead, by about $5 a year.”
Read the full article: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059983776
#6 Politico (June 21, 2013): Federal report backs carbon tax for climate goals, by Alex Guillen
“A federal report is endorsing a carbon tax as a far better method to combat climate change than the current web of energy tax provisions. Despite spending billions of dollars on energy subsidies, the federal government’s Tax Code has done little overall to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to a National Research Council report out Thursday, which concludes that a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be much more effective. ‘In order to meet ambitious climate-change objectives, a different approach that targets GHG emissions directly through taxes or tradable allowances will be both necessary and more efficient,’” the report concludes.
Read the full article: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/carbon-tax-proposed-for-climate-goals-93141.html#ixzz2dNF6uhWt
#7 Realclearscience.com (July 10, 2013): How the GOP Could Win the Climate Debate
“In the past year, a movement of conservatives outside of Congress has pushed a market-based solution to climate change. This conservative alternative envisions a phase-out of subsidies for all sources of energy coupled with a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap. This is exactly the kind of proposal that gives Republicans the
chance to win both in a messaging battle and on policy merits. Republicans can win this debate by making it very clear: our carbon tax will not grow government. It will not take money out of hard-working American’s pockets to pay for more federal spending. It will instead be used to cut federal taxes, and it must be revenue neutral.”
Read the full article: http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/07/10/a_sensible_gop_solution_to_climate_change_106589.html
#8 Triplepundit.com (July 16, 2013): Can Republicans Take the Lead on Climate Change?
“An op-ed written by a Capitol Hill staffer writing under a pseudonym suggests the GOP could tackle climate change via free market principles. The rogue GOP staffer calls for a “revenue-neutral carbon tax swap.” If structured correctly, such a carbon tax would cause a shake-out in the energy market as consumers and businesses would compete on cost and efficiency. A carbon tax would also cancel out some income taxes, the latter of which many economists deride as a drag on the economy.”
Read the full article: http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/07/republicans-lead-climate-change/
CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included.
Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.
Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends – May 2013
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network: Mike Tidwell, Executive Director
Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, CCAN National Campaign Coordinator
May 3, 2013
In This Issue:
#1 St. Louis Post Dispatch: A GOP-free market solution to climate change
#2 Scientific American: Why James Hansen stopped being a government scientist
#3 Huffington Post: Feinstein plans new “carbon fee” bill; argues against keystone, oil and gas subsidies
#4 Triple Pundit: Why we need a price on carbon
#5 Lincoln, Ne. Journal Star: Fee and Dividend support in the heartland
#6 The Chippewa Herald, Wi.: Climate fee offers road map to climate safety
#7 Wall Street Journal: Why we support a revenue-neutral carbon tax
#1 St. Louis Post Dispatch: A GOP-free market solution to climate change
“For conservative Republicans in Congress, they now have two choices. They can watch helplessly as President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency regulates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants that warm the Earth. The better option for GOP members of Congress is to support a free-market solution to climate change. This year, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced “carbon fee and dividend” legislation. Their bill starts a $20 per ton fee on coal, oil and natural gas when burned. Americans would then receive monthly rebates or “dividends,” to offset the increased prices associated with the fee.”
Read the full article: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/for-earth-day-a-gop-free-market-solution-to-climate/article_6f92792e-d029-5e56-a5bc-e955e4f8ab05.html
#2 Scientific American: Why James Hansen stopped being a government scientist
“His preferred solution? A cap-and-dividend system in which a price is put on any carbon-based fuel and the revenues collected are distributed to every taxpayer to offset increasing energy costs. After decades spent trying to move society as a scientist—including the first testimony to the U.S. Congress urging action on global warming in 1988—he will now focus on educating and influencing the public and policy leaders as an activist.”
Read the full article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/12/why-jim-hansen-stopped-being-a-government-scientist-video/
#3 Huffington Post: Feinstein plans new “carbon fee” bill; argues against Keystone, oil and gas subsidies
“Senator Dianne Feinstein shared her plans with Fresh Dialogues to introduce a new “carbon fee” bill, during a press conference Wednesday in downtown San Francisco. “I think a carbon fee is growing in popularity,” said Feinstein, after an appearance at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club. Her plans follow President Obama’s SOTU call for “market based solutions to climate change,” and a growing consensus among experts in favor of using the taxation system to control carbon dioxide emissions.
Read the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-van-diggelen/feinstein-plans-new-carbo_b_3016159.html
#4 Triple Pundit: Why we need a price on carbon
“The financial burden, the health, safety and security impacts are being borne by the general public while the energy companies continue to amass stupendous profits. The video argues for a price on carbon that would force energy companies to share some of the burden, while at the same time encouraging people to use less, or shift to other, cleaner energy sources. It could also help to address the financial problems that threaten our economy.”
Read the full article: http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/04/price-on-carbon/
#5 Lincoln, Ne. Journal Star: Fee and Dividend support in the heartland
“Fee and dividend legislation would help us reduce CO2 emissions with an orderly, predictable, market-driven process and would demonstrate again our exceptional proficiency as a world leader, not only today, but for generations to come.”
Read the full article: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-pass-fee-and-dividend-measure/article_de3a0f57-38f5-5474-a9f5-2d5f2c550fd2.html
“With the state suffering through one of the worst droughts on record, Nebraskans are getting a personal initiation into the perils of climate change. The best proposal I have seen would be to charge carbon producers a small fee that would then be returned to consumers. This fee and dividend program would not be a tax. This proposal offers a gradual approach to reduce our dependence on carbon-producing fossil fuels as we begin to ramp up renewal sources of energy in Nebraska such as our strong wind and solar energy potential.”
Read the LTE: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-drought-shows-need-to-act/article_af766c44-32ac-5317-98fb-bb20f9502560.html?comment_form=true
#6 The Chippewa Herald, Wi.: Climate fee offers road map to climate safety
“A revenue-neutral fee on carbon would open an exit to safety by making fossil fuels’ market price reflect their true cost to society. Carbon fee and dividend legislation would place a gradually rising fee on each ton of carbon dioxide a fuel will emit. To protect consumers from the temporary rise in energy prices, all revenue would be returned to citizens.”
Read the full article: http://chippewa.com/news/opinion/columns/charles-carbon-fee-offers-road-map-to-climate-safety/article_bef70ae0-8ff4-11e2-b89c-001a4bcf887a.html
#7 Wall Street Journal: Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax, by George P. Shultz and Gary S. Becker
“We propose a measure that could go a long way toward leveling the playing field: a revenue-neutral tax on carbon, a major pollutant. A carbon tax would encourage producers and consumers to shift toward energy sources that emit less carbon—such as toward gas-fired power plants and away from coal-fired plants—and generate greater demand for electric and flex-fuel cars and lesser demand for conventional gasoline-powered cars. Revenue neutrality comes from distribution of the proceeds, which could be done in many ways. In any case, checks to recipients should be identified as ‘Your carbon dividend.'”
Read the full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578396401965799658.html
CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and
Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included. Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.
Cap and Dividend Policy Update #33
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Mike Tidwell, Director
Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, National Campaign Coordinator
March 15, 2013
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance the policy known as “cap and dividend,” first introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in December, 2009. Since that time, this bipartisan approach has continued to attract interest and coverage. CCAN continues to produce and distribute this occasional newsletter to keep the clean energy community updated on those developments.
Click here to view past Cap and Dividend Policy Updates.
In This Issue:
#1 Sanders and Boxer introduce ‘fee and dividend’ climate bill; greens tickled pink, by Lisa Hymas
#2 George Shultz Presses Congress to Act on Climate Change, by Ashley Southall, N.Y. Times
#3 The Politics of Climate Change Legislation, from Harvard Magazine
#4 Draft Bill Released by Rep. Waxman and Sen. Whitehouse Would Price Carbon and Reduce Emissions, from Climate Progress
#5 In wake of Democratic proposal, House GOP to float resolution condemning carbon tax, Jean Chemnick, E&E
#6 Battle lines forming on carbon tax, by Carolyn Lochhead
#7 Could Republicans ever support a carbon tax? Bob Inglis thinks so
#1 Sanders and Boxer introduce ‘fee and dividend’ climate bill; greens tickled pink, by Lisa Hymas
“’Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.’ It’s what green wonks call a ‘fee and dividend’ bill. The Chronicle describes it as a ‘variant on a carbon tax.’ Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says she intends to move the legislation through her committee and to the Senate floor by this summer. Many greens will be rallying behind her, but how many fellow senators will?”
For the full article go to: http://grist.org/climate-energy/sanders-and-boxer-introduce-fee-and-dividend-climate-bill-greens-tickled-pink/
#2 George Shultz Presses Congress to Act on Climate Change, by Ashley Southall, N. Y. Times, March 8
“George P. Shultz, a former Republican cabinet secretary, seems an unlikely figure to fight for climate change, which is largely the political turf of Democrats. But climate change was exactly why Mr. Shultz, who is best remembered as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, came to Washington on Friday. . . he said that Congress should pass a fee-and-dividend carbon tax that would remit revenues to consumers. The tax would be revenue-neutral, covering the cost of research and development for alternative energy sources without generating extra income for the government.”
For the full article go to: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/george-shultz-presses-congress-to-act-on-climate-change/
#3 The Politics of Climate Change Legislation, from Harvard Magazine
”Theda Skocpol said she felt there was plenty of passion in the environmental movement—but stressed that even though members of the Tea Party are also passionate about their causes, ‘The Tea Party is not built on passion.’ What might move Americans in general, she argued, is something that will actually benefit them: a cap with a dividend returned to citizens. During the closing moments of the question-and-answer session that concluded the symposium, Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, shared his experiences of talking to citizens ‘in church basements.’ Rarely do people get behind something they support, he said; usually they act to block something they don’t like. But people ‘do get excited’ about the idea of cap and dividend. Conservative Nebraska farmers know about climate change, and they don’t ‘get’ cap and trade, he explained. They do get cap and dividend, he said, calling that approach ‘the inevitable solution.’
For the full article go to: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/02/environmentalist-failure-to-pass-cap-and-trade
#4 Draft Bill Released by Rep. Waxman and Sen. Whitehouse Would Price Carbon and Reduce Emissions, from Climate Progress, March 12
“Today, legislators from the House and Senate responded to the President’s call. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) released a discussion draft of a bill that would charge polluters for the carbon pollution they release into the air, reducing the pollution responsible for climate change. It suggests a price of $15-30 per ton of carbon dioxide, which is sufficient to significantly reduce pollution. The bill collects the fee from midstream entities that already report greenhouse gas pollution data to the government, so it creates no large new bureaucracy. The draft also seeks comment on the best ways to spend the revenue, including consumer protection and deficit reduction.”
For the full article go to: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1706331/draft-bill-released-by-rep-waxman-and-sen-whitehouse-would-price-carbon-and-reduce-emissions/
#5 In wake of Democratic proposal, House GOP to float resolution condemning carbon tax, Jean Chemnick, E&E, March 13
“While the Scalise-Barton resolution demonstrates the long odds a carbon tax would face in the GOP-controlled House, former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said members of his party might eventually come to accept such a policy, but only if all of the revenue were returned to the U.S. economy. ‘We’re grateful that [Waxman and Whitehouse] have included the only viable option, which is a 100 percent return of the revenue to taxpayers,’ Inglis said in a brief interview, calling any carbon tax that would spend money on government programs — as Cardin suggested — a ‘nonstarter. . . On the conservative side, I believe this must not be about feeding and growing and shielding the government, but about fixing a market distortion and then returning the revenue to the taxpayer,’ he said.”
#6 Battle lines forming on carbon tax, by Carolyn Lochhead
“For a political non-starter, a carbon tax is generating an awful lot of activity on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, the conservative Republican Study Committee is holding a press conference to slam the idea, headlined by Texas Reps. Joe Barton and Jeb Hensarling and Louisiana chair Steve Scalise, with star billing to anti-tax activist Grover Norquist. What’s catching people’s attention is the ‘fee and dividend’ carbon tax that is remitted back to consumers as a big check each year, based on Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is co-sponsoring a version with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT); former Secretary of State and Treasury George Shultz, a Californian who served under Ronald Reagan, promoted the idea on Capitol Hill last week. NASA climate scientis
t James Hansen is also a huge backer, saying that putting a price on carbon may be the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change.
For the full article go to: http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/181432/battle-lines-forming-on-carbon-tax/
#7 Could Republicans ever support a carbon tax? Bob Inglis thinks so, by Brad Plumer, Washington Post
“If you ask Bob Inglis of the Energy & Enterprise Initiative, he thinks Republicans can be persuaded to come around on a carbon tax. It will just take time. And Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, thinks he knows just how to sell the idea. Inglis starts with the notion that conservatives will only accept a tax on carbon emissions if the revenue is used to cut taxes elsewhere — say, corporate taxes or income taxes. ‘We have to be absolutely clear that we’re not trying to grow the size of government,’ he says. And the environmental pitch has to be calibrated just so: ‘We’re not talking about regulations or EPA action,’ he adds. ‘All we’re talking about is accounting for the true cost of the fuels we use. And I should mention that we’re not talking about apocalyptic visions of climate change. All we’re talking about is reasonable risk avoidance, the kind that our friends in the insurance industry are now taking cognizance of.’”
For the full article go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/14/could-republicans-ever-support-a-carbon-tax-bob-inglis-thinks-so/
CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included. Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.
Cap and Dividend Policy Update #32
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Mike Tidwell, Director
Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, National Campaign Coordinator
Feb. 8, 2013
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance the policy known as “cap and dividend,” first introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in December, 2009. Since that time, this bipartisan approach has continued to attract interest and coverage. CCAN continues to produce and distribute this occasional newsletter to keep the clean energy community updated on those developments.
Click here to view past Cap and Dividend Policy Updates.
In This Issue:
#1: Mike Tidwell: Harvard professor has it right: U.S. climate push requires intense grassroots support around ‘cap-and-dividend’ bill
#2: Encino 411: Cap and Dividend is a Better Approach than Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax
#3: Food and Water Watch: Dividend and Conquer: Cap-and-Dividend and Environmental Betrayal
#4: San Francisco Chronicle: Cap and trade dividend for ratepayers, by David R. Baker
#5: Bangor Daily News: Want the public to heed global warming threats? Cap carbon emissions, pay dividends to everyone
#6: Bloomberg Business Week: It’s Global Warming, Stupid
#1: Mike Tidwell: Harvard professor has it right: U.S. climate push requires intense grassroots support around ‘cap-and-dividend’ bill
“I saw from the church-basement view the rise of Tea Party opposition to Waxman-Markey and the insufficient grassroots organizing response from the major green groups. What efforts were made (Sierra Club stands out as well as the short-lived but respectable field effort of the group 1Sky) fell mostly on deaf ears since average people couldn’t comprehend the complexity of the cap-and-trade bill and could see no immediate and direct benefit in their lives. Theda Skocpol, on the other hand, from my field-based perspective, nails both the key problems and the solutions we need for moving forward. She is absolutely correct to call for a completely different legislative approach for the next big push on climate in Washington. She is correct in arguing that round two should be based on the policy of ‘cap-and-dividend.’”
For the full article go to: http://grist.org/climate-energy/harvard-professor-has-it-right-u-s-climate-push-requires-intense-grassroots-support-around-cap-and-dividend-bill/
#2: Encino 411: Cap and Dividend is a Better Approach Than Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax
“This month, Theda Skocpol, in a much-discussed article says that neither of those approaches will succeed politically and she criticizes environmentalists for their failure. Instead, she says, Cap & Dividend is the smart way to go (PDF here). Influential climate activist Bill McKibben agrees with her (here). What’s different about Cap & Dividend? All three approaches are designed to raise the price of carbon-based energy. All three will increase our utility bills. But, alone of the three approaches, Skocpol argues, Cap & Dividend actually makes sense to the public.”
For the full article go to: http://www.encino411.com/index.php/blog/entry/cap-dividend-is-a-better-approach-than-cap-trade-or-a-carbon-tax/
#3: Food and Water Watch: Dividend and Conquer: Cap-and-Dividend and Environmental Betrayal
“Although cap-and-dividend avoids the pitfalls of trading credits and offsets, it still relies on a market solution for pollution that upends our commitment to stop pollution and protect our families and our environment. But under the market-based approach adopted by cap-and dividend, I don’t have the option of stopping my neighbor from dumping on my land; I only have the choice of being paid. As with cap-and-trade, cap-and-dividend sets up a pay-to-pollute scheme whereby industry can simply purchase the right to degrade your land, air and waterways.”
For the full article go to: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/dividend-and-conquer-cap-and-dividend-and-environmental-betrayal/
#4: San Francisco Chronicle: Cap and trade dividend for ratepayers, by David R. Baker
“Twice each year, all California households will collect a small ‘climate dividend’ from money raised by the state’s new global warming cap-and-trade system, utility regulators decided Thursday. The dividend will be worth an estimated $20 to $40 and will appear as a credit on utility bills, possibly starting in mid-2013.The idea won unanimous approval from the California Public Utilities Commission as part of a broader plan to use some of the revenue from cap and trade.”
For the full article go to: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Cap-and-trade-dividend-for-ratepayers-4136343.php
#5: Bangor Daily News: Want the public to heed global warming threats? Cap carbon emissions, pay dividends to everyone
“There is a better, more democratic alternative. It’s called cap-and-dividend. This approach to reducing carbon emissions defines environmental improvement as a shared good in which all of us have a stake. It specifies an upper limit on carbon emissions. During the transition to a greener economy, polluting industries pay for permits, and each year the proceeds are divided up and given in equal dividends to every American.
For the full article go to: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/12/11/opinion/want-the-public-to-heed-global-warming-threats-cap-carbon-emissions-pay-dividends-to-everyone/
#6: Bloomberg Business Week: It’s Global Warming, Stupid
“Despite Republican fanaticism about all forms of government intervention in the economy, the idea of pricing carbon must remain a part of the national debate. One politically plausible way to tax carbon emissions is to transfer the revenue to individuals. Alaska, which pays dividends to its citizens from royalties imposed on oil companies, could provide inspiration (just as Romneycare in Massachusetts pointed the way to Obamacare).”
For the full article go to: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid#p
CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included. Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.
Cap and Dividend Policy Update #31
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Mike Tidwell, director
Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, CCAN National Campaign Coordinator
August 6, 2012
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance the policy known as “cap and dividend,” first introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in December 2009. Learn more at http://www.supportclearact.org. Since that time, this bipartisan approach has continued to attract interest and coverage. CCAN continues to produce and distribute this periodic newsletter to keep the clean energy community updated on those developments.
Click here to view past Cap and Dividend Policy Updates.
In This Issue:
#1: Reuters, August 3: Lawmaker offers new approach to price carbon in U.S.
#2: CNN Money, August 2: Carbon Tax Gets Unusual Support
#3: Scholars Strategy Network: Cap Carbon Emissions and Pay Dividends to Citizens – A Strategy to Unite Americans Against Global Warming
#4: The Oakland Tribune commentary: Turn Cap and Trade Rate Bomb into AB32 Dividends
#5: NY Times Op Ed: The Most Sensible Tax of All
#6: Competitive Enterprise Institute conservative supports fee and dividend
#7: The best solution we have, by Doug Craig
#1: Reuters, August 3: Lawmaker offers new approach to price carbon in U.S.
“A Democratic congressman made the latest attempt to set a national price on carbon on Thursday, floating a bill that would force companies to pay for their emissions, while using proceeds to help reduce the budget deficit and offset any price increases for consumers. In the wake of recent debates in Congress over the past few days on climate change and news of high-profile Republicans voicing support for a carbon tax, Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott introduced the Managed Carbon Price (MCP) act as a way to address climate change in an “economically responsible way.”
For the full article go to: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/03/us-carbon-idINBRE87209F20120803
#2: CNN Money, August 2: Carbon Tax Gets Unusual Support
“Calls for a carbon tax on fossil fuels like gasoline and coal are coming from a surprising quarter these days — Republicans. In recent weeks, several prominent Republican thinkers have floated the idea of imposing higher taxes on gasoline, coal and natural gas. The increases, they say, would be offset by tax cuts on paychecks, dividends or corporate taxes.”
For the full article go to: http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/30/news/economy/carbon-tax/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
#3: Scholars Strategy Network: Cap Carbon Emissions and Pay Dividends to Citizens – A Strategy to Unite Americans Against Global Warming
“There is a better, more democratic alternative – called cap-and-dividend. This approach to reducing greenhouse emissions defines environmental improvement as a shared good in which all of us have a stake. It puts a price on burning carbon sources, known to degrade our shared environment. During the transition to a greener economy, polluting industries pay for permits – and each year the proceeds are divided up and given in equal dividends to every American.”
For the full article go to: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_key_findings_howard_on_carbon_cap.pdf
#4: The Oakland Tribune commentary
Turn cap and trade rate bomb into AB32 dividends “PG&E and other utilities have another idea — returning all the money to ratepayers. In this instance, they’re right. Ratepayers have paid billions over the years for alternative energy. The solar industry, fuel cells and all the rest wouldn’t exist without ratepayers’ money. If there has to be an auction, the proceeds should be returned to ratepayers. Call it an AB32 dividend. It would soften the impact of the coming rate bomb.”
For the full article go to: http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_20974229/turn-cap-and-trade-rate-bomb-into-ab32
#5: NY Times Op Ed: The Most Sensible Tax of All
“On Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses.”
For the full article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1
#6: Competitive Enterprise Institute conservative supports fee and dividend
“Third, I believe the United States should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax, much like that suggested by NASA’s James Hansen. Specifically, the federal government should impose a price on carbon that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This would, in effect, shift the incidence of federal taxes away from income and labor and onto energy consumption and offset some of the potential regressivity of a carbon tax.”
For the full article go to: http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2012/06/adlers-climate.html
#7: The best solution we have, by Doug Craig
“Real conservatives who are scientifically literate grasp the essentials. What bothers them is not the problem but the manner in which we solve it. This is what worries them and I understand this. Twenty years ago Democrats wanted a carbon tax and in response, Republicans argued for something called cap-and-trade, a plan that worked in putting us on a strong path to fixing the ozone hole. And so we are stuck with cap-and-trade, a badly flawed compromise forced on us by those who wanted to appease conservatives opposed to a tax on carbon.”
For the full article go to: http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2012/05/the-best-climat.html
CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included. Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org. To find out more about CCAN go to www.chesapeakeclimate.org.
Why the CLEAR Act is Fair
The following is an article written by Meg Power, Senior Advisor to the National Community Action Foundation (NCAF). NCAF is the Washington, DC representative of the nation’s 1100 local Community Action Agencies, which deliver many services and investments in all the nation’s low-income communities including Low-Income Home Energy Assistance and the federal Weatherization Assistance Program. NCAF has endorsed the CLEAR Act.
Why the CLEAR Act is Fair to Low- and Moderate-Income Households
By Meg Power
About one-third of US households have incomes lower than 60% of the median income of their state and qualify for the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Their average annual residential usage is just 87% of the average for the other 2/3 of consumers. The gasoline consumption of the lowest income drivers is less than half that of median income households. Their houses are smaller, albeit more inefficient per square foot; they own fewer appliances, buy few finished goods and drive fewer cars. Their carbon footprint is far lighter than that of middle income consumers.
However, these Americans are extremely vulnerable to increases in energy costs; on average they spend from 18% to more than 23% percent of an entire year’s income directly on energy, including home fuels and gasoline, depending on the fuel prices in a given year. This percentage is known as the Continue reading
Webb's Crucial Role
The enormous cap-and-trade bill is stalled in Congress but global warming and extreme weather continue to accelerate.
Luckily, there is an alternative that’s preferable to the loophole-laden, cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives. And Virginia Senator Jim Webb could play a crucial role in passing this cap and “dividend” bill in the spring.
He needs to hear from you today!
Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) recently introduced the “Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act,” which takes a different approach to reducing global warming pollution. Under the CLEAR Act, all carbon polluters must pay to emit carbon, there are no complicating offsets, and most of the revenue raised is returned in equal monthly payments to every legal U.S. resident.
The Economist called it “a refreshing dose of honesty” and the Washington Post editorial board agrees. To learn more, watch a short video where I explain this bold and refreshing new perspective on how to cap carbon emissions in the United States.
Senator Jim Webb has been sharply critical of the House-passed bill and has indicated interest in this different approach. So far, though, he has not signed on to the CLEAR Act. It’s time for some clear answers from Senator Webb!
The Cantwell-Collins bill is our best shot at comprehensive climate legislation and Webb’s co-sponsorship would help immensely.