Good Luck on getting your climate denying republican congress members to go along with these sensible suggestions, suggestions O'bama most likely would have signed had they reached his desk. It would be difficult for them to bite the hands of the fossil fuel industries that support them during their elections.
This provides welcome conceptual and strategic progress, especially considering the origin (Republican "conservatives") of these suggestions. However, I would be more confident of the sincerity of the proposal if the authors owned up to the pivotal role of Republican obstructionism in forcing President Obama's hand toward executive actions. You should also have noted that a carbon tax-based plan was an early legislative push of the Obama Presidency, torpedoed by the Republican caucus. It has always mystified me that conservatives don't view protecting the planet as a logical part of their strategic design. I suspect (and hope) the $ returns of the carbon tax will not be as lucrative as these proponents suggest -- hopefully the tax will lead to a smaller carbon footprint -- that is the goal! But that should not matter -- new $ (and jobs) will be forthcoming by supporting in a much more energetic way the development and application of new energies that are the product of new scientific research. A final note: this sounds like a policy that only works if it has a global perspective and action. If so, please say loud and clear to your current party (even if not conceptual) leader -- the planet -- not America -- first!
21
This will never work. Any initiative with the word "tax" in it won't get through the current Congress.
On the other hand, if you call the plan a "carbon dividend," a "carbon rebate," or even a "carbon deduction," it could be wildly popular. You might even have citizens demanding that Congress raise their carbon dividends!
On the other hand, if you call the plan a "carbon dividend," a "carbon rebate," or even a "carbon deduction," it could be wildly popular. You might even have citizens demanding that Congress raise their carbon dividends!
3
Next time, please don't let the Republican Congress off the hook like you did, simply stating, to paraphrase, president Obama and Congress did not see eye to eye. It was only the Republican members of Congress who took a stance of saying "No" to everything President Obama put on the table. And it was clear 'obstructionism' and not something as simple as "not seeing eye to eye." And not just with the President did they play the role of 'obstructionists'. For eight years they refused to reach across the aisle when the Democrats made efforts to work with the Republican members of Congress. Again and again the Republicans turned a deaf year towards them like they did with President Obama. So, lets explain what really happened and not give us some ill-thought through alternative version of the truth.
35
How will this please rustbelt Trump supporters, particularly those such as the woman the times interviewed a few weeks back, who was hoping Trump would bring back the coal industry. These people don't care about the environment (until a disaster forces them from their homes), nor do they care about the future. The only thing they care about is having jobs right here and right now, everything else be damned.
8
Any regulation, tax, or other action that reduces the burning of fossil fuels will reduce the incomes of fossil fuel barons, such as the Koch brothers, who support Republican politicians. Therefore, Republican politicians will never support a carbon tax.
17
To call this a 'conservative case' is correct. Conservatives in the past have put forward similar plans. The block to adopting plans of this sort has been Republicans. Democrats and liberals don't have much sway with Republicans, So conservatives, get your act together and pull the Republican radicals into reason.
15
I welcome and applaud this effort by a group of men with impressive conservative credentials and undeniable legitimacy. I am a conservative who believes that under the present system, market forces represent to only way forward on almost all issues, except education and health care.
It is perhaps not irrelevant to add, that our actions concern not only ourselves but our children as well. I believe the index of our worth is the quality of the world we bequeath to them. Our responsibility is to leave them a world in which they can prosper and carry the ball further downfield. If they are stuck cleaning up the mess we have made enriching ourselves, it will be bad for our place in history. We stand at a pivotal moment. The time for action is now. Our grandchildren must not be left with a world with a scarcity of clean and air.
Thank you to all the estimable gentlemen on the panel; may your recommendations be taken.
It is perhaps not irrelevant to add, that our actions concern not only ourselves but our children as well. I believe the index of our worth is the quality of the world we bequeath to them. Our responsibility is to leave them a world in which they can prosper and carry the ball further downfield. If they are stuck cleaning up the mess we have made enriching ourselves, it will be bad for our place in history. We stand at a pivotal moment. The time for action is now. Our grandchildren must not be left with a world with a scarcity of clean and air.
Thank you to all the estimable gentlemen on the panel; may your recommendations be taken.
7
The obvious downside to this and similar "environmental growth" strategies is that if adopted by all the major consuming countries of the North they will still deplete the earths resources faster than they can be replaced.
While a shift to lower consumption, eco-renewable and earth friendly systems is a daunting prospect, it's no less daunting than the very real likelihood of running out of arable land, food and portable water. We can't reproduce the rain forrest with a carbon tax. Nor will it bring back extinct wildlife or fish, or stop desertification and erosion of top soil.
Global warming is a complex interconnected process and nothing short of a radical departure from business as usual will give our grandchildren an honest chance to survive.
While a shift to lower consumption, eco-renewable and earth friendly systems is a daunting prospect, it's no less daunting than the very real likelihood of running out of arable land, food and portable water. We can't reproduce the rain forrest with a carbon tax. Nor will it bring back extinct wildlife or fish, or stop desertification and erosion of top soil.
Global warming is a complex interconnected process and nothing short of a radical departure from business as usual will give our grandchildren an honest chance to survive.
11
I don't get it. Who pays the tax? If it is a monopoly utility with coal plants then they will just increase their electricity prices through to consumers. The poorest will be hit. The same with gas prices. Costs get passed through to end users, the oil companies won't take the hit.
3
As a climate scientist, an American and a Democrat, I support this plan 110%. It will do more than piecemeal regulations ever could, and help us move toward a more equitable society to boot. I hope that Democrats get behind this plan, and that everyone works across the aisle to make it a success.
7
By returning the tax to the American people in the form of an ever-increasing dividend, a whole lot of folks won't want the problem to be fixed. They'll want the coal companies, utilities, etc. to keep burning fossil fuels so they can keep getting those quarterly checks.
6
In spite of its compelling merits, Congressional approval of this carbon-tax proposal is as unlikely as the one first proposed in 2003. Its authors (James A. Baker III, Henry M. Paulson Jr., George P. Shultz, Thomas Stephenson, and Rob Walton) are highly reputable individuals but so were those advocating a comprehensive carbon tax nearly 15 years ago. The reason for the expected non-passage is the same: Republican resistance driven by the energy industry.
When Bill Clinton was President, he proposed initially a heat-based energy tax, known then as the “B.T.U. tax”, but he was forced to abandon it because of its complexity, difficulty to administer and, mainly, concerted G.O.P. opposition. Vice President Al Gore and others within the White House then proposed to tax fuels based on their carbon content “to discourage burning of fuels that contribute most to global warming” but their proposal was as ill-fated. The root reason then was the same as now: a carbon tax would have hit coal and oil hard and therefore would fail in the Senate, where these industries have powerful allies.
When Bill Clinton was President, he proposed initially a heat-based energy tax, known then as the “B.T.U. tax”, but he was forced to abandon it because of its complexity, difficulty to administer and, mainly, concerted G.O.P. opposition. Vice President Al Gore and others within the White House then proposed to tax fuels based on their carbon content “to discourage burning of fuels that contribute most to global warming” but their proposal was as ill-fated. The root reason then was the same as now: a carbon tax would have hit coal and oil hard and therefore would fail in the Senate, where these industries have powerful allies.
6
Imports are the problem. A huge bureaucracy would be required to assess their carbon impact and the tax policies of their countries of origin.
2
Thank you, Martin S. Feldstein, Ted Halsted, and N. Gregory Mankiw for an extraordinarily insightful, thoughtful, and doable plan.
As a recovering conservative who has been leaning to the left lately, I can fully support this four-part Climate Action Plan. As someone who holds an MBA and has been reading the economic, scientific, and financial literature since the 1970’s this plan makes both economic and business sense given the weight of the scientific evidence that presents the open mind with the very real and serious economic, social, and environmental consequences of continued fossil fuel extraction, refining, burning, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from the entire extraction to combustion process.
This plan would give the fossil fuel industry time to adjust, it gives an incentive for renewable energy development without subsidies, it is fair to the American import/export industries, it would set an adult example for the rest of the world to emulate, and most importantly it respects the prospects of our youth and the Planet's future generations.
If our various levels of government and the fossil fuel industry can move beyond their cronyism and give a moment's thought to the Common Good, this plan just might work as it is the best, most realistic climate change plan I have seen. If they can’t, shame on them forever as we have dithered around on this issue for way to long (see the report in this newspaper on Oct. 28, 1956)
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
As a recovering conservative who has been leaning to the left lately, I can fully support this four-part Climate Action Plan. As someone who holds an MBA and has been reading the economic, scientific, and financial literature since the 1970’s this plan makes both economic and business sense given the weight of the scientific evidence that presents the open mind with the very real and serious economic, social, and environmental consequences of continued fossil fuel extraction, refining, burning, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from the entire extraction to combustion process.
This plan would give the fossil fuel industry time to adjust, it gives an incentive for renewable energy development without subsidies, it is fair to the American import/export industries, it would set an adult example for the rest of the world to emulate, and most importantly it respects the prospects of our youth and the Planet's future generations.
If our various levels of government and the fossil fuel industry can move beyond their cronyism and give a moment's thought to the Common Good, this plan just might work as it is the best, most realistic climate change plan I have seen. If they can’t, shame on them forever as we have dithered around on this issue for way to long (see the report in this newspaper on Oct. 28, 1956)
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
5
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair
They will not consider anything like climate or pollution.
Republicans serve the 1%. Nothing matters except trying to satisfy their insatiable greed.
- Upton Sinclair
They will not consider anything like climate or pollution.
Republicans serve the 1%. Nothing matters except trying to satisfy their insatiable greed.
5
Liberal Democrats (like myself) have been pushing for a carbon tax like this for at least 25 years. But if the authors want to pretend that it is a Republican idea in order to get it passed, then so be it.
9
nixon goes to china, eh?
1
As one of those former EPA wonks, I'm all ears. Comprehensive legislation that promotes a price on carbon is far better than piecemeal regulation. It worked in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments like gangbusters to reduce acid rain. I want to see the details of costs, emissions, and especially how it gets ramped up over time, but the outline addresses the thorny issue of tax created higher gasoline, heating, and electricity prices on middle and lower income families. It should be accompanied by provisions that continue measuring and estimating emissions so the effectiveness of the program can be evaluated as time goes on. No economist, but the trade aspects are also interesting. If the numbers they show here are correct, it would meet the US commitments in the Paris Agreement, something the sum of all EPA rules to date would not do.
4
In spite of its compelling merits, Congressional approval of this carbon-tax proposal is as unlikely as the one first proposed in 2003. Its authors (James A. Baker III, Henry M. Paulson Jr., George P. Shultz, Thomas Stephenson, and Rob Walton) are highly reputable individuals but so were those advocating a comprehensive carbon tax nearly 15 years ago -- for the same reason: Republican resistance driven by the energy industry.
When Bill Clinton was President, he proposed initially a heat-based energy tax, known then as the “B.T.U. tax”, but he was forced to abandon it because of its complexity, difficulty to administer and, mainly, concerted G.O.P. opposition. Vice President Al Gore and others within the White House then proposed to tax fuels based on their carbon content “to discourage burning of fuels that contribute most to global warming” but their proposal was as ill-fated. The root reason then was the same as now: a carbon tax would have hit coal and oil hard and therefore would fail in the Senate, where these industries have powerful allies.
When Bill Clinton was President, he proposed initially a heat-based energy tax, known then as the “B.T.U. tax”, but he was forced to abandon it because of its complexity, difficulty to administer and, mainly, concerted G.O.P. opposition. Vice President Al Gore and others within the White House then proposed to tax fuels based on their carbon content “to discourage burning of fuels that contribute most to global warming” but their proposal was as ill-fated. The root reason then was the same as now: a carbon tax would have hit coal and oil hard and therefore would fail in the Senate, where these industries have powerful allies.
2
Better environmental legislation would focus more on protecting our water supply than anything else. The science on clean water and what threatens it requires far less speculation than climate science. The measures to fix the problem are much more clear. And the culprits of the damage that has already occurred are easily pointed out.
The consensus on climate science still changes every decade. First we were going into another ice age, then global warming after that. Now "climate change" is the official party line because "everyone" knows it's happening - they just don't know what's happening, how bad it is, what to do about it, or how to verify whether the actions we take are achieving the desired outcome.
Oh, and don't forget to give them a little chunk of your earnings every time you "sin", so that they can give part of it to the poor, and use the rest to make sure everyone follows all the rules they made up for your protection.
And btw, I have an advanced degree in the very maths used by the scientific community to formulate the models they use in their "science". Real scientists and engineers with valid objections get treated like heretics when we ask questions. The first fundamental rule of science is open-minded peer review, and that just doesn't happen with AGW alarmists.
If I ever get a good conversation from a real scientist on the merits of the science here, I'll write an article for the NYT myself on how I've changed my mind.
The consensus on climate science still changes every decade. First we were going into another ice age, then global warming after that. Now "climate change" is the official party line because "everyone" knows it's happening - they just don't know what's happening, how bad it is, what to do about it, or how to verify whether the actions we take are achieving the desired outcome.
Oh, and don't forget to give them a little chunk of your earnings every time you "sin", so that they can give part of it to the poor, and use the rest to make sure everyone follows all the rules they made up for your protection.
And btw, I have an advanced degree in the very maths used by the scientific community to formulate the models they use in their "science". Real scientists and engineers with valid objections get treated like heretics when we ask questions. The first fundamental rule of science is open-minded peer review, and that just doesn't happen with AGW alarmists.
If I ever get a good conversation from a real scientist on the merits of the science here, I'll write an article for the NYT myself on how I've changed my mind.
Welcome to the 21st Century Gentlemen! We've been waiting for you. Did you think this up all by yourselves? That is what you imply because you did not mention that this idea has been around for a while. In fact, British Columbia has been doing something like this since 2008. But we don't have to quibble about whose idea it was. The rest of us are just thankful that someone from 'you side' has finally seen the light. Though I have to say, it would have been nice if you had come up with this, say, eight years ago, back when Obama was our new president and the House and Senate were Democratically controlled. You would for sure have had strong support for this idea then, and since it was coming from you, maybe Republicans would not have filibustered it. But again, let's give a good idea its due. Now all you have to do is convince members of your own party. That should be an easy sell even though some of them don't really believe global warming is happening or is being caused by fossil fuel combustion.
8
This seems to me (a progressive) like precisely the kind of great policy idea that "only the Trump administration" could successfully get through Congress. Let's hope that Mr Tillerson and Mr Perry will get behind it. This is using the power of market forces to address a serious problem that imperils the common good. Amen!
And if we can find more smart ideas on which the right and left should be able to cooperate for Americans' mutual benefit, I will sleep much more soundly these next four years.
And if we can find more smart ideas on which the right and left should be able to cooperate for Americans' mutual benefit, I will sleep much more soundly these next four years.
"A Conservative Case for Climate Action"
LOL. Please.
LOL. Please.
6
I'll take it - and I'm a progressive Democrat. Both liberal and conservative economists should agree that the costs of externalities (like global warming pollution) should be built into markets, and the science is very clear that these externalities exist.
Please tell us what citizens can do to help get something like this passed!
Please tell us what citizens can do to help get something like this passed!
3
It sounds like a great plan... let's do it!
1
There is one additional small issue with a revenue-neural carbon tax. Who do you return the revenue to? All residents, all adult residents, all tax payers or all fossil-fuel purchasers? How do you identify the recipients and avoid duplication? It looks like an administrative nightmare despite a carbon tax being an essential step in the right direction. Be aware that the entire world must get completely off fossil fuels in only 20 years to have a chance at averting human extinction.
How about "Second..." instead of a kickback to citizens, invest in non-carbon producing electric generation facilities, that perhaps could be a quasi- or co-government ownership.
2
Good idea, but the "dividend" should go only to households making less than some appropriate threshold solely to make the tax affordable by them, and the entire rest of the tax should be used only for research and development of cleaner energy sources.
It will never happen.....Republicans and their supporters will never move off the theme of one, paying for equipment to prevent pollution (regulations) and two, paying a "tax" based upon how much they pollute...
Getting rid of regulations puts money in our pocket will be the cry, preventing pollution is Democrats problem, we are Republicans......we will never support a new tax on anything that does not end up in our pockets!
Nice idea though
Getting rid of regulations puts money in our pocket will be the cry, preventing pollution is Democrats problem, we are Republicans......we will never support a new tax on anything that does not end up in our pockets!
Nice idea though
1
Clearly the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon tax has been around for some time now and it's comical, but cautiously gratifying that conservatives have now hijacked it. There are two issues however - one being that a large part of the revenue belongs to the future generations that will suffer our past inaction, and second if an average emitter does nothing, it cost them nothing. The tax needs to be ramped-up rapidly and that added surplus should be held in escrow for future generations who will suffer far greater than us.
2
Nobody noticed, but at the beginning of the year, Chris Christie, the re-elected in a landslide governor of New Jersey, just instituted a revenue-neutral carbon tax. New Jersey just raised their gasoline tax by 23 cents per gallon, to be returned to (wealthy) taxpayers by eliminating the estate tax.
Seems like the authors want to score political points with their digs at Obama - "he left us with a grab bag of regulations". No mention of scorched earth opposition from the GOP. Uncertainty - what uncertainty? Gas prices are low and SUV sales are skyrocketing.
I have a hard time swallowing the rebate thing - I pay my carbon tax at the pump, at the end of the year I get my rebate that I can use to fill my gas-guzzler next year.
Any rebates should go to green energy - solar panels, energy storage (batteries and flywheels (as in VELKESS)), and building sea walls.
I have a hard time swallowing the rebate thing - I pay my carbon tax at the pump, at the end of the year I get my rebate that I can use to fill my gas-guzzler next year.
Any rebates should go to green energy - solar panels, energy storage (batteries and flywheels (as in VELKESS)), and building sea walls.
6
The devil is in the details, but there are things to build on:
A carbon tax will favor renewables. How much tax and how soon? I think they are low in their proposal. Their party brethren will think it is too high.
I like the use of the tax as a basic income type payment to all. This should be enough to pay for healthcare, food and basic shelter. Not enough cash? I said the tax was low.
Making the tax fair in the face of imports is sensible if done properly.
The elimination of regulations needs to be carefully done. Many of those regulations also address things like mercury emissions. Those have to be kept.
A carbon tax will favor renewables. How much tax and how soon? I think they are low in their proposal. Their party brethren will think it is too high.
I like the use of the tax as a basic income type payment to all. This should be enough to pay for healthcare, food and basic shelter. Not enough cash? I said the tax was low.
Making the tax fair in the face of imports is sensible if done properly.
The elimination of regulations needs to be carefully done. Many of those regulations also address things like mercury emissions. Those have to be kept.
1
Instead of a rebate, it'd be better to reduce other taxes so the carbon tax has a revenue net neutral effect. One idea would be to block grant the money to the states so they can reduce a regressive tax, like the sales tax, which would benefit poor and middle class citizens without establishing a federal carbon tax rebate bureaucracy which is sure to be costly and replete with fraud, waste, and abuse.
Instead of preaching to the converted who actually pay
attention to reality as reported upon in newspapers, the
authors, as well as the distinguished signatories of the letter reported upon
yesterday, need to conduct long and serious negotiations with
their descendants who actually now run everything. James
Baker and George Schultz were, and hopefully still are,
master negotiators. So I strongly encourage them
to begin a series of back door negotiations with anyone
in congress who has authority and power to implement
the federal response to climate change threats...see if
you can get these people to listen to your reasoning....
A lot of people would wish you GOOD LUCK!
attention to reality as reported upon in newspapers, the
authors, as well as the distinguished signatories of the letter reported upon
yesterday, need to conduct long and serious negotiations with
their descendants who actually now run everything. James
Baker and George Schultz were, and hopefully still are,
master negotiators. So I strongly encourage them
to begin a series of back door negotiations with anyone
in congress who has authority and power to implement
the federal response to climate change threats...see if
you can get these people to listen to your reasoning....
A lot of people would wish you GOOD LUCK!
2
First of all, to solve a problem one has to admit there is a problem. Trump and many in the GOP deny climate change or don't admit is a problem.
If that hurdle can be overcome, then you have to decide how to tax each industry. Taxing CO2, albeit the biggest problem, should not be the end. The Trump administration wants to remove the regulation on methane venting in fossil fuel extraction. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, with a Global Warming Potential of around 30 times CO2. Do we charge $1200 per ton of Methane? What about Nitrous Oxide at approximately 300 times or Chlorofluorocarbons at 1000 times?
If that hurdle can be overcome, then you have to decide how to tax each industry. Taxing CO2, albeit the biggest problem, should not be the end. The Trump administration wants to remove the regulation on methane venting in fossil fuel extraction. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, with a Global Warming Potential of around 30 times CO2. Do we charge $1200 per ton of Methane? What about Nitrous Oxide at approximately 300 times or Chlorofluorocarbons at 1000 times?
4
Good idea, but it makes one wonder why they didn't propose this during the Obama administration. Obama would have been very receptive to this as would many Democrats. That the authors propose this idea, which in general terms is not a new one, only now shows that they were complicit in the efforts to derail Obama.
4
This article implies that Obama issued the executive orders instead of trying to get a carbon tax passed. The truth of the matter of course is that he fell back on that tactic because willfully blind Republicans refused to take any action on climate change, preferring to attack science and scientists.
Although your plan isn't perfect (e.g. a small amount of the tax should go into energy research), it's quite reasonable enough that I suspect most any Democrat would gladly support it. Good luck with your Republican friends. I confidently predict that McConnell will allow the Senate to vote on this approximately when Hell freezes over.
Although your plan isn't perfect (e.g. a small amount of the tax should go into energy research), it's quite reasonable enough that I suspect most any Democrat would gladly support it. Good luck with your Republican friends. I confidently predict that McConnell will allow the Senate to vote on this approximately when Hell freezes over.
7
I support this policy proposal, and will make the policy and that support known in circles I am part of.
This seems like "deja vu all over again". Climate change repackaged as new conservative plan. Wait a few months and we'll see "Obamacare" repackaged as "Trumpcare". Imitation is the highest form of flattery, but welcome to the game conservatives. What will Melania's next speech sound like?
5
Sounds like good government. Too bad you guys aren't in power.
1
Really? A possible alignment between conservatives and progressives on a “sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change?”
BRING IT ON!
BRING IT ON!
4
POLICY: GOOD. PARTISANSHIP: BAD! Environmentalists have promoted a carbon tax for decades and Obama promoted it as a candidate in 2008 . We have always known it is the best, most efficient, simplest way to reduce carbon emissions but it was blocked by numskull Republicans because of the word "tax". Obama tried for cap and trade, not because it was his preferred policy but but for the sole, stupid reason that it wasn't a "tax" and might be politically viable. Nope. So then he took the only route available: Regulation. Because, heads-up - CLIMATE CHANGE: REAL! Democrats would never have taken the regulatory route if Republicans hadn't killed the obviously best option, a carbon tax. Now you introduce it as a republican response to Obama's regulatory approach. Your partisan rewriting of history makes me choke. Democrats are not anti-market in this or most other issues. But hey, if it takes Republican to claim it's as their own in order to make it politically viable, I guess that's the tortured reality of Republican politics of the last 24 years. Insane!!!!!!
11
HaHaHaHa...Wait, what? You were SERIOUS? Republicans acknowledge climate change? Assessing a Carbon Tax? These are all great ideas, aimed at an ideological logjam that won't admit the necessity for any of this. Won't play to Trump's base and/or the Tea Party no-nothings, so it's not going anywhere. Conservatives have so poisoned the well they aren't going to lead on anything. Unfortunately, Democrats can't agree on anything, so they aren't going to help, either. Start apologizing to your grand kids now.
1
You wrote: "Democrats can't agree on anything."
They can agree, and they are willing to compromise. Don't blame the Democrats for this mess.
Apart from that, you are correct. The GOP will do nothing about this problem.
They can agree, and they are willing to compromise. Don't blame the Democrats for this mess.
Apart from that, you are correct. The GOP will do nothing about this problem.
2
So how does this work if the president refuses to believe there IS any climate issue and that polluters should should all get tax breaks?
4
As someone with economic conservative leanings who finally became a Democrat several years ago because climate was "the last straw", please tell me what I can do to support this plan!
Theodor Roosevelt would be proud!
The president has promised that more coal will be mined and burned. Won't he veto this?
You are leaving out the big gimme in your plan, the polluters get immunity from being sued. That is dishonest and typical of conservatives. Is this a Trojan horse? There is always a catch with anything Republicans propose, that usually involves the rich and powerful getting special preference. Taking away people's right to sue is taking away their rights to Due Process. I wish for once you would just do the right thing.
1
Whatever happened to just being anti-pollution? Why does everything energy have to be premised on climate?
The four pillars are reasonable however it's marketed.
The four pillars are reasonable however it's marketed.
1
Hi! I eat a lot of chocolate cake. I am getting so fat. I've heard eating lots of sweets can make you gain weight. I really, really want to lose weight! I guess I will just keep eating cake and sweets until they come up with cake that does not make you gain weight. That's the best solution! I cannot think of any other way to stop gaining weight other than waiting for new technologies to make calorie free cake! I will wait! There is NOTHING else I can do! When I drive alone in my car everyday to buy cake I fret about my weight. I even fretted about it at a fun party I flew across the country to for the weekend - you know those snacks on the plane are so delicious. My cake consumption is such a problem that all the beef I eat doesn't taste good anymore! Oh when will they invent calorie free cake, I cannot wait because I am very concerned! I am so looking forward to calorie free cake! It is going to solve all my problems!
This plan is great, but it omits the most important stakeholders: the lobbyists and the Koch brothers.
3
How can you not discuss what $40/ton means in the real world. What happens to the price of gasoline? What happens to the price of electricity? You can do better than this.
6
I support climate action, so long as it does impede progress. Thank you.
1
Real leadership embraces the best ideas of the opposition. Refreshing.
3
There are some good ideas here, but you lost at least 90 per cent of the conservative base and 99 per cent of conservative representatives when you mentioned the word "tax." You are going to have to call it something else, maybe an "assessment" or "fee." Even if you do that, a majority of conservatives disregard the overwhelming scientific consensus and deny there is any human connection to climate change. This is especially true of politicians and pundits. Why impose a fee on something that isn't problem, they might say? Now the part where you tell the average person that they are getting a free $2000. They're going to love that.
2
Yes, please. If this is the conservative answer to climate change then you can count on the support of this coastal-liberal-millennial-woman. I will even support you when the rest of the republican establishment accuses you of treason. Please, join us with this proposal at the March for Science on April 22nd. Help show that lowering carbon emissions is not a partisan goal.
3
"...largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye." Seriously? That's your assessment of a Congress openly dedicated to ensuring that NO legislative objectives of the President would ever be enacted? Its only mission to oppose every single objective of the President no matter how sensible? The Republicans would not even consider steps to stem climate change, much less work together, in a complete and utter failure to execute their constitutional duty to legislate.
Please. At least begin your argument with an accurate description of the history of the issue. Otherwise you weaken the credibility of even your sensible argument.
I expect more, and far better, for men of your experience and stature.
Please. At least begin your argument with an accurate description of the history of the issue. Otherwise you weaken the credibility of even your sensible argument.
I expect more, and far better, for men of your experience and stature.
7
This proposal is dead the moment you utter the word tax. The current Republican party do nothing that involves taxes of any kind.
2
This sounds good and knowing human nature the rebate idea would make hearts rejoice.
I live in a very small house by choice, it does help that i live on a lake, and i have two adult children, and two grown grandchildren, and none of us are avid consumers. I am, and have been, very pleased by this, but i do admit the thought of receiving a small check for my efforts would be like frosting on a cake. It's always nice to get a little pat on the back for doing the right thing. I'll spend my check on some really good wine and cheese, invite my friends over and PARTY. Everybody wins.
I live in a very small house by choice, it does help that i live on a lake, and i have two adult children, and two grown grandchildren, and none of us are avid consumers. I am, and have been, very pleased by this, but i do admit the thought of receiving a small check for my efforts would be like frosting on a cake. It's always nice to get a little pat on the back for doing the right thing. I'll spend my check on some really good wine and cheese, invite my friends over and PARTY. Everybody wins.
Probably not the time to cast blame- but I'm guessing President Obama would have been happy to sign progressive bills if The Kentucky Colonel and his robed henchmen hadn't set out to block every positive act.
But it is worth reaching out and around the head in ground crowd.
But it is worth reaching out and around the head in ground crowd.
4
David G. Wilson, a retired mechanical engineer from MIT, first proposed this kind of carbon tax as early as 1974. Later it was promoted by James Hansen, a retired scientist from NASA. As Wilson himself admits, ideas, even very good ones, must find their right time. So, if enough of these who have opposed this idea in the past can sign on because it is now a conservative idea, great! While unrelated to this article, if the problems with the ACA (Obama Care) were fixed, and the name was changed to Trump Care (or perhaps American Care), I could live with that too.
Fake conservatives.
The last thing this country needs is higher taxes.
Worse to base it on junk science.
I am so thankful that Trump not little Jeb is our president.
The last thing this country needs is higher taxes.
Worse to base it on junk science.
I am so thankful that Trump not little Jeb is our president.
1
I can't comment on this without knowing all the facts, but one "pillar" stands out and that's the dividend paid out to people. It reminds me of the $300 kickback President Bush sent to all Americans when he took office in 2001 because, at the time, there was a budget surplus. Well, that $300 came and went and did nothing to help the deficit. I doubt it affected many lives. Maybe a few thousand dollars would help some people, but I, for one, would prefer any such dividends went to pay down our massive debt.
3
The real problem is that those in control of our government are greedy money addicts. That is all they can see. It's like having a pharmacy run by drug addicts.
There is another huge problem besides climate change, and that is polltion.
Until we have people in office who truly care about the country, nothing meaningful will ever happen.
There is another huge problem besides climate change, and that is polltion.
Until we have people in office who truly care about the country, nothing meaningful will ever happen.
1
The preamble here says Obama and Congress "did not see eye to eye." Let's get real. The reason climate legislation stalled was because Republicans obstructed Obama at every turn all the while denying there was a problem. As commentator nd and others point out, the redistributed carbon tax was proposed by others long ago and dismissed by conservatives then. Apparently a "Conservative Case..." means deny the evidence as long as you can and when that's no longer possible plagiarize the solutions you once opposed and take credit for a "sensible policy."
2
Oooh, the "carbon dividend." Soft-pedal that "tax" word. Nice try, fellas. Yes, the key problem to solve is to get some kind of change like this in place in the current political climate; positioning and PR are important. But I doubt this solves that problem, given how Trump and so many Republicans in Congress are all buddied up with Big Oil. And given the power of the oil lobby. I can't imagine that power bloc letting this happen. Their first priority at the moment is the "repeal" part, killing regulations Obama team put in place. As with health care, "replace" is the hard part. Still I applaud effort, please keep trying.
2
So now that old guard Republicans have sanctified the imminently logical idea of a carbon tax, we might actually see some progress. As with Nixon going to China, only a group from the party of anti-tax hysterics seemingly can legitimate the sensible idea of a carbon tax, the need for which has been staring knowledgeable folks who work in this field in the face for years.
There would be ranting and screaming from the usual sources, but coherently implemented, this could well work.
There would be ranting and screaming from the usual sources, but coherently implemented, this could well work.
1
The older (and, I hope, wiser) I get, the more I become convinced that the only way to change peoples' behavior is to threaten their wallets. Rules and regulations are more direct, but they engender ill will towards government. Who wants to hear "You can't do it because I said so!" from their leaders? But when gasoline costs more, people buy smaller cars. That's why I think this proposal has merit. It's not my ideal solution, mind you, but it's a reasonable compromise.
It's also, I suspect, a non-starter. Pillar #1 is based on imposing a new tax. Tax? Tax? In today's environment? When did the Republicans last vote for a new tax on anything? Wasn't cutting taxes a Trump campaign promise? Haven't all the Trump renouncers in Congress cozied up to him in hopes of getting their precious tax cuts and trickle-down economic policies signed into law? Messrs Feldstein, Haldstead, and Mankiw, I wish you luck. Call me if you need help.
It's also, I suspect, a non-starter. Pillar #1 is based on imposing a new tax. Tax? Tax? In today's environment? When did the Republicans last vote for a new tax on anything? Wasn't cutting taxes a Trump campaign promise? Haven't all the Trump renouncers in Congress cozied up to him in hopes of getting their precious tax cuts and trickle-down economic policies signed into law? Messrs Feldstein, Haldstead, and Mankiw, I wish you luck. Call me if you need help.
The idea of putting a tax on carbon has been kicked around for a long time. Hopefully, all segments of the political spectrum will finally recognize our common interest:
"Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense." President Ronald Reagan, State of the Union address, January 1984
"Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense." President Ronald Reagan, State of the Union address, January 1984
1
Sorry, but this is nothing but a pipe dream. Most Republicans have painted themselves into a corner on this issue. Much of their political spiel revolves around the theme that liberals and scientists and other educumucated elites are in cahoots to do whatever such evil forces will do. To admit or even hint that the scientists and liberals are right about something so momentous would be tantamount to admitting to their supporters that they've been misleading them and stubbornly ignoring the truth all these years...
2
I applaud the idea - and in a different climate it might work. But ...
it falls at the first pillar (too bitter to swallow).
The Trump Administration has already shown that reducing costs by removing regulation is the imperative - one can only assume the the benefactors will remember this assist. For instance, Presidents Trump friends have trouble getting loans, to the banking industry is deregulated. New taxes would be hard - new takes on businesses are impossible.
And returning the proceeds to the American people - nice! But an annual bribe will not fool them when the daily cost of this tax is passed down to the end user.
it falls at the first pillar (too bitter to swallow).
The Trump Administration has already shown that reducing costs by removing regulation is the imperative - one can only assume the the benefactors will remember this assist. For instance, Presidents Trump friends have trouble getting loans, to the banking industry is deregulated. New taxes would be hard - new takes on businesses are impossible.
And returning the proceeds to the American people - nice! But an annual bribe will not fool them when the daily cost of this tax is passed down to the end user.
1
A carbon tax? I believe this idea was put forth before and killed by Republicans who opposed it on the grounds that it was a "tax". As a result, we ended up with the patchwork of efforts aimed at reducing pollution - actions like the Clean Power Plan. And to remind the readers, the Clean Air Act Amendments which the Clean Power Plan is trying to address was signed into law by George H. W. Bush.
A carbon tax makes good sense. It's a shame that the Republicans prevented it from becoming law when it was proposed. This column would have benefited if the authors had acknowledged that.
A carbon tax makes good sense. It's a shame that the Republicans prevented it from becoming law when it was proposed. This column would have benefited if the authors had acknowledged that.
4
The first nail in the coffin was Reagan, the second and last was Bush, now it's a little too late. The time for action was when Feldstein and Mankiw were serving in their respective administrations. As for Ted, he belongs to the world of phony centrist policy scam that dresses itself in selfless concern for the environment while promoting the corporate fascist agenda.
So now you guys decide to do something? We had 8 years of a Democrat in the White House who tried to get something going with a Republican congress, who denied his every move; and before that, we had Bush, who carried the denial process through his 8 years in office. You could have spoken up when the Republicans decided we didn't need to subsidize alternative energy, so the wind farm manufacturers moved to China and other points abroad. You had numerous opportunities to bring ideas to the table but, as usual, politics (and party) comes first and the American people will pay the price in the end.
3
Sounds possible if you trust free markets and limited government. I don't. But, if there were provisions for clean-up for past atrocities (fossil fuel companies have to pay for their horrible sins)and the whole plan is put in place at one time, I could get behind this proposal.
The Republican Party has spent the last 30 years denying global warming was happening, while claiming the science was a hoax, faulty, a lie and a conspiracy. My Congressman, McClintock is a perfect example just call his office and he'll tell you, "It's happening but there is no evidence that humans are causing it. It is all a natural process that has happen before." No point doing anything about it. In fact, I spoke to one of his staff yesterday who repeated this to 50 people demanding action.
Obama did all he could over the well-financed fossil fuel industry Republican Party denial. This Carbon Tax with refund has been around for years and Republicans have ignored it. It is the right thing to do, but I prefer the Citizen Climate Lobby version.
Republican denial and now hypocrisy that has lead us to the edge of a global warming catastrophe is hard to ignore. Time to tell the president he is wrong-- global warming isn't "a Chinese conspiracy to destroy the American economy." I can't wait for his response.
Obama did all he could over the well-financed fossil fuel industry Republican Party denial. This Carbon Tax with refund has been around for years and Republicans have ignored it. It is the right thing to do, but I prefer the Citizen Climate Lobby version.
Republican denial and now hypocrisy that has lead us to the edge of a global warming catastrophe is hard to ignore. Time to tell the president he is wrong-- global warming isn't "a Chinese conspiracy to destroy the American economy." I can't wait for his response.
1
But, but, but using logic and common sense and tying it to government policy and procedure let alone enacting it into law borders on being unconstitutional.
Here is a rational plan to reduce the amount of carbon released into the environment by the United States. The plan is revenue neutral in that the receipts are distributed to offset the increased cost to individuals. The plan does not encourage "free riders". The plan, if it performs as intended by the authors, will get the United States to full compliance with the Paris Accord.
This proposed plan will NEVER be passed by the Congress or signed by the President. And we all know why. SAD! (and sick)!
This proposed plan will NEVER be passed by the Congress or signed by the President. And we all know why. SAD! (and sick)!
So does a single person living in Manhattan, who does not own a car, and has no control over the heat in his or her building, get the same $2,000 check as the family of four living in the country who drives 25,000 miles/year, heats their house with oil, and gets electricity through a coal-fired power plant?
So many unanswered questions here.
So many unanswered questions here.
2
My father chaired one and sat on several Presidential committees, and was asked to be on the cabinet of both a Democrat who lost an election and the Republican who won. This is another example of his laconic observation that conservatives will eventually find a way to let themselves do what they won't let Democrats do -- in this case, impose the carbon tax of which all else depends. On the one hand you end up with messy, untenable legislation; on the other, with debacles such as the S&L scandal and the toxic assets crash -- of which the true devastations to the American economy and people may never be known.
Providing rebates to families is a good start in equalizing the impact of carbon taxes, but it isn't enough. A rebate will not build public transit, for instance, to help the poor and working classes get to work when gas prices rise (as they should). Will the Republicans support real capital investments in cities, such as new transit lines, that will help wean the public off fossil fuels?
My fellow rational citizens, Let go of your bitterness regarding troglodyte republican obstruction of meaningful solutions to climate change. Pray that someone sells this to Trump as his Nixon goes to China moment. This proposal is the most efficient step towards slowing carbon emissions. This imposition of the true carbon cost will enable the hidden hand of the market to generate energy solutions unimaginable now. Eliminating the cumbersome nature of regulation and their unintended consequences will increase the efficiency of the market response. This is the grand compromise everyone could vote for. Be an advocate with your local elected officials.
1
As generally progressive Democrat, and someone very concerned about climate change, I applaud the authors for this approach. It makes complete sense and it would work. Good luck making it happen -- but please try to do so.
President Obama "did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address" climate change because Republicans in Congress blocked all such legislation. The reason they did was because they are in the pocket of fossil fuel industries. Do the Koch brothers ring a bell? Many of them do not even think that man made climate change is real. On November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." He called renewable energy “really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves” in his 3015 book, “Crippled America.” He hates wind power because "it kills the birds" and makes people crazy when they see it. He says he's going to bring back the coal industry, and he's going to fast track the new pipelines. Trump and his new Secretary of State will shortly take sanctions off Russia to clear the $500,000,000 oil deal Tillerson, as CEO of Exxon, cut with Russia.
It's great to hear Republicans who aren't in power at least acknowledge man made climate change. Maybe the fact that their plan isn't coming from President Obama will change Republican's minds. They were against anything he supported, even if they had been for it before. I wouldn't count on it, but give it a go.
It's great to hear Republicans who aren't in power at least acknowledge man made climate change. Maybe the fact that their plan isn't coming from President Obama will change Republican's minds. They were against anything he supported, even if they had been for it before. I wouldn't count on it, but give it a go.
5
I welcome any progress on addressing the climate disaster we face, and I'm happy to at least hear a viable idea from Republicans (though forgive me if I remain skeptical about what this plan really entails). However, it is completely ingenuous to launch this piece as an Obama criticism. Your saint Reagan was the leader of head-in-the-sand reactions to this issue, and your party has either lied or stood back while others lie about it. If we survive the impending environmental crises we face, Reagan will be remembered more for that enormous blunder than anything else he ever did.
16
As an person of faith, an Arizona-loving, political independent (pushed from both parties by negative campaining), I'm thrilled to see traditional conservative Republican leaders standing up for a positive solution that can be supported by the vast political "middle" of Americans. I see this as a future-focused plan that serves individuals here at home as well as communities around the globe. A changing climate is our new shared reality. We face that future boldly when we see it as a problem to be solved together. The market is a traditional tool that helps us all work together. With a market-based solution, we all win.
One thing that confuses me is exactly how this will motivate a company to reduce emissions. The tax can simply be passed down through higher costs through the chain, with the justification being that the normal citizen will be paid back for it anyway. Second, what exactly is wrong with regulation when the long-term livelihood of this nation and planet are at stake? Do any of the authors actually believe that the market (as if it were a single agent) actually looks beyond a timeframe of 10-20 years (when the proverbial sh-t hits the fan)?
If you want a 2climate action" forget about your preconceptions. Carbon emission control will not work. Even if the developed world changes everything to renewable, the developing world will happily burn the oil away. And we won't because we just can't. Not even "mighty" Germany could do that.
The only real solution is to reforest the eastern coastline of India, and the coastline of China, and transfer - free of charge - food to those nations.
Because reforesting India will bring rains to the western side of India and Saudi Arabia enabling to - in several steps - reforest the desert on the Arabian peninsula, and then the Sahara in time.
The same thing applies to central Asia.
Of course we need to supply China and India with food, and India needs - really - to enact thze one child policy.
Nothing else will work.
The only real solution is to reforest the eastern coastline of India, and the coastline of China, and transfer - free of charge - food to those nations.
Because reforesting India will bring rains to the western side of India and Saudi Arabia enabling to - in several steps - reforest the desert on the Arabian peninsula, and then the Sahara in time.
The same thing applies to central Asia.
Of course we need to supply China and India with food, and India needs - really - to enact thze one child policy.
Nothing else will work.
I doubt this plan would work as advertised re. climate change. But it actually might work as a means of improving American's health. Charge food producers a tax on all foods that cause any of the innumerable diseases and illnesses that are the result of their products ie. Coke for diabetes and obesity; Mars candies for the same etc. And while we are at it, charge the "pushers" of these products, like McDonald's and Safeway supermarkets as well. Tax them until it hurts so much that they remove the harmful and deadly ingredients in their products (or stop making those particular products entirely) and start producing and selling real food that enhances their customer's lives rather than degrades them. Thank you conservative economists for a plan that may not work as intended but could have positive unintended consequences solving another problem. And next time include a couple of non-conservative economists in your planning stage as a check against conservative self-interest.
I believe this is a sensible proposal, and we don't have the luxury of arguing about which party gets credit, let's do something! However, it is disingenuous and lazy thinking to state that we can reduce carbon output and still grow our economy at the same time. Renewable energy is completely dependent on fossil fuels- melting the steel for solar panel framing, mining lithium with gas powered equipment. Most transportation requires fossil fuels, as does heating homes, building homes etc. You cannot currently build a solar system using only solar power.
We believe in the myth of the perpetually growing economy on a finite planet- we feel we need to import immigrants to provide salaries to pay for retiree's social security, need more home construction to goose the GDP, and of course we need to have bumper Christmas shopping to prevent a recession; but yet we can reduce carbon emissions without impacting all this consumption? Don't think so. As long as we keep expecting more and more we will continue to deplete our environment until it is too late.
We believe in the myth of the perpetually growing economy on a finite planet- we feel we need to import immigrants to provide salaries to pay for retiree's social security, need more home construction to goose the GDP, and of course we need to have bumper Christmas shopping to prevent a recession; but yet we can reduce carbon emissions without impacting all this consumption? Don't think so. As long as we keep expecting more and more we will continue to deplete our environment until it is too late.
1
Until the Climateer's of the World can agree that our Planet has twice as many people using her resources than she can arguably support, that those numbers are growing exponentially and that the entire excess will always be comprised of the least skilled and trainable, the least educated and the least able to self improve, the least of the least, all prognostications are futile and will not, in actual fact, reduce any present climitary irregularities, one iota. We have already over-produced ourselves, beyond our capability to change.
This is a brilliant plan that will help reduce the pressures on owners of property to do something about global warming. I encourage all true conservatives and moderates to embrace it. First off, if this is not embraced I fear that as the globe warms draconian measures will imposed on us, the owners of capital, reducing our profits and ability to amass wealth. This would be a true calamity. No matter whether we are struck by a catastrophe or not, our wealth has and will always be a refuge and a solace. Let us also not forget that we will soon be receiving huge tax cuts. They will more than make up for whatever profits we lose to this tax. Yes, a few may be fear that this will not avert the impending catastrophe of global warming. That may be true, but let us not forget that the noblest of us have endured throughout plagues, world wars, famines and revolutions. We'll get through this, God willing.
1
Where were these gentlemen during the Obama presidency? Ah, yes, they are former high-ranking officials in Republican administrations, most which we now consider failing administrations. Nixon resigning, his replacement Ford, unable to be elected, George H. W. Bush a one-termer, and George W. Bush one of our most unpopular presidents and still being castigated for the unnecessary Iraq war. Reagan's tax cuts and reinstatements caused a rollercoaster economy that favored the few and his Iran-Contra illegal actions tainted the former Grade B movie star. Yes, your proposal is gaining traction by those Republicans who view Trump as incompetent in every way. But to pursue a rebate to the American family of four in the amount of $2,000 when those monies should be directed to the sustainable energy sector is ludicrous, but shows their tacit philosophy of trying to maintain fossil fuels and that industry's Republican donors. Hypocrisy is now the watchword for this administration and its corral of billionaire cabinet members and pro-pollution advocates like Pruitt who intends to destroy the EPA. And the irony of ironies, the president's closest advisors dismiss senior Republicans as those having had their chance and muffed it. Bannon, who has never held an elected position; DeVos who has never been near a public school, Jess Sessions who is an avowed racist and bigot as attorney general? But the senate sees punishing Sen. Warren as a valuable use of time? Obscene!
The big obstacle for any climate action on the part of conservatives is that conservatives don't "believe in" science anymore. It's a liberal plot, with its facts biased against major political donors.
It is very quaint to hear old-style Republicans talk about what can be done about a major environmental problem. It's as if they weren't notified that environmental problems, most notably climate change, are only concerns for moderates and liberals.
Yes, a carbon tax would work. But two branches of government are run by Republicans -- MODERN Republicans, not the quaint, old-style versions -- and the third will likely move to the right, as well. Nothing will be done about climate change in the US until that changes. That won't change for at least 4 years.
It is very quaint to hear old-style Republicans talk about what can be done about a major environmental problem. It's as if they weren't notified that environmental problems, most notably climate change, are only concerns for moderates and liberals.
Yes, a carbon tax would work. But two branches of government are run by Republicans -- MODERN Republicans, not the quaint, old-style versions -- and the third will likely move to the right, as well. Nothing will be done about climate change in the US until that changes. That won't change for at least 4 years.
1
Pillar #1 is a tax. Taxes take money by force, violence and coercion, primarily to benefit the rulers in government. A tax on carbon is a tax, is a tax, is a tax. It takes money out of the economy and puts it in the hands of self-serving legislators, administrators and bureaucritters.
Pillar #2 is a reprehensible way of inducing idiots to vote for a tax. If the tax revenues taken from some Americans--business owners--to be given to other Americans to induce them to join in the extortion plot, it would be far better and more productive to leave the revenues where they are, in the hands of the people who earned them. If the taxpayers are doing damage from their carbon emissions to some Americans, allow those Americans to take the emitters to court to prove they've been damaged and receive compensation for the damage the can prove. Your pillar #2 is pure political bribery.
Pillar #3 is entirely unnecessary if Pillar #1 is not adopted. As my mom always told me, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Your pillars are obviously a ruse to get more money into the hands of government. Foggettabowtit!
Pillar #4. Go for the eliminating of regulations including CPP as stand-alone policy.
I notice the plan is authored by 3 politicians and 2 of their private-sector crony capitalists. (Not entrepreneurs.) A group of five relatively poor taxpayers at Murphy's Pub could come up with a better plan on any given Friday night after 10PM.
Pillar #2 is a reprehensible way of inducing idiots to vote for a tax. If the tax revenues taken from some Americans--business owners--to be given to other Americans to induce them to join in the extortion plot, it would be far better and more productive to leave the revenues where they are, in the hands of the people who earned them. If the taxpayers are doing damage from their carbon emissions to some Americans, allow those Americans to take the emitters to court to prove they've been damaged and receive compensation for the damage the can prove. Your pillar #2 is pure political bribery.
Pillar #3 is entirely unnecessary if Pillar #1 is not adopted. As my mom always told me, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Your pillars are obviously a ruse to get more money into the hands of government. Foggettabowtit!
Pillar #4. Go for the eliminating of regulations including CPP as stand-alone policy.
I notice the plan is authored by 3 politicians and 2 of their private-sector crony capitalists. (Not entrepreneurs.) A group of five relatively poor taxpayers at Murphy's Pub could come up with a better plan on any given Friday night after 10PM.
I'm quite surprised, and disappointed, at the number of negative comments about this proposal - seemingly driven by a high level of cynicism about the motives of anyone with an "R" after their name. Economists uniformly agree that a carbon tax would ensure that relatively dramatic emission reductions could be achieved at the lowest societal cost. Our current approach - a hodge lodge of federal and state regulatory requirements - is a mess. What's the cost of a ton of carbon reduction attributable to an offshore wind farm in comparison to better insulation in a home? Is carbon capture and sequestration ever likely to make economic sense? Is it worthwhile to build the electric transmission infrastructure needed to untapped the vast wind resources from the plains states, moving this power to eastern population centers? Today our policy decisions shaping energy use are being made by a state and local officials, regulators of various stripes, federal bureaucrats, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that a carbon tax, properly designed, could dramatically accelerate the pace of carbon reduction, at far lower cost to the economy. Everyone - regardless of political leanings - should support this proposal, and commend the authors for putting it forward.
The goal must be to transform our energy systems to drastically reduce carbon gases being released into the atmosphere which we know does not move out of the atmosphere for decades after they are introduced. A carbon tax will encourage the lowering of the release of such gases where the use of them can be measured and monitored but to actually create incentives to replace fossil fuel systems with alternative energy sources it acts indecisively. When the costs of goods and services increase because replacing those systems is still not feasible, the incentives will be to eliminate the taxes before the likelihood of alternatives energy systems will successfully replace the fossil fuel systems. The most likely scenario that will take place is that the cost of replacing these systems will not allow any rapid transformation and the big commercial businesses involved in the energy systems will wait until they can see clear and reliable high profits from funding and operating alternative fuel systems, and until then small innovative firms will be unable to compete and so fail continuously until the big boys take over. This is not the magical marketplace picture of economics that conservative feed to the general public, it's the real life history of innovative technologies in the history of this countries. Conservatives always find strategies to delay innovations until their supporters can dominate the new systems to protect them from ending up obsolete and no longer in business.
I know it's irresistible for the Republican authors of this plan to snark Democrats for their supposed preference for climate-related regulations, but I and many moderate Democrats have long preferred a carbon tax to piecemeal regs. The obstacle has been adamant opposition to ANY tax increase among Republicans. This is indeed a smart plan, just the way cap-and-trade was for acid rain in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Let the free market and commercial ingenuity do the hard work -- yay. But the authors soft-pedal the fact that this would inevitably raise prices for gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and any electricity generated by fossil fuels. Lower-income consumers might be made whole in the long run by a quarterly dividend, but not at the pump. For the upper 30% who would lose, this would be a potentially expensive inducement to use less carbon-based energy. In my view, that's a great idea. But I'm finding it hard to imagine Grover Norquist and his passionately anti-tax acolytes among House and Senate Republicans embracing that kind of social engineering. Good for them if they do!
1
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room! We cannot address the pollution of the planet until we eradicate the pollution of democracy, namely, big money in our election system.
Big donors give money for a reason, gaining access and influence. Until our lawmakers are free from their implied obligation to fossil fuel interests, nothing can make them adhere or even consider the policy suggestions offered in this article.
One definition of insanity suggests that when change is desired but no change in behavior occurs, no change in outcome can result.
Our planet and our democracy face unparalleled existential threats. When will we wake up and address them?
Big donors give money for a reason, gaining access and influence. Until our lawmakers are free from their implied obligation to fossil fuel interests, nothing can make them adhere or even consider the policy suggestions offered in this article.
One definition of insanity suggests that when change is desired but no change in behavior occurs, no change in outcome can result.
Our planet and our democracy face unparalleled existential threats. When will we wake up and address them?
Your plan is almost a carbon copy of British Columbia's "revenue-neutral" carbon tax that has been in place since 2012. [http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm] At the time of its implementation there was much debate that it would hurt the overall economy but alas the opposite effect has been noted by economists in B.C. However most observers also note that regulations one finds in California designed to spur growth of clean energy are also extremely effective and, I would argue,
necessary.
necessary.
How about as a first step ensure the accuracy of measurements and that data that is used to establish the science. As it is the "data" cannot be trusted. Second have some real scientists establish that cutting down on CO2 emissions would actually be meaningful. Third recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant, quite the opposite as increases over the last several decades has resulted in very significant increases in vegetation across the planet. Fourth include the biggest regulating mechanism on earth - life - in the climate models. Fifth rid the science of all the current crop of frauds calling themselves scientists.
An other anti-regulation and oversight scam dressed up in a Brooks Brothers suit. When it comes down to brass tacks, profits trump environmental concerns and the wealthy always have that money leverage with congress. Alas, economic studies show that capital gains and profits enjoyed by big industries are seldom if ever showered down to the workers who create them and the same profit contributions get shared by returns to stockholders and to the "idea" men who run the companies. The only real credible personality on this list of individuals is George Schultz who as SOS showed a modicum of appreciation for international macroeconomics. Baker is an astute politician but a yes-man for big money. The presence of Stephenson and Walton is the final skull and cross bones of the proffered bottle offered here as solution.
I favor this strongly and hope our country adopts it. It is a elegant and efficient solution and it is best for most of us.
Last Autumn's Washington state initiative which lifted some other taxes in exchange failed partly because opponents claimed it would not produce enough revenue to replace the removed taxes, but this proposal shouldn't have that problem.
Opponents to the Washington State initiative included carbon based energy companies. Surprisingly there were also some groups such as the Sierra club which claimed to be concerned about climate change but wanted the tax funds to subsidize energy saving work like insulation or solar power and social investments.
That opposition from so called environmentalists didn't make much sense because the tax alone should have been enough to cause people to use less in ways they found most efficient. It also didn't make sense because more of the general public is likely to support a measure which gives them a check and allows them to make their own choices.
Let's hope the groups which opposed the Washington initiative reconsider and support this proposal.
Last Autumn's Washington state initiative which lifted some other taxes in exchange failed partly because opponents claimed it would not produce enough revenue to replace the removed taxes, but this proposal shouldn't have that problem.
Opponents to the Washington State initiative included carbon based energy companies. Surprisingly there were also some groups such as the Sierra club which claimed to be concerned about climate change but wanted the tax funds to subsidize energy saving work like insulation or solar power and social investments.
That opposition from so called environmentalists didn't make much sense because the tax alone should have been enough to cause people to use less in ways they found most efficient. It also didn't make sense because more of the general public is likely to support a measure which gives them a check and allows them to make their own choices.
Let's hope the groups which opposed the Washington initiative reconsider and support this proposal.
Wow! This all seems so simple! Why didn't somebody think of this before?
Well, ever heard of the devil lurking in the details? The US emits upwards of 5 billion tons of greenhouse gases per year from all sources - electricity, transportation, manufacturing. Let's see - 5 billion x $40 = $200 billion a year in carbon taxes. Sure, that'll fly.
And notice - they don't say the tax would be confined to industry. The "powerful signal" applies to consumers as well as business. Say each person's carbon footprint is 16 tons per year (a 2013 figure). At $40/ton, that's $640 a year - per person. A family of four would be taxed $2560 per year, more than offsetting the $2000 a year they'd get from this whiz-bang plan. And the tax would only go up.
And it's only reasonable to assume that industry and business would fight this tax tooth and nail, and insist that individuals also pay it because after all, people can regulate their own energy consumption up to a point in the cars they drive and their use of electricity.
Finally, do the authors really expect Republicans to vote FOR a tax? After all, if corporations had to pay this tax, they wouldn't have any money left to bribe - er, donate to political campaigns. Which are all-important if a politician's goal is to 1. get re-elected and 2. get rich.
Is this plan as delusional as it seems to me?
Well, ever heard of the devil lurking in the details? The US emits upwards of 5 billion tons of greenhouse gases per year from all sources - electricity, transportation, manufacturing. Let's see - 5 billion x $40 = $200 billion a year in carbon taxes. Sure, that'll fly.
And notice - they don't say the tax would be confined to industry. The "powerful signal" applies to consumers as well as business. Say each person's carbon footprint is 16 tons per year (a 2013 figure). At $40/ton, that's $640 a year - per person. A family of four would be taxed $2560 per year, more than offsetting the $2000 a year they'd get from this whiz-bang plan. And the tax would only go up.
And it's only reasonable to assume that industry and business would fight this tax tooth and nail, and insist that individuals also pay it because after all, people can regulate their own energy consumption up to a point in the cars they drive and their use of electricity.
Finally, do the authors really expect Republicans to vote FOR a tax? After all, if corporations had to pay this tax, they wouldn't have any money left to bribe - er, donate to political campaigns. Which are all-important if a politician's goal is to 1. get re-elected and 2. get rich.
Is this plan as delusional as it seems to me?
1
Bravo Gentleman.
These are great ideas, and it do not have, as some fear, a horrible down side.
This is essentially what the leading American advocates for the environment, like the former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, or the politician turned environmentalist Al Gore, or the environmental activist and writer and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibbon, have all been calling for for decades.
Everyone with a brain and a heart should get behind this plan for a revenue neutral, annually increasing, tax on carbon dioxide pollution that allows less government regulation, while providing the incentives throughout the economy for individuals and businesses and countries to reduce their carbon emission footprint. Bravo.
Now, Soldiers for the planet, boots on the ground, reach across the aisle.
For these great ideas, I'll even make some phone calls.
David Lindsay blogs at InconvenientNews.wordpress.com
These are great ideas, and it do not have, as some fear, a horrible down side.
This is essentially what the leading American advocates for the environment, like the former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, or the politician turned environmentalist Al Gore, or the environmental activist and writer and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibbon, have all been calling for for decades.
Everyone with a brain and a heart should get behind this plan for a revenue neutral, annually increasing, tax on carbon dioxide pollution that allows less government regulation, while providing the incentives throughout the economy for individuals and businesses and countries to reduce their carbon emission footprint. Bravo.
Now, Soldiers for the planet, boots on the ground, reach across the aisle.
For these great ideas, I'll even make some phone calls.
David Lindsay blogs at InconvenientNews.wordpress.com
"...Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.."
This will increase the political acceptability of a carbon tax but would tend to make it ineffective.
The more carbon taxes collected the more proceeds rebated to the tax payers?
Meanwhile, the nature of energy systems means that the tax will increase the costs and prices of all goods and services for everyone in the country. The rebates will tend to offset some but not all of those costs.
How is this an incentive to reduce the generation of carbon gases? It seems to me that unless people are dissuaded from doing things which generate more carbon gases, the carbon tax would not be effective.
This will increase the political acceptability of a carbon tax but would tend to make it ineffective.
The more carbon taxes collected the more proceeds rebated to the tax payers?
Meanwhile, the nature of energy systems means that the tax will increase the costs and prices of all goods and services for everyone in the country. The rebates will tend to offset some but not all of those costs.
How is this an incentive to reduce the generation of carbon gases? It seems to me that unless people are dissuaded from doing things which generate more carbon gases, the carbon tax would not be effective.
The premise of this piece, along with its companion in today's Wall Street Journal, is ridiculous. All four pieces will not be enacted as explained here. This is government. The tax will stay. The dividend will not. It will become a plaything for future administrations and legislatures. And if it has the planned effect of reducing carbon emissions, the expected revenue from the tax won't be realized. Since Congress spends money before it is actually received, the tax will likely be raised in some way. This will be lime a narcotic that the government gets hooked on. Run away from this. FAST.
I like the overall gist of this proposal and its reliance on faith in markets to have an impact, given outside restrictions imposed on those markets. However, I feel it is missing some big pieces.
1) How do we assess the carbon tax to be paid? And who pays it? Do oil refineries and gas stations both pay the tax? To make a proper assessment, don't we need existing regulations around how to measure carbon emissions? Or are we going to use some sort of schedule table that references average carbon emissions based on specific equipment used? Will all of this be subject to modification and discounting by industry lobbyists?
2) How do you ensure that this doesn't simply need to a massive increase in the cost of living? Everybody loves getting $2000 checks in the mail...until they realize that their spending has increased $2000+ thanks to companies raising prices to pay for the tax. Imported products would also be made more expensive...how do you ensure that companies will actually work to reduce carbon emissions (and therefore their tax burden) without just passing costs on to consumers? Shouldn't there be other incentives (e.g., tax credit trading market)?
1) How do we assess the carbon tax to be paid? And who pays it? Do oil refineries and gas stations both pay the tax? To make a proper assessment, don't we need existing regulations around how to measure carbon emissions? Or are we going to use some sort of schedule table that references average carbon emissions based on specific equipment used? Will all of this be subject to modification and discounting by industry lobbyists?
2) How do you ensure that this doesn't simply need to a massive increase in the cost of living? Everybody loves getting $2000 checks in the mail...until they realize that their spending has increased $2000+ thanks to companies raising prices to pay for the tax. Imported products would also be made more expensive...how do you ensure that companies will actually work to reduce carbon emissions (and therefore their tax burden) without just passing costs on to consumers? Shouldn't there be other incentives (e.g., tax credit trading market)?
remember that after the Tsunami off the Japan coast which caused a meltdown in an old set of reactors there, Germany, run by a parliamentary coalition including numerous ignorant "Greens", who fear nuclear power(they think power plants explode!), more than they fear Satan and death, forced all of Germany to sut down-without preparation or without any study, all it's absolutely spotless, zero emissions nuclear plants. These -plants were shuttered in circa a year and , as a result, Germans were told to be ready to fall back on dirty oil and gas or coal as "emergency" measures, as a Tesunami could occur at any second(!!!) and destroy all the long running and safe, clean and powerful German nuclear plants. This was a lie and a scam. In fact, now unable to restart any reactors, and having terrified it's people, entire 500 year old villages, which survived the Protestant Reformation, are now slated to be destroyed so the energy companies can dig up lignite beneath them-the filthiest grade of coal and the reason why nuclear power is necessary.
There is one thing the hydrocarbon companies fear more than anything : it is nuclear power, which is so clean it will aid the slowing of global warming and allow us to build high efficiency solar power-which doesn't work at night or on cloudy days. If we do not go to nuclear NOW, the oceans will become hot and acidified; life will not be able to easily continue there. We'll all die, starving or in wars over food resources.
There is one thing the hydrocarbon companies fear more than anything : it is nuclear power, which is so clean it will aid the slowing of global warming and allow us to build high efficiency solar power-which doesn't work at night or on cloudy days. If we do not go to nuclear NOW, the oceans will become hot and acidified; life will not be able to easily continue there. We'll all die, starving or in wars over food resources.
Not a bad plan, so you know the GOP will never do it. One thing that makes little sense is the carbon tax coming back to taxpayer as a dividend. A better idea would be to subsidize the green energy industry and help drive job creation. Automation and AI are only going to take more jobs. Green energy is an antidote and will help drive growth of middle class. We need to get off the Edison power grid and modernize with a smart grid, solar farms, wind turbines, house batteries, solar shingles etc. Also as more green energy comes online, the less environmental regulations are needed to protect the environment from fossil fuel pollution. Win-win
2
Nothing can happen until climate change deniers come to their senses. Then bright, logical people can "make the sausage."
Nice to hear the promotion of a carbon tax as opposed to a cap and trade scheme.
I do believe $40 maybe a little low though.
Watch out for those who say such a plan will ruin the economy.
British Columbia put in a carbon tax program sometime ago. The province appears to be doing just fine.
I do believe $40 maybe a little low though.
Watch out for those who say such a plan will ruin the economy.
British Columbia put in a carbon tax program sometime ago. The province appears to be doing just fine.
1
It is encouraging to see a helpful proposal on this important issue from Feldstein, Halstead, Mankiw, and their (prominent) Republican colleagues. Next step--get some current elected Republican officials on board.
It's been the Republican party, from the arch-conservatives through the mainstream through Trump, that has been the problem on this. It would make me very happy if some Republicans could now be part of the solution.
It's been the Republican party, from the arch-conservatives through the mainstream through Trump, that has been the problem on this. It would make me very happy if some Republicans could now be part of the solution.
1
Commie-Communists!
Carbon is good for you! Thought you tree huggers loved plants! Now you take their food?
Sad!
Carbon has feelings too!
Carbon is good for you! Thought you tree huggers loved plants! Now you take their food?
Sad!
Carbon has feelings too!
You and I know that Trump and his minions won't pay the slightest bit of attention to this proposal.
Why not? Because the creators of this plan are now considered by Trump's gang to be "old-style" Republicans. Don't you know? The Republican in-crowd is now the alternate facts, fake news, racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, science-denying hordes of Trump voters who will destroy any Republican legislator who dares agree with this proposal. It's as simple as that.
So why on earth are you and your co-authors still Republicans??
Why not? Because the creators of this plan are now considered by Trump's gang to be "old-style" Republicans. Don't you know? The Republican in-crowd is now the alternate facts, fake news, racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, science-denying hordes of Trump voters who will destroy any Republican legislator who dares agree with this proposal. It's as simple as that.
So why on earth are you and your co-authors still Republicans??
Why did the NYT allow them to publish this without noting that the proposal includes the elimination of tort liability for emitters, thereby likely leaving many landowners and other injured citizens without adequate compensation? The WSJ piece includes this aspect as does their actual proposal. By allowing this version to be published the NYT has allowed at best a half-truth to be circulated.
2
It sounds good to me. The sooner the better. No time to waste! Do you really think your Republican buddies are going to go for this? Especially the climate change denier who will be in charge of the EPA?
The authors are naive. Trump is a volatile infantile fool, but he's an angry one who doesn't like to be shown up: if he has consistency, it's in his defensive rage. He said climate change is a Chinese hoax. The Republicans in Congress have been lying about climate change for many years, saying it doesn't exist and if it does it's not human-made. Good luck with your plan that's too little and too late. That's the state of populism created by your "conservative" friends, who wish only to conserve their wealth, safety, and privilege, not our nation, our land, or the world and its people. Where were you during Bush II?
1
Mr. Feldstein, et al., you are liars. This was not your "idea." Scientists for 20 years have proposed these ideas, Obama embraced them, and some states now have large fractions of their energy delivered from renewable resources. Then, along comes your Republican friends in Congress and they block Obama with everything they've got. You trying to claim some credit after this is pathetic.
3
First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
This article contains a misleading headline. It claims this is a "conservative case".
Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks.
The government passing out checks to who knows who for who knows how much? Again, I thought you said this was a "conservative case".
This plan is government-centered instead of based where it should be to a political conservative, which is in the private sector. It is top-down management to fix a problem which, despite what the left would have you believe, is far from settled or even far from being determined to be fact.
Polls say whatever you want them to say. I'm concerned about a meteor hitting my house, too, but that doesn't mean I think it's going to happen. As an example, the latest YouGov poll on the subject from November shows that three times as many Americans list terrorism as a bigger concern than global warming.
Climate change happens every day. And until government can find a way to put mandates on the sun, it's going to keep happening. Ten thousand years ago, Chicago was under half a mile of ice, and government had nothing to do with correcting that issue.
This article contains a misleading headline. It claims this is a "conservative case".
Second, the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks.
The government passing out checks to who knows who for who knows how much? Again, I thought you said this was a "conservative case".
This plan is government-centered instead of based where it should be to a political conservative, which is in the private sector. It is top-down management to fix a problem which, despite what the left would have you believe, is far from settled or even far from being determined to be fact.
Polls say whatever you want them to say. I'm concerned about a meteor hitting my house, too, but that doesn't mean I think it's going to happen. As an example, the latest YouGov poll on the subject from November shows that three times as many Americans list terrorism as a bigger concern than global warming.
Climate change happens every day. And until government can find a way to put mandates on the sun, it's going to keep happening. Ten thousand years ago, Chicago was under half a mile of ice, and government had nothing to do with correcting that issue.
You must be reading from those fake news sites or, alternatively,
you are willing to put absolutely all of your eggs in the basket of
a very small number of contrarian scientists to maintain a
rigid ideological position....the reasons for
which are very unclear from a scientific perspective. Why are
you be so willing to bet the house on the opinions of such marginal
studies that have found so little follow up or can be
easily shown to have overlooked some crucial points.
you are willing to put absolutely all of your eggs in the basket of
a very small number of contrarian scientists to maintain a
rigid ideological position....the reasons for
which are very unclear from a scientific perspective. Why are
you be so willing to bet the house on the opinions of such marginal
studies that have found so little follow up or can be
easily shown to have overlooked some crucial points.
What are you three even doing here? What world do you think we live in? Perhaps you are in denial about what your party has become. We have an administration along with most of its staff, numerous Senators, and Congressman that only receive information from Fox News and talk radio. A NYTimes op-ed is a sure way to ensure all your points will be ignored. You don't need to convince the fact-based NYTimes readership that action is needed. I have already voted for a carbon tax in Washington State.
As conservatives you need to pierce the "alternative fact" bubble of the Republican national leadership. We will be ready to talk solutions once you convince your people climate change is real, or isn't just deserved punishment from God. Good luck, we've been trying for 30 years.
As conservatives you need to pierce the "alternative fact" bubble of the Republican national leadership. We will be ready to talk solutions once you convince your people climate change is real, or isn't just deserved punishment from God. Good luck, we've been trying for 30 years.
5
There is NO conservative case for climate change policy because the current brand of conservatism in political power does not believe in science and is rigidly anti-government. President Obama did not sign any climate change legislation NOT simply because of a failure to "see eye to eye" with our legislative branch. The problem is far worse. If you care about the environment, you cannot possibly vote republican. Period.
4
This would be a sensible plan, if all four measures were enacted at once. Price is a powerful motivator.
2
Advice I got many years ago: register as a Republican to show your respect for their principles; vote for Democrats to show your contempt for Republicans' practices.
1
Blame the second/third best approach that President Obama took on Republican obstructionism. Any proposal for a national carbon tax or cap-and-trade program would have been DOA, with Mitch McConnell incessant whining about the "war on coal"!
Big FAIL right at the first pillar.
"First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions."
Ok, so how does the measurement of CO2 emissions take place? Will you trust each company to simply, voluntarily measure it without any regulatory guidelines and own up to taxing themselves, all for the benefit of (Pillar#2) giving free money to all American families via "dividend checks"? Sounds like some (gasp!) REGULATIONS might have to be put in place there.
In that same vein, for Pillar #2, how is the money accounted for? Who decides what the dividend will be this quarter... some hedge fund manager? The federal government doesn't normally "do" dividends, that's a private sector thing. Add to that the expenses of of keeping track of all that banking.Gonna need some... guidelines... for all that. More regulations.
Next, who will qualify for the dividends? Only "families"? Will the poor be left out again? How do you decide? Sounds like more (ugh) regulations there, too.
And so, who do you propose to be in charge of formulating these guidelines, policy, regulatory structures? All those companies themselves? They don't have time for that, they are busy producing goods.
That leaves... OH, yeah. Government. But you want Government to butt out by limiting regulatory intrusion?
And I haven't even gotten to Pillars #3 and 4...
"First, the federal government would impose a gradually increasing tax on carbon dioxide emissions."
Ok, so how does the measurement of CO2 emissions take place? Will you trust each company to simply, voluntarily measure it without any regulatory guidelines and own up to taxing themselves, all for the benefit of (Pillar#2) giving free money to all American families via "dividend checks"? Sounds like some (gasp!) REGULATIONS might have to be put in place there.
In that same vein, for Pillar #2, how is the money accounted for? Who decides what the dividend will be this quarter... some hedge fund manager? The federal government doesn't normally "do" dividends, that's a private sector thing. Add to that the expenses of of keeping track of all that banking.Gonna need some... guidelines... for all that. More regulations.
Next, who will qualify for the dividends? Only "families"? Will the poor be left out again? How do you decide? Sounds like more (ugh) regulations there, too.
And so, who do you propose to be in charge of formulating these guidelines, policy, regulatory structures? All those companies themselves? They don't have time for that, they are busy producing goods.
That leaves... OH, yeah. Government. But you want Government to butt out by limiting regulatory intrusion?
And I haven't even gotten to Pillars #3 and 4...
1
I think the plan lacks an essential element, namely massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.
5
And maybe a new-fangled submarine.
1
This is a good plan which. My only quibble is that President Obama would have been thrilled to sign such a bill instead of issuing executive orders however the GOP was determined not to do anything except obstruction.
1
I've always thought that even IF climate change isn't real, it'd still be good to focus on renewable energy. Only good things can come from that, ESP. Being energy independent and getting out of the Middle East!!
1
I admire the hubris of those committed to mitigating the inevitable warming of the globe. A couple of well placed volcanic eruptions will probably erase all of their controlling strategies. This attempt at some form of climate manipulation has almost become a form of religious crusade and we all know how well those tend to work out.
1
I can imagine the driver of a large, gas-guzzling SUV thinking: "this is awesome! I can take my $2,000 rebate and buy gas for my Hummmer!"
1
Two questions: Wouldn't you need a big bureaucracy to track and remit the payments to every "family" in the US? And, wouldn't the lions share of the rebates go to the extremely rich? Other than that, I'm all for it.
Put it toward the national debt.
This is great. Totally agree. It's a little frustrating that the conservative case wasn't made as an improvement to Obama's cap-and-trade proposal 8 years ago and conservatives opted to deny the reality of climate change wholesale instead. I guess if it's just a matter of who gets credit, I don't really care as long as the solution is implemented (again, I totally, 100% agree with this article).
2
Sounds like a good plan. We have to do something for our grandchildren. I like the dividends.
2
This idea is not without its merit. That said, I laughed when I read the part about Republicans and this administration passing this responsibly. They have sworn an allegiance to fossil fuels.
Let me know when those pigs are airborne.
Let me know when those pigs are airborne.
1
Of course these are good ideas. They are essentially identical to Obama's cap and trade program that the Republicans rejected under Obama and enacted under GHW Bush. There was also no essential difference between Obamacare, Romneycare , and the program proposed by Richard Nixon and rejected by Ted Kennedy. Whenever Obama reached across the aisle, the Republicans always took one step back--the main reason their policies got crazier and crazier during Obama's administration.
It's amazing what the Chinese can do to us, first a hoax about climate change and now a new tax.
On a serious note how and who will the $40 per ton tax affect? How many people will offset the tax with the dividend? There seems to be little info on that.
Personally I liked better the solution offered in Thomas Friedman's column a few years ago https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-why-...
On a serious note how and who will the $40 per ton tax affect? How many people will offset the tax with the dividend? There seems to be little info on that.
Personally I liked better the solution offered in Thomas Friedman's column a few years ago https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-why-...
1
This is pretty much what the Libertarian, Barry Commoner, proposed in the mid 70's in his book, "The Closing Circle". It accomplishes the aims of protecting against climate change without more regulations and it makes total sense to this climate conscious Democrat.
2
What's obvious from the comments thus far is those of us who support action on climate change are willing to listen and consider all ideas. The problem is your own party. So figure out a way to get them to the table, admit there's a problem, and be willing to work on a solution! Then come back and talk to most of us. Good luck.
2
A revenue neutral carbon tax at least stands a chance. Otherwise, DOA.
Let's move past needing to have a group hug in Washington on climate change and move on policies that can gain support and get done what can be. Tackle the policies that can be handled by the states at the state level.
Are we going to do better in the next 4 years?
Let's move past needing to have a group hug in Washington on climate change and move on policies that can gain support and get done what can be. Tackle the policies that can be handled by the states at the state level.
Are we going to do better in the next 4 years?
Thanks to you all for devising a terrific plan to reduce carbon that puts the onus where it belongs: on the individual. Now if you could just translate it into one-syllable words, preferably containing no more than six letters each, you could send it to our new president for review. Correct spelling is not required.
1
The co-authors are stuck with Trump. We all are. Condense the plan to 140 characters and it may pass muster.
Do any of you have a special connection to Steve Bannon? If not, Fuhgeddaboudit!
2
This is the most hopeful thing I've read in the NYTimes on any issue since Trump was elected. Climate change is my primary concern right now as a citizen and it is so frustrating to have no dialogue on the issue except "it's happening" v/s "it's a hoax". I look forward to a substantive debate that leads to a solution. I'm not conservative or liberal enough to care whether that solution is regulations or free-market based I just want this country to do something that will actually work.
34
The NY Times tells us that up to 51% of climate change is due to animal agriculture:
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/we-could-be-heroes
We have to greatly accelerate the development of plant-based meat, egg, and dairy substitutes if we're to have any hope. Everything else is secondary, or lower, in priority. Focus on the biggest part of the problem. Immediately.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/we-could-be-heroes
We have to greatly accelerate the development of plant-based meat, egg, and dairy substitutes if we're to have any hope. Everything else is secondary, or lower, in priority. Focus on the biggest part of the problem. Immediately.
4
If we move away from animal protein, this will also probably eliminate at least 51% of our health problems and money spent on health care in this country. The shift from meat to vegetarian/vegan would have a broad, sweeping effect across the land.
I get the feeling conservatives will let the world burn if its to protect their egos. If these authors need to convince themselves that Obama passed no legislation simply because congress and he didn't see "eye to eye," let them, for now.
They'll finally admit to climate change, and then history can point out what dangerous obstructionists they were.
They'll finally admit to climate change, and then history can point out what dangerous obstructionists they were.
2
Can we have cake and ice cream for breakfast, too?
2
I'm sorry, but not just the right's proclivity but its expressed intent to defy both historical and empirical precedents taints or tempers my reception of these words.
Pillar 1: Tax emissions
Pillar 2: Distribute tax as dividends
I like emissions!
Pillar 2: Distribute tax as dividends
I like emissions!
I am a CO 2 skeptic, but I would like to be convinced that all these expensive efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions really are beneficial. Currently our air contains 0"04 % CO 2. Are there any studies other than vague computer projections, that prove how many degrees increase in temperature a rise to 0.05 % would cause?
1
The atmosphere is about 10 miles thick or 633,600 inches thick. Your car windshield is less than 0.5 inches thick. The ratio of the thickness of your car windshield to that of the atmosphere is 0.5/633600=0.000007%. Go out to you car on a sunny day. Is it hotter inside the car? That is the greenhouse effect. The amount of material between you and the sun can be small, if the material is very good at blocking the infrared light reflected from the earth. You have just run an experiment. You have just proved that global warming due to an increase in CO2 is real. You are now a scientist.
1
When Reagan was in office, this would have been a great plan. But now? Climate change is here, now. Did you read yesterday's article about the 17 mile crack in the Larsen Ice Shelf in Antarctica? How about those tornadoes in LA? The threat of migratory animals starving in the ocean because the plankton growth cycle has shifted? Being nice and reasonable and conservative with carbon tax schemes in 2017 is far too little, far too late.
1
Thank Goodness that there ARE a couple of folks writing to the Times that realize the true problem - OVERPOPULATION.
2
This sounds a lot like Exxon's endorsement of a carbon tax back in 2010, and is probably similarly motivated: support something that will never get through Congress in order to undermine anything that might.
2
This is very important news, in my opinion. I hope the editorial board of the New York Times follows up with their own endorsement. This might be an appropriate time to run a few sections on the virtues of carbon pricing; the world consensus re carbon pricing; the manner in which revenues can be used. We know Friedman is on board with carbon taxes. What does Douthat think? Blow? Can Dowd devote some of her Shakespearean genius to dramatize the stakes of sane policy that might actually avoid apocalypse?
1
A wonderful start. Please rally your wealthy friends to buy Congressional support for the plan.
3
This is absurd. The Republican majorities in Congress and the Trump administration barely admit the existence of global warming, and they completely reject the idea that human beings are responsible for it.
1
More rich white guys giving us solutions. Pfft!
I've been volunteering with Citizen's Climate Lobby to try to get legislation such as this passed at the federal level. So happy to see it be acknowledged on a large platform like NYT!
2
I often hear the argument that what we do doesn't matter if China and others do nothing. Faced with a carbon tax at the border where WE get the revenue as opposed to domestic tax where THEY get the revenue, I suspect major exporters would fall in like pretty quickly.
Great idea. Now we'll see to what extent the fossil fuel industry owns the government.
Great idea. Now we'll see to what extent the fossil fuel industry owns the government.
1
OK! Just make sure the power suppliers don't just pass on the added tax to consumers in order to continue the status quo.
1
Thanks for this.
1
I don't see the current administration doing anything to lessen the impact of climate change unless hell freezes over or Mar-a-Lago gets flooded, whichever comes first.
Republicans vote for a tax?
Just one problem. Your cohorts don't believe Climate Change is real. They claim it's a scam. How do you propose initializing a carbon tax in this environment? It's ludicrous for republicans like you to NOW suddenly take an interest and seem as though you are adults again. Where were you during the last 8 years?
1
"Our idea ..."
Isn't this the proposal that climate scientist James Hansen has been advocating for several years?
The incentives are right, and the idea of returning a dividend to each American is one that could seed a new relationship between citizens and the government in other areas as well.
Isn't this the proposal that climate scientist James Hansen has been advocating for several years?
The incentives are right, and the idea of returning a dividend to each American is one that could seed a new relationship between citizens and the government in other areas as well.
2
Bravo! This is the kind of thinking that combines the best of the conservative and liberal thinking for the benefit of all.
2
If only the Republican Congress believed in climate change. Or perhaps more likely, if only they could let go of the money they receive from the fossil fuel industry for the good of our planet.
1
Clean air, water and a healthy ecosystem should not be a partisan issue. Crazy as it sounds but conservatives have no credibility when it comes to passing legislation meant to improve the human condition.
There is no way that Republican, shrink the the size of government so that it can be drowned in a bathtub, lawmakers would agree to a carbon dioxide tax. Bill Clinton and Al Gore proposed one in 1993. Imagine the progress if it hadn't been killed by Republicans then.
2
That might work in practice. But that will never be enacted. Your plan makes the assumption that Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are rational thinking human beings.
Got any other plans?
Got any other plans?
1
Wow, how dishonestly presented this allegedly pro-climate change case is. Accuse Obama at being at fault for the US lack of action on climate change, instead of calling out the guilt of the Republicans whose astonishingly lame excuse for years was "I'm not a scientist" (that finally got old, didn't it?). And the bottom line here is eliminating a genuine plan for clean, renewable power and further unleashing the fossil fuel interests propping up the Trumpian throne.
2
Gentlemen, you've undermined the entire premise of your commentary with your shockingly disingenuous statement that "President Obama ....did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation....largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye." No: your party, gentlemen, set out to nullify and destroy President Obama from the moment he first took office - you get no pass for attempting to glibly ignore the truth. Your party, sirs, is now populated by lunatics, fossil fuel plutocrats and sock puppets, and charlatans who chant "la, la, la, la, I can't hear or see you" at every turn, refusing to accept scientific data and believe their own eyes. Instead, they have placed corporate shills for the fossil fuel in every major position, intent upon gutting every conceivable health and safety regulation designed to protect our shuddering, fragile planet, our air, water, magnificent wilderness areas, and so on. When your party is through, they will have trashed much of what is left - and there will be no turning back. Our President Obama did what he could when your party refused to govern and made compromise a treasonous activity. You are whistling past your party's, and the planet's graveyard trying to work with willful ignoramuses, fools and dunces, gentlemen. 2/8, 10:02 AM
4
Only Nixon could go to China --> only Trump can pass a carbon tax?
Not the craziest ideas--big policies often get enacted by the party you least expect to do it, because they have the political cover to tack to the center. HW Bush signed the ADA, Clinton signed DOMA, W Bush launched no-child left behind, Medicare D, and a international AIDS effort. Obama deported more immigrants than any other administration, expanded targeted killings, almost got TPP...
Not the craziest ideas--big policies often get enacted by the party you least expect to do it, because they have the political cover to tack to the center. HW Bush signed the ADA, Clinton signed DOMA, W Bush launched no-child left behind, Medicare D, and a international AIDS effort. Obama deported more immigrants than any other administration, expanded targeted killings, almost got TPP...
Better check with Grover Norquist first.
1
There is not a chance in coal-fired Hell that this Congress would even consider this proposal. Especially with McConnell in charge, whose heart is both black from, and fueled by, coal.
This looks like a reasonable outline for workable strategy. There is no way to present a complete, detailed strategy in a few hundred words, but we have some good beginnings here. Now it's time to flesh them out. It's encouraging that some folks from the "other side of the aisle" are thinking this way.
1
Let's all tell the president what a hero he will be to everyone forever if this proposal is enacted on his watch.
2
Your plan assumes that the current administration is willing to listen to sound reasoning. I see no evidence of that. What you need to do for any new proposals is "how you can turn this into good TV." Then you'll have something to talk about.
2
It is a great idea... but, our dear leader is denying that climate change even exists! So putting forth a plan for something that he doesn't even think is happening would be a non-starter I would think. I agree with other comments before: publishing an article in the NY times (failing newspaper!) gets you nowhere. Call your colleagues, convince them, make them see the light (or heat in this case...)
1
Unless it has some value to the Liar-in-chief and his craven Cabinet and congressional minions, this is DOA -- as is any idea that has demonstrative, verifiable benefit to our country as a whole.
1
I like it but I fear that without regulation, without being forced, then too kany companies won't comply. There are as Climate Change Blogger Joseph Romm says, Cool Companies, who GET that being environmentally efficient is great for the company's economic bottom line, you know, conservation. When will they all see it? May take longer under an illiterate president like Trump. I'm not saying he doesn't bring up the truth when it feels convenient("We've killed people too." Yes, but we try not to off the opposition as ziplessly as Pute).
KWM Cheshire,CT. How is the tax assessed and who pays for it?
First, this is a Conservative organization that is embracing both a) environmental science, and b) rational, market-based economic theory. Let’s not be mean or we will scare it away!!! Maybe it will even grow!
Second, look at Bernie’s plan for a carbon tax. WAIT!!! This IS Bernie’s plan. Except he started at $15 a tonne, and then increased it by a certain percent every year. If you compare that with John Delaney’s proposal ($30 a tonne, with increases indexed to inflation) and you have a rather odd but worthwhile shotgun wedding proposal. The only details missing from this "Modestly Conservative Proposal” are a means test for who gets the dividends… Bernie wants to give the tax refunds only to those making less than 100K, which would be one fairly efficient way to offset the “regressive pass-through problem” that was critiqued earlier.
Hey… If the only way to get Congress to listen is to achieve the “Intellectual Conservative” stamp of approval on a Progressive policy/regulatory proposal, then buy a ticket and get on the bus!
Second, look at Bernie’s plan for a carbon tax. WAIT!!! This IS Bernie’s plan. Except he started at $15 a tonne, and then increased it by a certain percent every year. If you compare that with John Delaney’s proposal ($30 a tonne, with increases indexed to inflation) and you have a rather odd but worthwhile shotgun wedding proposal. The only details missing from this "Modestly Conservative Proposal” are a means test for who gets the dividends… Bernie wants to give the tax refunds only to those making less than 100K, which would be one fairly efficient way to offset the “regressive pass-through problem” that was critiqued earlier.
Hey… If the only way to get Congress to listen is to achieve the “Intellectual Conservative” stamp of approval on a Progressive policy/regulatory proposal, then buy a ticket and get on the bus!
39
Bernie's additions are exactly what would kill this plan. Income re-distribution is an important topic, but one where reasonable people can disagree. Let's save the planet first. Then come back to income re-distribution. The authors' plan is already slightly re-distributive (Wealthier people will pay more of the new tax but get the same dividend). Stay focused!
Yes! Absolutely. And I bet Bernie would agree.
This is a brilliant, well-targeted proposal. Your move, 1985 GOP.
33
Where are any scientists as co-authors to give credibility to this plan? They are all economists. But the hubris of saying that this is some new plan that they've just thought of. It isn't, the idea of a carbon tax and returning the money to citizens has been around for years. Obama couldn't go that direction because a tax was never going to pass Congress so he had to go the regulatory path instead. This being said, I'd love to see their proposal pass. A new tax? Not a chance.
1
Best of luck to Secretary Baker and his associates on trying to convince Trump's cabinet of climate change deniers that a carbon tax is a good idea. I'm sure their response will be: "Why is a carbon tax is needed at all if climate change is a hoax?"
1
Has some potential. Repeal of the Clean Power Plan would definitely not help the cause though. And this really doesn't matter, bc entire Trump admin is being configured to cash in on fossil fuels.
1
Old-guard conservatives, I wish you well. May you crack the madness of Trump's regime with your carbon tax proposal. The sooner the better. Antarctica appears to be disintegrating.
4
Conservatives are mind boggling. They speak of financially driven rules to address a problem caused by their capitalist desire for profit, all while Rome burns. Their fiddle of fantasy is insufficient for the immediacy of OUR problem. Laws that prohibit the destruction of our world are what is needed, not some money making incentives for the wealthy. I suppose conservatives think that you can take it with you, but their wrong about that as well.
You guys are crazy - I strongly suggest you go get some help for your embarrassing naivete. trump does't have the mental capacity to deal with an issue as complex as global warming. You should know by now; if trump can't make money off of it, he's just going to ignore it.
You Op-Ed lost all credibility with this statement:
"In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change"
Much less concerned? He openly hostile to climate change science and claims its a Chinese hoax among other things.
If there was a conservative case for climate action that ship sailed long, long ago. Conservative intransigence has blocked any meaning full action for two decades and has sentenced our progeny to what most certainly will be hell on earth.
"In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change"
Much less concerned? He openly hostile to climate change science and claims its a Chinese hoax among other things.
If there was a conservative case for climate action that ship sailed long, long ago. Conservative intransigence has blocked any meaning full action for two decades and has sentenced our progeny to what most certainly will be hell on earth.
Finally a sensible idea rooted in rational and fair thinking for everyone. Now if you can get it past those who signed the anti-tax pledge and support the Kich brothers' agenda, that would be superb. Thank you for proposing this plan.
3
Some good ideas although the process of adjudicating and administrating the export / import piece sounds hard and bureaucratically intense. Realistically the Republican Congress would have little incentive to tax their donor base. And were. they to do so I think they would be more inclined to spend the proceeds on defense (sorry...... Er.....Offense).
If a carbon tax (and rebate) were implemented at $40/ton and rising, then the Keystone pipeline would never get built.
1
As a member of Citizens' Climate Lobby, I can tell you that people from across the political spectrum have been building the political will for just such legislation for the past ten years. This proposal is being carried forward by those who have the political capital to advance it in today's zeitgeist. (George P. Shultz has been on our advisory board for years and has spoken out many times before as well.) We volunteers, now about 50,000 strong, have been building relationships with ALL members of Congress over the past decade, and some of our CCL members have been instrumental in helping to start the House Climate Solutions Caucus, which is bi-partisan by design. The plan described in this article is sound environmentally and economically; it has been researched and vetted extensively by outside entities. I would ask you to visit our website to learn more < www.citizensclimatelobby.org > and, if you see promise in this approach, consider crossing old divides to help make this happen. Thank you!
7
So, climate change should be addressed by Walmart, venture capitalists and over the hill Bushies?
The authors concoct a crockpot of pragmatism that will simply slow the boiling of the Earth to a slow simmer.
The authors concoct a crockpot of pragmatism that will simply slow the boiling of the Earth to a slow simmer.
A DOA idea from old hands, Sigh.. I'm getting a little misty eyed remembering when republicans were a viable alternative.
1
".....largely because he and Congress didn't see eye to eye."
For a start, lets's make that the Republican Congress who was at odds with the President.The day after the first election that put Barack Obama in office for his first term, starting in 2008, Mitch McConnel gathered what he could of the Republican Congress on hand and stated that from that day forward they would vote No to everything President Obama put on the table. And they did just that- for eight straight years. And let's not forget during those same eight years that same Republican Congress acted as obstructionists when it came to dealing with the Democrats in Congress. Time and time again, never even trying to meet them half way on anything. Again, they took the low road and refused to even make an attempt to break the gridlock they created through their week in and week out obstructionism. So, let's do away with any attempts at purveying 'alternative news' and say what really was going on during the Obama Presidency. America was told over and over again about the gridlock in Congress and with the President. Well, It was "obstructionism" plain and simple, and soley on the part of the Republicans in Congress.
For a start, lets's make that the Republican Congress who was at odds with the President.The day after the first election that put Barack Obama in office for his first term, starting in 2008, Mitch McConnel gathered what he could of the Republican Congress on hand and stated that from that day forward they would vote No to everything President Obama put on the table. And they did just that- for eight straight years. And let's not forget during those same eight years that same Republican Congress acted as obstructionists when it came to dealing with the Democrats in Congress. Time and time again, never even trying to meet them half way on anything. Again, they took the low road and refused to even make an attempt to break the gridlock they created through their week in and week out obstructionism. So, let's do away with any attempts at purveying 'alternative news' and say what really was going on during the Obama Presidency. America was told over and over again about the gridlock in Congress and with the President. Well, It was "obstructionism" plain and simple, and soley on the part of the Republicans in Congress.
2
Wow guys, thank you for reinventing the wheel. But first you'll have to convince the Republican party that (A) Climate change is really happening, (B) Humans actually have a responsibility to do something about it, and (C) The US government should get involved.
Each of those starting points is, for Republicans, a non-starter.
But for you the starting point is to blame President Obama for not getting it done. Because "...he and Congress did not see eye to eye." Wow, nice work at putting the onus on him, when legislation is supposed to BEGIN in Congress and PROCEED to the President for a signature. Which bills on climate change did Obama fail to sign?
The best way to get moving on climate action is to put Democrats back into the majority in Congress and put a Democrat in the White House.
But I suppose you would find that uneconomical. You're typical Chicago boys.
Each of those starting points is, for Republicans, a non-starter.
But for you the starting point is to blame President Obama for not getting it done. Because "...he and Congress did not see eye to eye." Wow, nice work at putting the onus on him, when legislation is supposed to BEGIN in Congress and PROCEED to the President for a signature. Which bills on climate change did Obama fail to sign?
The best way to get moving on climate action is to put Democrats back into the majority in Congress and put a Democrat in the White House.
But I suppose you would find that uneconomical. You're typical Chicago boys.
4
Scientists have been urging a plan like this for years -- I did not expect prominent Republicans to bring it forward to this administration.
2
A good test of whether we have a functional government. I'm not holding my breath.
1
It's kind of tough to understand. According to Mr. Trump, climate change is a Chinese hoax. So, how do the authors of this article proceed with the president.
He will not believe you and probably tweet unkind words about you.
He will not believe you and probably tweet unkind words about you.
This sounds like a plan. Republicans, you remember plans?
1
The problem is that the Republicans how authored this op-ed probably have zero influence in the current Republican party. I am sorry gentlemen, but today, the Republican party is not what you remember. If you want to start convincing today's Republican party on a policy as well thought out as this one, i would suggest trying to convince them of the benefits of Math and Science first.
How does one calculate their carbon emission? Pretty important detail to ignore.
Did ya'll fall asleep in 2000 and just wake up?
The words "tax" and "science" are no longer in the GOP lexicon.
To be clear, the GOP (not conservatives) control three branches of government.
The words "tax" and "science" are no longer in the GOP lexicon.
To be clear, the GOP (not conservatives) control three branches of government.
3
Pipeline dream. Ain't happening with this Admin.
2
This is a good idea since it makes speaks the universal language of money to all citizens, whether they believe in climate change or not. Overall, it would help sway public opinion and allow people to utter the words "climate change" without all the negative connotations which we have now.
The idea was first crafted by Citizens' Climate Lobby which has been promoting it tirelessly for years.
The idea was first crafted by Citizens' Climate Lobby which has been promoting it tirelessly for years.
40
What a breath of fresh air this idea is, and just in time! The conservative case for climate action, which former Congressman Bob Inglis has been pushing for years, could be the game-changer that we've-- not just USA but the rest of the planet-- have been waiting for. If the President wants to get his approval numbers up, this is the perfect idea. I'll bet Ivanka and Jared would be on board-- for the sake of their children of course-- and, who knows, maybe even grumpy old Steve Bannon who has his own kids could get behind it. Afterall in another lifetime Bannon managed Biosphere 2, which was examining the impact of high levels of CO2 on the enviromment:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4618365/steve-bannon-biosphere-2
The only thing I'd add would be that part of the dividend would also go to communities for education, communication, outreach around clean tech innovation. Call me nuts, but imagine schools, neighborhood, yes even refugee centers around nation and around the world transformed into inspiring, living labs for sustainable practices funded by the dividend.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4618365/steve-bannon-biosphere-2
The only thing I'd add would be that part of the dividend would also go to communities for education, communication, outreach around clean tech innovation. Call me nuts, but imagine schools, neighborhood, yes even refugee centers around nation and around the world transformed into inspiring, living labs for sustainable practices funded by the dividend.
20
The authors forget that the critical issue in the last election turned out to be "left behind" middle class workers. These will be further disadvantaged in any transition to a fossil free economy. The Democrats forgot to create a "pillar" for them and lost. This plan will fail for the same reason.
Despite my more Democratic political position, I completely support this idea. We have to take action right now to reverse the impending effects of climate change, so I don't particularly care which Party gets the credit.
Good luck convincing the many Republicans who've been denying climate change on the basis of religious convictions and the lobbyists on their shoulder, but I genuinely wish you Godspeed.
Good luck convincing the many Republicans who've been denying climate change on the basis of religious convictions and the lobbyists on their shoulder, but I genuinely wish you Godspeed.
I don't think 'tax' or 'regulation' are the right keywords at all.
This administration will not put any burden on the energy sector, and the GOP is entirely consumed by a spineless follow the leader attitude.
They are the ones who enable this regime.
You are talking to people that believe climate change is fake news, and the image of a coal miner is the essence of what it means to be an American worker.
Meanwhile China seems less hung up on communist imagery of 'the worker', and means business:
they have become world leader in the production of Solar technology a long time ago.
Talk about 'China winning'.
This administration will not put any burden on the energy sector, and the GOP is entirely consumed by a spineless follow the leader attitude.
They are the ones who enable this regime.
You are talking to people that believe climate change is fake news, and the image of a coal miner is the essence of what it means to be an American worker.
Meanwhile China seems less hung up on communist imagery of 'the worker', and means business:
they have become world leader in the production of Solar technology a long time ago.
Talk about 'China winning'.
To say that Congress and President Obama did not “see eye to eye” on environmental legislation is an under statement. The Obama administration supported legislation for cap and trade in carbon emissions. It was an idea that previously had enjoyed bi-partisan support. But when it was proposed by the first African American president, it became anathema to Republicans. The Republican Party then adopted the position of its imbecile base and it became party doctrine that nothing should be done to address carbon emissions because global warming was a hoax. The time to support carbon trading was eight years ago, when sensible people held the reigns of power. Now that the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party holds those reigns, nothing can be accomplished. Messrs. Feldstein, Halstead and Mankiw are a day late and a dollar short.
3
This sounds like a very good, sensible plan. It has something in it for nearly everyone and that is a good thing. It rewards good actors in the energy and manufacturing sectors and punishes the bad.
Unfortunately I can't see where it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing but then again I didnt think that Donald Trump would win the election either. In my most optomistic moments I do think that Trump could go where Obama couldn't but so far he's shown nothing but utter fealty to the oil, gas and coal industries.
Unfortunately I can't see where it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing but then again I didnt think that Donald Trump would win the election either. In my most optomistic moments I do think that Trump could go where Obama couldn't but so far he's shown nothing but utter fealty to the oil, gas and coal industries.
The conservative case is really simple: energy conservation (however you want to describe it) has been a technology driver since the oil shocks of the '70s. This means that In the free (or even a heavily regulated) market, someone is going to make a boatload of money! The Japanese? The Chinese? The Germans? Why not the Americans?
1
Proponents of this plan will be dismayed to discover the stark difference that exists in the U.S. House and Senate between what it means to be a conservative and what it means to be a Republican.
2
I stopped reading at the second paragraph wherein the authors seem to be placing the onus of blame for a lack of a comprehensive climate policy on President Obama... while skating over and attempting to minimize the Republican controlled Congress's massive, unprecedented and downright irrational level of obstructionism and denial of the very idea of climate change to they "did not see eye to eye".
Really? is that all it was?
If the authors cannot be honest about this fundamental and widely known detail of the politics of climate change over the past eight years... why on earth should anyone give credence to anything else they have to say on the subject?
Really? is that all it was?
If the authors cannot be honest about this fundamental and widely known detail of the politics of climate change over the past eight years... why on earth should anyone give credence to anything else they have to say on the subject?
2
The proposal involves a tax. Republicans do not do taxes under any circumstances, especially where their patrons would have to pay something.
Solid proposal, but D.O.A.
Nice try.
Solid proposal, but D.O.A.
Nice try.
1
Actually, Republicans tax the middle class and poor all the time but without calling it a tax. Whenever Rebublicans "cut" taxes, the result is underfunded public works, and who picks up the cost? THe middle class and poor, every time. Who pays the price for lousy/inadequate public transportation? The middle class and poor, in increased commute times, lost time, high fares, and inconvenience. TAX. Who pays the price of underfunded schools? MC/P, in having to pay for tutoring or community college before college. TAX. Who pays the cost of insufficient/inadequate/nonexistent childcare for working parents? MC/P. TAX. Republicans tax the middle class and poor to the brink, all the time-it is their favorite pastime. Republicans "cut" taxes, resulting in higher prices for everything, and the MC/P suffer. But at least they save a few hundred dollars every April 15th. What a farce.
People often invoke "economic well-being" as a reason to block regulations. But what good is "economic well-being" when Earth is uninhabitable? Everywhere you look, you find evidence of environmental devastation: Australia's coral reefs, overfished oceans, ice shelfs breaking off Antarctica, tornadoes in New Orleans, loss of bees (essential to food production). In Boston, it is 55 degrees today, FEBRUARY 8th!, and tomorrow we will have at least 8 inches of snow (erratic weather is a hallmark of climate change). When will people wake up and recognize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? How many dengue, ebola and zika outbreaks, droughts in California, water poisoning as in Flint, Mich., do we have to have before people recognize that the cost of rebuilding or recovering after environmental catastrophe far outstrips the cost of protecting the environment now? THAT's the economic harm: NOT protecting the environment. When we can no longer produce enough food, protect ourselves from flooding from the ocean (see Miami, Fla. already), rebuild from storms (Hurrican Sandy, anyone? how much did that cost?), it will be too late.
1
“Crazy as it may sound”. They were going pretty good that far, but their four part plan falls completely apart at part one. A Pigovian tax on carbon makes perfect sense, which is why it’s been proposed by practically everybody. If these guys want to do something useful, propose a credible strategy for getting it through a Congress in which almost all (all?) of the majority Republicans have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise any tax, no way, no how, never. Unless their goal was to perpetuate the myth of the ”moderate Republican”, and pretend they hold any sway in the Party, their time writing this was a complete waste, as were the ink and pixels NYT wasted publishing it.
When are Messrs. Feldstein, Halstead, Mankiw, Baker, Paulson, Schultz, Stephenson, and Walton going to recognize that their party has gone nuts, and it ain’t coming back?
When are Messrs. Feldstein, Halstead, Mankiw, Baker, Paulson, Schultz, Stephenson, and Walton going to recognize that their party has gone nuts, and it ain’t coming back?
2
The first two points laid out in the plan could incentivize American families to support businesses with high carbon output. The more they support these businesses, the more carbon the businesses will produce, the more tax money these families will get back.
2
The physics, chemistry and biology that scientifically explain climate change is neither liberal nor conservative nor economics nor politics nor education nor finance nor accounting nor business nor law nor sociology nor anthropology nor psychology nor history. None of these fields are sciences. There are way too many variables and unknowns to employ any meaningful controls or to replicate or repeat the action or inaction.
2
Finally, a conservative group propose a great idea that has been in existence for years but never advocated by any specific political group. Implementation and gradual escalation of carbon tax should be in correlation with the decrease of existing regulation. For a carbon tax is focused upon the "What's" rather than attempting to regulate the "How's" which most current regulations govern.
What I would also advocate is along with the escalation of the Carbon Tax would be a corresponding R&D tax credit (and an entrepreneur funding pool) for innovations to either reduce carbon emissions and/or implement an equivalent alternative solution. The greater credits and/or funding would go to those innovations that leverage more of the existing asset infrastructure.
There are multiple ways to pursue the same goal, but starting by focusing on the "What" is far better than continuing to attempt to regulate the "How's". This approach would release a wave of innovation and growth for sure.
What I would also advocate is along with the escalation of the Carbon Tax would be a corresponding R&D tax credit (and an entrepreneur funding pool) for innovations to either reduce carbon emissions and/or implement an equivalent alternative solution. The greater credits and/or funding would go to those innovations that leverage more of the existing asset infrastructure.
There are multiple ways to pursue the same goal, but starting by focusing on the "What" is far better than continuing to attempt to regulate the "How's". This approach would release a wave of innovation and growth for sure.
2
First, the facts:
1. Status quo: we're screwed. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Unless the laws of physics are repealed, it's going to warm the planet, acidify oceans, raise sea level, produce floods and droughts, and cause ecological disaster. The only scientific debate is the exact timing and extent.
2. Strategies to reduce greenhouse pollution are (a) the piecemeal, ineffective and inefficient current approach, (b) severe contraction in the world economy, including sending billions back into extreme poverty, or (c) a market-based approach that ends welfare for the rich, gets government out of micromanaging decisions (320 M Americans will respond more intelligently to price signals than will 435 Congressman to lobbyists), and costs less.
3. Reversion to extremes of wealth limits opportunity. Rebate of fees on a per capita basis helps achieve a less regressive system.
Economists have long agreed that this is the most effective and efficient solution.
America cannot do this on its own. Most wealthy and many less wealthy countries already have more carbon-efficient economies. We need universal pollution fees. Many countries will willingly sign on (many already have de facto carbon fees) Rebates on exports to and charges on imports will force the slackers to do so.
This isn't just a good idea, it is the only approach (with some tweaking along the way) that will work. Not going to happen? Most Americans already favor it if you ask the question correctly. Time to act.
1. Status quo: we're screwed. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Unless the laws of physics are repealed, it's going to warm the planet, acidify oceans, raise sea level, produce floods and droughts, and cause ecological disaster. The only scientific debate is the exact timing and extent.
2. Strategies to reduce greenhouse pollution are (a) the piecemeal, ineffective and inefficient current approach, (b) severe contraction in the world economy, including sending billions back into extreme poverty, or (c) a market-based approach that ends welfare for the rich, gets government out of micromanaging decisions (320 M Americans will respond more intelligently to price signals than will 435 Congressman to lobbyists), and costs less.
3. Reversion to extremes of wealth limits opportunity. Rebate of fees on a per capita basis helps achieve a less regressive system.
Economists have long agreed that this is the most effective and efficient solution.
America cannot do this on its own. Most wealthy and many less wealthy countries already have more carbon-efficient economies. We need universal pollution fees. Many countries will willingly sign on (many already have de facto carbon fees) Rebates on exports to and charges on imports will force the slackers to do so.
This isn't just a good idea, it is the only approach (with some tweaking along the way) that will work. Not going to happen? Most Americans already favor it if you ask the question correctly. Time to act.
3
Sounds like a good idea yet I am confused by the substitution of the term " the obstruction by Congress" with the words "did not see eye to eye".
2
"Danger Will Robinson, danger" shouts the arm flapping robot in the television series "Lost in Space".
I invoke "Robbie the Robot" because we have Republicans, as in this column, using words like "working class Americans", as if they care, and a soothing phrase like Mr. Obama and Congress "did not see eye to eye" when, in reality, their party would brook 'no compromise' and 'no co-operation' with Mr. Obama no matter what he did or said.
Run your still born 'plan' by our new Secretary of State, "Drill Baby" Tillerson and see the reaction. How about the snow ball throwing Senator Inhofe, chief of the EPW no less, denying 'climate change' because, well, it's snowing in February in D.C. something he, apparently, never noticed before.
Besides, YOUR party not only denies 'climate change' but even decries 'science' ("I'm not a scientist but"... was the lead line for almost ALL of YOUR party's members as if 'ignorance' is a sparkling attribute. But it did get YOUR man elected now, didn't it?).
Too little, too late as the Republican clowns have escaped the 'clown car' and have taken over the 'circus' in Washington.
"Danger, Will Robinson, danger" just about sums up their form of governance.
As for your 'pillars', perhaps Mr. Trump can use them in one of his new hotels somewhere; he's still YOUR 'boy' after all.
I invoke "Robbie the Robot" because we have Republicans, as in this column, using words like "working class Americans", as if they care, and a soothing phrase like Mr. Obama and Congress "did not see eye to eye" when, in reality, their party would brook 'no compromise' and 'no co-operation' with Mr. Obama no matter what he did or said.
Run your still born 'plan' by our new Secretary of State, "Drill Baby" Tillerson and see the reaction. How about the snow ball throwing Senator Inhofe, chief of the EPW no less, denying 'climate change' because, well, it's snowing in February in D.C. something he, apparently, never noticed before.
Besides, YOUR party not only denies 'climate change' but even decries 'science' ("I'm not a scientist but"... was the lead line for almost ALL of YOUR party's members as if 'ignorance' is a sparkling attribute. But it did get YOUR man elected now, didn't it?).
Too little, too late as the Republican clowns have escaped the 'clown car' and have taken over the 'circus' in Washington.
"Danger, Will Robinson, danger" just about sums up their form of governance.
As for your 'pillars', perhaps Mr. Trump can use them in one of his new hotels somewhere; he's still YOUR 'boy' after all.
This Op Ed demonstrates that there is very little difference between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans. They both believe that government is the solution to all our problems. Global warming is a hoax and Trump is right to drain the swamp.
1
Poor self-editing. My first paragraph below (or above, whatever) is a it garbled.
What I meant to write was that the arithmetic seems to not really encourage household reductions in carbon consumption.
What I meant to write was that the arithmetic seems to not really encourage household reductions in carbon consumption.
1
Ok I heard you out. I read your column. Your plan is crazier than it sounds. You are nuts. Your timing is awful. Your report is D.O.A. and has no chance of being enacted by this administration. Even if HRC had been elected this proposed bill would never get through Congress. A carbon tax would needlessly punish poor and working class people who's budgets are stretched to the limit. They can't reduce their carbon footprints because cheaper alternatives do not exist. You have to be Ivy league educated intellectual not to see that. Second your proposal is an overly complicated bureaucratic fantasy ...are you sure you are a conservative??? Why not let the free market solve the problem...you still believe in that don't you? Lets make all profits ( for a limited time ) tax free in alternative energy companies. Lets spur investment and innovation. We can't tax our way out of this situation. A disappointing solution from alleged defenders of the free market.
3
Tell you what. When you conservatives start calling Trump out on his lies and insanity, I might support some of your ideas. Until then, I'm as set as the GOP was when they decided to make Obama a one term president. Any conservative who does not stop this insanity is a traitor.
Beats cooking/drowning/starving. Go for it, guys. Good luck. The climate emergency is escalating, and the mad chimps are in charge.
3
We can get the best hint about the future by looking at our past. Clearly, stemming climate change is a societal good just as access to health care is a societal good.
The Republicans have been frothing at the bit to repeal the ACA with no plan for its replacement save the illusion the free-market will solve everything.
Just so with the environment as the seek to scrap the Paris accords and the Clean Power Plan. That they will most surely do, but add a carbon TAX with an expected REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME? Don't hold your breath.
On the other hand, you might want to hold your breath as Sec. Pruitt's EPA will most assuredly oversee its poisoning.
The Republicans have been frothing at the bit to repeal the ACA with no plan for its replacement save the illusion the free-market will solve everything.
Just so with the environment as the seek to scrap the Paris accords and the Clean Power Plan. That they will most surely do, but add a carbon TAX with an expected REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME? Don't hold your breath.
On the other hand, you might want to hold your breath as Sec. Pruitt's EPA will most assuredly oversee its poisoning.
1
I applaud your efforts and hope against hope you succeed. I equally hope that when you and the Republican Congress or Administration fail to "see eye to eye", that you will return to these pages and report your conclusions about their ability to consider rational plans for our planet and our nation's future.
1
First of all, it is republican resistance that has sunk the carbon tax, long favored by the Left. If they now give one to Trump, what does that say? And if this approach is so smart, why are its backers so academically undistinguished, to put it gently? And giving someone at the bottom of the economic ladder $2000 might mean they just buy a bigger car, no? Even if it costs more because of carbon taxes--Americans have proved that only $4.00 gasoline keeps them from buying trucks. So maybe the real agenda here is simply the repeal of the Clean Power Act?
1
If they pass a pie carbon tax bill it would be awesome.
But the collection of fraudsters they have working on this will probably use that as cover to lot the treasury, without actually taxing carbon at all.
But the collection of fraudsters they have working on this will probably use that as cover to lot the treasury, without actually taxing carbon at all.
1
Some well known events: The night of Barack Obama's first inauguration, republican power players met to discuss how to destroy his presidency; Tea Parties arouse by the hundreds before Obama had done anything, heaping slander and obstruction by the trainload; Mitch McConnell stood on the floor of the Senate and declared that he would do anything in his power to see that Barack Obama is a one-term president. Now you continue to point out that Obama "got nothing done". In a purely Machiavellian political sense, these were successful strategies; In reality, the republicans did nothing but slow the recovery and otherwise hurt the country, solely for political and financial gain. Why should anyone now trust that your motives for this plan are anything but another covert republican cash and power grab?
4
Wouldn´t the carbon tax be eventually be transmitted to the final price paid by consumers?
4
This argument is the flip side of the same reasons any TPP is attacked. We need to be in a TPP agreement so we have a voice in calling the shots just as business here is saying they want to promote this environmental plan while the gop has no impediments so they can call the shots.
No. You can't have it both ways. And no, business will not self police and will only heed regulations so this regulation free stuff is pure excrement.
A bipartisan bill is the only way to go otherwise, conservatives will just carve out anything they don't want to do or have anyone looking over their shoulder to see what they are up to, which is always something to benefit them and hurt others.
No. rubbish all the way. Do you really think we're that stupid?
No. You can't have it both ways. And no, business will not self police and will only heed regulations so this regulation free stuff is pure excrement.
A bipartisan bill is the only way to go otherwise, conservatives will just carve out anything they don't want to do or have anyone looking over their shoulder to see what they are up to, which is always something to benefit them and hurt others.
No. rubbish all the way. Do you really think we're that stupid?
2
Sorry Republican guys. You're either on the bus or your off the bus. Our current government is incapable of any real non-idealogical discussions concerning how this country should function. Show your leadership and walk with us in the March for Science April 22nd.
3
While Republicans fiddled with denial and obstructionism during the Obama administration, the climate burned on. It is the greatest issue of our time. Only truth and nonpartisan guidance beyond the grasping hands of greed will make a difference. That type of leadership is absent now in Washington.
3
Ha, ha, ha. This is hilarious. It assumes the GOP Congress and the President actually care about good policy.
4
Yep.
They are only there for the money.
It's like asking a bank robber to care about littering.
They are only there for the money.
It's like asking a bank robber to care about littering.
If you can get our so-called President to read and understand this article, MAYBE be could find a way to embellish his notoriety via this plan. Otherwise, it's null, and he has insulting tweets to write.
2
Ridiculous. Does anyone really think the Koch Brothers and their donor network, which has bought and paid for most of the Republican Congress and has the POTUS in place as a useful idiot, is going to permit this? Never gonna happen.
4
This is a very good article and presents a very interesting and serious area of potential cooperation on an issue that is our most pressing problem. I applaud any group that is trying in good faith to solve this issue and in particular a group that is swimming against the tide to do it. This approach deserves serious consideration.
"they will squander the opportunity to show the full power of the conservative canon, "
Too late. They have, and will continue to do so.
Sadly, this excellent plan will not see the light of day as long as the dark forces of Trump et al are rearranging the chairs. When the ship sinks, if there's any money left to cover a carbon tax , I'm all in for starting at $40 per ton of CO2e, however...even a $20 starting point would have a very positive impact.
Too late. They have, and will continue to do so.
Sadly, this excellent plan will not see the light of day as long as the dark forces of Trump et al are rearranging the chairs. When the ship sinks, if there's any money left to cover a carbon tax , I'm all in for starting at $40 per ton of CO2e, however...even a $20 starting point would have a very positive impact.
1
It's wonderful to see senior GOP leaders speaking out on the need for policies to address climate change. Unfortunately, none of the Republican Senators or Congressmen are paying any attention. it seems Republicans are only willing and/or able to admit this problem even exists after they've retired.
This suggests that what we need to do is vote out or impeach all the Republicans currently in office, so they can tune out the Pollutocrat donors and start worrying about their grandchildren. Let's get started!
This suggests that what we need to do is vote out or impeach all the Republicans currently in office, so they can tune out the Pollutocrat donors and start worrying about their grandchildren. Let's get started!
1
Yes, conservatives do have some good ideas for addressing climate change--the ones suggested in this article are good policies to take a look at and experiment with. Now, having said that, these policies will go nowhere because 1) you would have to believe in climate change and 2) you would have to design and implement this policy. We have a president and powerful legislators who make fun of number 1 and have shown no skill at number 2. Add to 1 and 2, number 3, which are representatives whose financial interests run counter to the policies suggested in this article.
Funny how people clamoring for a carbon tax years ago got shouted down - are now the same folks asking for Congress to implement one now.
I doubt that the current version of Republicanism led by the "Taxed Enough Already" party and the current "climate change is a Chinese hoax" Administration will do anything about it.
Heck, in some form, I expect the current Administration to start issuing fossil-fuel credits so that certain industries can burn more, cheaply.
I doubt that the current version of Republicanism led by the "Taxed Enough Already" party and the current "climate change is a Chinese hoax" Administration will do anything about it.
Heck, in some form, I expect the current Administration to start issuing fossil-fuel credits so that certain industries can burn more, cheaply.
Would everyone please focus on the photo in this article. My first, and discouraging thought was - this is America in the 21st Century?!!! It looks like a photo from the 1940s. And a depressing one at that. Is this really what we should be supporting, investing in to move into the future? In the wealthiest country in the world? What happened to our role as innovators, leaders in the future landscape, both literal and philosphical? Why are we trying to turn the clock back? Possibly because these authors don't have the imagination to let go of the "sinking ship" that brought them their wealth and power. They need to follow the investors in our future into the life boats and head for solid ground if we are to flourish as a nation and a sustainable planet.
1. How does that translate into Dollars per gallon?
2. Is it too much effort for a liberal to say "carbon dioxide?"
3. Why not divert some of the "dividend" to develop technologies that address the problem?
4. Foreign policy option - Insist that the "developing economies" in Asia, South America, and Africa stop bulldozing the rain forest. Even a liberal might remember that plants recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen.
5. Stop hiding the fact that greenhouse gas emissions break down naturally in the atmosphere over 20 years. It's not a perpetual buildup.
2. Is it too much effort for a liberal to say "carbon dioxide?"
3. Why not divert some of the "dividend" to develop technologies that address the problem?
4. Foreign policy option - Insist that the "developing economies" in Asia, South America, and Africa stop bulldozing the rain forest. Even a liberal might remember that plants recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen.
5. Stop hiding the fact that greenhouse gas emissions break down naturally in the atmosphere over 20 years. It's not a perpetual buildup.
It's encouraging to hear conservatives acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic climate change and to make constructive proposals to address it. The authors represent the Republican of the past. It would be even more encouraging if members of today's Republican Party begin to show similar vision and judgement.
2
THe thing about Republicans is they can lie without blinking an eye. They've elected a president that lies at every turn with evidence to the contrary staring him in the face. These authors lie in their first statements: "In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned". Trump says it's a hoax. When Republicans stop lying, we'll have a chance at survival. As of now with President Trump, our chances are diminishing at an astonishing rate daily.
1
I just don't see the Republican Party as being serious about anything but making money for themselves and their precious 1%, and that's why nothing like this would ever stand a chance.
A first step would be to hold these greedy self servers accountable.
What was their first step in the new year? To try to do away with the Ethics Committee. One of their other great ideas is to disband the Consumer Protection Agency.
People voted for these swamp creatures, and to be fair, the American people were desperate for change.
I don't think this is what they hoped for.
We need conservatives who aren't financial predators, and until then, there won't be any meaningful action.
"I love the uneducated"
- Donald Trump
A first step would be to hold these greedy self servers accountable.
What was their first step in the new year? To try to do away with the Ethics Committee. One of their other great ideas is to disband the Consumer Protection Agency.
People voted for these swamp creatures, and to be fair, the American people were desperate for change.
I don't think this is what they hoped for.
We need conservatives who aren't financial predators, and until then, there won't be any meaningful action.
"I love the uneducated"
- Donald Trump
2
It will be so interesting to see what the current administration and Congress does with this proposal. Here's a sensible idea that benefits everyone and meets the objectives of addressing climate change. If it passes, and if this is pretty much all that Trump and this Congress gets done, his presidency will not be a failure.
2
Now that the conservative Climate Leadership Council acknowledges that climate change is both real and worst they imagined. How might they feel about Trump's nominee, Scott Pruitt, to head the EPA? As attorney general, Pruitt has made no secret of his disdain for the EPA.
His official biography calls him "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." He has repeatedly challenged the agency's rules in court, and he has even sued the EPA for an allegedly cozy "sue and settle" relationship with environmentalists. One profile noted that Pruitt would sue the federal government "every chance he can get."
His official biography calls him "a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." He has repeatedly challenged the agency's rules in court, and he has even sued the EPA for an allegedly cozy "sue and settle" relationship with environmentalists. One profile noted that Pruitt would sue the federal government "every chance he can get."
1
“ As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments.”
What is to keep the people receiving the dividend from wanting a bigger future dividend and therefore be supporters of continued inaction? We could have a majority of taxpayers gaming a new anti-environment system for their financial gain.
What is to keep the people receiving the dividend from wanting a bigger future dividend and therefore be supporters of continued inaction? We could have a majority of taxpayers gaming a new anti-environment system for their financial gain.
2
I'm curious about the author's third and fourth pillars. If companies receive rebates on the carbon tax for exports, does that mean that fossil fuel companies can continue to mine coal and oil, export it to other countries, and avoid paying the tax? If that's combined with a rollback of certain regulations or the opening of more federal lands to mining, it would seem that the environmental benefits of this proposal would be severely undercut.
1
I was happy to read this article on Climate Change by some conservatives. I hope these conservatives can convince other conservatives to join them.
The majority of the Repubican voters I know do believe in Climate Change and would like something done about it. But I live in a blue state on the West Coast. Most of the non-Californian Republicans I know personally live in New England blue states.
The exceptions are my sister in law and her husband (my husband's only sibling and her spouse). They are Trump Republicans all the way through, ultra red conservatives. They used to live in Wyoming for work and tax reasons. When they retired, they wanted to move to Florida (a state that is going to experience lots Climate Changes effects due to rising ocean levels) but could not afford an ocean front or any other property there. So now they live in Arizona. They are the only Climate Change deniers I know. Both were liberal arts majors long ago, have had only liberal arts type jobs and avoid all scientific knowledge like the plague. They have spent the last 30 years living in Republican bubble states and communities.
I think that Trump will find, through the years of his presidency, that he will have to face the fact that Climate Change is very real and the GOP will have to do so too. I am hoping the epiphany hits them soon, before it is too late for action to reverse or lessen Climate Change; before too much damage to our Earth has been done. That is my prayer.
The majority of the Repubican voters I know do believe in Climate Change and would like something done about it. But I live in a blue state on the West Coast. Most of the non-Californian Republicans I know personally live in New England blue states.
The exceptions are my sister in law and her husband (my husband's only sibling and her spouse). They are Trump Republicans all the way through, ultra red conservatives. They used to live in Wyoming for work and tax reasons. When they retired, they wanted to move to Florida (a state that is going to experience lots Climate Changes effects due to rising ocean levels) but could not afford an ocean front or any other property there. So now they live in Arizona. They are the only Climate Change deniers I know. Both were liberal arts majors long ago, have had only liberal arts type jobs and avoid all scientific knowledge like the plague. They have spent the last 30 years living in Republican bubble states and communities.
I think that Trump will find, through the years of his presidency, that he will have to face the fact that Climate Change is very real and the GOP will have to do so too. I am hoping the epiphany hits them soon, before it is too late for action to reverse or lessen Climate Change; before too much damage to our Earth has been done. That is my prayer.
The carbon tax strategy will encourage lower usage where lowering usage is feasible. Where that is not an option, it will increase energy costs which will raise all costs. At what rates will the incentives to sink huge amounts in non-fossil fuel energy justify the risks of competing with established fossil fuel systems? That is an unknown.
1
The problem I see with this plan is that there is little inducement to change behavior. Energy companies would pass the tax on to consumers raising the cost of using hydrocarbon fuels. However, if the tax is given back to the same consumers there is no disincentive to continued consumption of hydrocarbon fuels.
The collected carbon tax should be used to encourage the use of renewable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency.
The collected carbon tax should be used to encourage the use of renewable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency.
1
Ugh ugh ugh. Democrats and environmentalists don’t want regulation for the sake of regulation. Environmentalists have been proposing carbon taxes for decades now. This is not new. Both cap and trade and carbon tax work on the same market-based principle: make it more expensive to emit carbon dioxide, and emissions will decrease. Duh. It’s not the fault of democrats that this “simple” solution hasn’t happened yet.
Also, I'm not really sure how a carbon tax is supposed to change behavior when consumers will be getting a rebate. Maybe I'm just a dumb liberal-after all, I've never understood conservatives' magical thinking on taxes before!
Also, I'm not really sure how a carbon tax is supposed to change behavior when consumers will be getting a rebate. Maybe I'm just a dumb liberal-after all, I've never understood conservatives' magical thinking on taxes before!
This is exactly the kind of policy making that conservatives (I'm loath to say Republicans) should be putting forward, and as dyed-in-the-wool liberal and mostly Democrat, I welcome this proposal with open arms. Its not "just better than nothing", it is thoughtful and proactive. A similar proposal which became Obamacare is modeled on Romenycare, which was, if I recall correctly a proposal that came out of the Heritage Foundation.
If you leave out the politics (fat chance), there are indeed constructive proposals to world problems that can come from the right-of-center. Its unfortunate that we hear so little of them.
If you leave out the politics (fat chance), there are indeed constructive proposals to world problems that can come from the right-of-center. Its unfortunate that we hear so little of them.
2
What a spin session this article starts with !!!
"During his eight years in office, President Obama regularly warned of the very real dangers of global warming, but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye. "
Try- largely because the Republicans in Congress and a few Democrats in fossil fuel rich states refused to even acknowledge the link between burning fuels and climate warming. They thwarted every single attempt to address the issue by passing appropriate law.
"Instead, Mr. Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, often established by executive order."
"Instead"??? What other path did he have? He left us with regulations as this is the only avenue open to do anything due to Republican obstruction.
"In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change, and more worried about how excessive regulation impedes economic growth and depresses living standards. As Democrats are learning the hard way, it is all too easy for a new administration to reverse the executive orders of its predecessors."
Trump "seems less concerned about the risk of climate change"??? He calls climate change a hoax. He totally disregards any scientific evidence for climate change vaccinations etc.
On-again-off-again regulation is a poor
"During his eight years in office, President Obama regularly warned of the very real dangers of global warming, but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye. "
Try- largely because the Republicans in Congress and a few Democrats in fossil fuel rich states refused to even acknowledge the link between burning fuels and climate warming. They thwarted every single attempt to address the issue by passing appropriate law.
"Instead, Mr. Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, often established by executive order."
"Instead"??? What other path did he have? He left us with regulations as this is the only avenue open to do anything due to Republican obstruction.
"In comes President Trump, who seems much less concerned about the risks of climate change, and more worried about how excessive regulation impedes economic growth and depresses living standards. As Democrats are learning the hard way, it is all too easy for a new administration to reverse the executive orders of its predecessors."
Trump "seems less concerned about the risk of climate change"??? He calls climate change a hoax. He totally disregards any scientific evidence for climate change vaccinations etc.
On-again-off-again regulation is a poor
2
This is typical dishonest repub spin on a concern they have called a hoax for decades.
To imply Obama and dems are at fault and didn't understand that EOs were a lousy way to try and protect the envi is ludicrous.
And to say Obama didn't sign any meaningful domestic legislation and imply that was his fault, when everyone knows it was relentless repub rejection of science and unwillingness to support any meaningful regulations that was the root reason.
And for those who think this is an original idea of these business millionaires, the first person to propose a C tax was a prof of engineering at MIT, Dr. David Wilson in 1973 (now retired - many copied his ideas without attribution):
"In 1973, OPEC’s oil embargo had Americans lining up for blocks at gas stations that were running dry. Amid calls for gas rationing, Wilson proposed an alternative: Spur conservation by taxing fossil fuels, but keep the revenue out of government coffers by returning it all in equal dividend checks to every adult. Starting in early 1974, Wilson wrote articles, gave talks, and even testified about his tax plan before Congress". quote from Boston Globe 8/14
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inventor-carbon-t...
So yes, a carbon tax is a good idea and many climate scientists like James Hansen have supported most or all the so called pillars laid out in this article for 15-20 years. It will still take a miracle to enact a tax, but we can hope.
To imply Obama and dems are at fault and didn't understand that EOs were a lousy way to try and protect the envi is ludicrous.
And to say Obama didn't sign any meaningful domestic legislation and imply that was his fault, when everyone knows it was relentless repub rejection of science and unwillingness to support any meaningful regulations that was the root reason.
And for those who think this is an original idea of these business millionaires, the first person to propose a C tax was a prof of engineering at MIT, Dr. David Wilson in 1973 (now retired - many copied his ideas without attribution):
"In 1973, OPEC’s oil embargo had Americans lining up for blocks at gas stations that were running dry. Amid calls for gas rationing, Wilson proposed an alternative: Spur conservation by taxing fossil fuels, but keep the revenue out of government coffers by returning it all in equal dividend checks to every adult. Starting in early 1974, Wilson wrote articles, gave talks, and even testified about his tax plan before Congress". quote from Boston Globe 8/14
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inventor-carbon-t...
So yes, a carbon tax is a good idea and many climate scientists like James Hansen have supported most or all the so called pillars laid out in this article for 15-20 years. It will still take a miracle to enact a tax, but we can hope.
5
An increasing marginal tax on coal emissions, with the proceeds being remitted to people in the form of income, is especially beneficial to those who pollute the least, or use the least amount of carbon. But my problem is how the $40 per ton will be applied? It says start at $40 and then increasing. Is it on all tonnage now and increasing over time? Or is it increasing per ton? Is it on individual use? Is it based on total tons emmitted by the country? Tons emmitted by power plants? I assume the former, but a effective one is the latter. By taxing the use emissions directly, with increasing marginal, you have greater incentive to avoid personal use. And what about people who have jobs that use vehicles for work, or is power intensive? Do they get a special rebate? Otherwise it would seem to punish certain users more intensely. I have explored this concept more than once. The concept is simple, but not especially equitable.
The only problem is that with whatever emissions reductions you may gain through efficiencies and carbon taxing/pricing/trading, all the data show that it will not offset the increased emissions associated with economic growth.
So the equation would be: if the rate of efficiency gains are greater than the rate of economic growth, then net material throughput and emissions will decline, otherwise, they won't.
Growth has been a sacrosanct component of modern market capitalism, but if we don't look for ways to measure the life well lived beyond the blunt instrument called the GDP we'll continue to lose ground.
So the equation would be: if the rate of efficiency gains are greater than the rate of economic growth, then net material throughput and emissions will decline, otherwise, they won't.
Growth has been a sacrosanct component of modern market capitalism, but if we don't look for ways to measure the life well lived beyond the blunt instrument called the GDP we'll continue to lose ground.
1
My father, Norman B. Ture, was a fairly well known libertarian economist; he was Ronald Reagan's Treasury undersecretary, a "tax guy." Neither he nor Mssrs Feldstein, Mankiw, and Halstead understood some basic facts. The earth is finite. There is a limit on how much growth can occur. It doesn't matter whether economists design a program to offload the costs of pollution onto another country, or onto the public at large, or onto the earth. We have passed the tipping point for greenhouse gas emissions. We have also come to a catastrophic moment in the planet's ability to provide water for the apparently endless demands of Homo sapiens, a species apparently unwilling to recognize the need to share the planet with the rest of the web of life. Taxes will not fix this problem set. Your program will not achieve your vision. You need to focus not on "free markets," or "limited government," but on trying with all your might and brains to reverse climate change, sell negative population growth, and dealing with reality, not economics.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I can see getting in the way is the fossil fuels industry, who would see a decreasing return on their oilfield investments. These investors include places like Russia, whose oil production accounts for 20-50% of their GDP depending on whom you believe, and Texas, at about 14%. The industry (and states influenced by it) as well as the large pickup truck crowd (top three best selling vehicles in the US) seem to have adopted a "see no evil" approach to climate concerns.
How clever of these conservative brainiacs to come up with such a novel solution to climate change. And how shrewd of them to argue that a revenue neutral carbon tax would avoid nasty overreaching regulations by those nasty overreaching Democrats.
And yet this all seems oddly familiar... Maybe because Al Gore proposed a revenue neutral carbon tax in his book Earth in the Balance in 1992. Maybe because President Obama proposed cap and trade, the next best thing to a carbon tax, only to be attacked and vilified by the Right. And maybe because the executive order regulatory approach was the only remaining alternative given a Republican Congress that not only refused to address climate change, but for the most part denies that it is even real.
And yet as canny as the authors may be in knocking down their imaginary regulation loving Democratic straw man and pretending to have cut through the the Gordian Knot of how to address climate change and economic growth, their proposal is a non-starter. Rex Tillerson may be changing job titles, but his Alma Mater Exxon Mobil and the rest of the Oily League simply will not permit their well paid employees in Congress to enact any kind of tax that reduces their profit. If Professor Feldstein et. al. were really serious about getting a carbon tax law through Congress and the White House, they would propose that their tax dividend go not to ordinary citizens, but to Big Oil, Big Coal and of course, Big Hair.
And yet this all seems oddly familiar... Maybe because Al Gore proposed a revenue neutral carbon tax in his book Earth in the Balance in 1992. Maybe because President Obama proposed cap and trade, the next best thing to a carbon tax, only to be attacked and vilified by the Right. And maybe because the executive order regulatory approach was the only remaining alternative given a Republican Congress that not only refused to address climate change, but for the most part denies that it is even real.
And yet as canny as the authors may be in knocking down their imaginary regulation loving Democratic straw man and pretending to have cut through the the Gordian Knot of how to address climate change and economic growth, their proposal is a non-starter. Rex Tillerson may be changing job titles, but his Alma Mater Exxon Mobil and the rest of the Oily League simply will not permit their well paid employees in Congress to enact any kind of tax that reduces their profit. If Professor Feldstein et. al. were really serious about getting a carbon tax law through Congress and the White House, they would propose that their tax dividend go not to ordinary citizens, but to Big Oil, Big Coal and of course, Big Hair.
This plan though unlikely to succeed presents a flexibility in thinking that is very promising for the future. The issue is freeing us from the chains of ideology – either right or left. You see the remnants of this in the flow of their arguments – ideology first, scientific problem solving later. At least they were able to break free of the virtually automatic conservative axiom: “ a carbon tax will destroy the economy” The problem is that a simplistic plan like theirs has many gaps that must be filled in and we must find a cooperative, non-ideological methods of negotiating this. For example why continue to speak of government as a dark influence to be eliminated? Instead let’s invoke an era where private enterprise and government enter into a cooperative, give and take relationship. In the past this has also embraced very successful public-private partnerships. Left leaning economists also need to ditch rigid thinking and enter into a new era of cooperative, scientific-like planning.
Until we get it through our heads that economic interests and environmental action are not compatible, we will continue to fail to make things better. There is no market-based solution to this problem. Period. We must begin with a set of policies that protect habitat, species, and the climate based on *Science*, and then mold our capitalistic behavior under that framework. If we try approach it from the other way around, i.e. how can I take action AND satisfy existing pro-growth agenda, we will fail. Failure in this case may not be realized in our generation, but the long-term consequences are severe.
1
Democrats would be wise to get behind this, for a few reasons.
Firstly, it might well work. A simple redistribution tax model taxing carbon at the point of production would alter consumption through pricing, and the check in the mail at the end of the year would make it popular - especially if that redistribution could be done in a progressive fashion.
Secondly, it might actually work better than the clean power plan, which acts to suppress coal electricity generation as a source of emissions - even though the gas market is already destroying that industry.
An argument that funds should be invested directly into clean power rather than redistributed is short sighted. There needs to be a carrot for the voter, and if they perceive that the result of the tax would just be a thinner paycheck, the whole thing would never happen. Plus, wind and solar are already competitive economically and tipping the scales with a carbon tax could swing the market such that investment in clean power is a no brainer.
A workable climate mitigation solution with Republican support is a rare thing. I hope the left capitalizes on this opportunity.
Firstly, it might well work. A simple redistribution tax model taxing carbon at the point of production would alter consumption through pricing, and the check in the mail at the end of the year would make it popular - especially if that redistribution could be done in a progressive fashion.
Secondly, it might actually work better than the clean power plan, which acts to suppress coal electricity generation as a source of emissions - even though the gas market is already destroying that industry.
An argument that funds should be invested directly into clean power rather than redistributed is short sighted. There needs to be a carrot for the voter, and if they perceive that the result of the tax would just be a thinner paycheck, the whole thing would never happen. Plus, wind and solar are already competitive economically and tipping the scales with a carbon tax could swing the market such that investment in clean power is a no brainer.
A workable climate mitigation solution with Republican support is a rare thing. I hope the left capitalizes on this opportunity.
2
Absolutely correct. "Pro-growth, pro-competitveness, and pro-working class." Unfortunately, the proposal will not attract one single Republican vote from this Congress nor the support of the Republican president. They all take their economics education from the University of Koch Industries. They've found that their degree allows them to collect campaign finance support on an annual basis.
Where were these "conservative" geniuses when we had a Democrat in power. The fossil fuel producers are in control now, and they will never agree to a carbon tax. A carbon tax is the best way to get this under control and to rebalance the incentives to generate carbon pollution, but I wouldn't bet a penny on getting this through this Congress.
One must also wonder how that $2000 rebate will be distributed so the increased cost imposed by the tax can be paid without going into debt first.
One must also wonder how that $2000 rebate will be distributed so the increased cost imposed by the tax can be paid without going into debt first.
Will any House Republicans admit in public that human caused climate change is real? You would need to find 25 of them in order to squeak by any legislation. Perhaps pressure on Northeast/Northwest Replublicans might get us there. No other nation on earth has such a large a group of people with their heads in the sand as we do.
How we calculate carbon usage will be extremely important if we want the "market" to behave in the correct manner. Will a kilowatt-hr of electricity generated by midwestern coal fired plants be taxed commensurately higher than a kilowatt-hr generated by natural gas/hydroelectric in the Northeast?
How we calculate carbon usage will be extremely important if we want the "market" to behave in the correct manner. Will a kilowatt-hr of electricity generated by midwestern coal fired plants be taxed commensurately higher than a kilowatt-hr generated by natural gas/hydroelectric in the Northeast?
Well done article, but neither the math or the physics work.
We have entered a "nonlinear" phase of human-induced global warming. If we do not reverse the process and actually decrease the total amount of gaseous and particulate matter in our atmosphere in the coming decade I expect that our Earth will look like Venus within my lifetime . . . and I am 73 years old.
Please take a look at the infrared and radar images as well as the artistic depictions of modern day Venus on the web. A beautiful glowing sphere in the sky that may once have been Earth-like, it is now a dry, parched husk, so hot that not even bacteria can survive on the surface, maybe in the atmosphere. Then look at your home. Now imagine your home and garden in a Venusian apocalypse.
Pollution as part of energy generation on our planet needs to not just decrease, but vanish completely. We know how to do it. But we may not have the courage.
Look at Venus, you, I and our children may get to see it appear right outside our door.
We have entered a "nonlinear" phase of human-induced global warming. If we do not reverse the process and actually decrease the total amount of gaseous and particulate matter in our atmosphere in the coming decade I expect that our Earth will look like Venus within my lifetime . . . and I am 73 years old.
Please take a look at the infrared and radar images as well as the artistic depictions of modern day Venus on the web. A beautiful glowing sphere in the sky that may once have been Earth-like, it is now a dry, parched husk, so hot that not even bacteria can survive on the surface, maybe in the atmosphere. Then look at your home. Now imagine your home and garden in a Venusian apocalypse.
Pollution as part of energy generation on our planet needs to not just decrease, but vanish completely. We know how to do it. But we may not have the courage.
Look at Venus, you, I and our children may get to see it appear right outside our door.
Fantastic, now introduce your conservative plan as legislation and watch the GOP spin machine turn it into a Socialist government takeover of energy that uses a gas tax to give money to the lazy...
A plan that puts a price on carbon would have appeal to Democrats, but it is dead on arrival in the modern GOP. The Obama years did not produce any emissions legislation - not because of some wonkish disagreements with Congress - but because of complete Republican hostility to any plan that forced carbon producers to pay for their emissions.
Thank you for your work and I support the framework, but your characterization of the political landscape is naive if not disingenuous and absolves the Republican party of extreme malfeasance on this issue during the Obama administration.
A plan that puts a price on carbon would have appeal to Democrats, but it is dead on arrival in the modern GOP. The Obama years did not produce any emissions legislation - not because of some wonkish disagreements with Congress - but because of complete Republican hostility to any plan that forced carbon producers to pay for their emissions.
Thank you for your work and I support the framework, but your characterization of the political landscape is naive if not disingenuous and absolves the Republican party of extreme malfeasance on this issue during the Obama administration.
President Obama signed an executive order allowing every wind power company to kill, no questions asked, 4300 bald eagles every year, about 1/30 of the total.
No true environmentalist would like that to continue.
As they will be assessed penalties for recurring protected bird and bat kills, compatible with US laws, wind companies might provide as much as $10 in environmental fines for every $1 in usable power.
These fines, in the tens of billions every year, could be paid by those who built the wind power plants, as well as by those who promoted their construction without mentioning the associated environmental destruction.
No true environmentalist would like that to continue.
As they will be assessed penalties for recurring protected bird and bat kills, compatible with US laws, wind companies might provide as much as $10 in environmental fines for every $1 in usable power.
These fines, in the tens of billions every year, could be paid by those who built the wind power plants, as well as by those who promoted their construction without mentioning the associated environmental destruction.
1
The only tweak I would make would be to split the rebate to citizens. Half of the carbon tax proceeds goes to people (ideally those below a certain income), and the other half goes to subsidizing green energy. This could fund the current subsidies and most likely, add more and better ones.
Of course, there's always the additional revenues from reducing oil/gas subsidies, but we wouldn't want to go there, right?
Of course, there's always the additional revenues from reducing oil/gas subsidies, but we wouldn't want to go there, right?
Put some of the carbon tax money into Social Security and Medicare, as John Anderson wanted to do in 1980 with a gasoline tax intended to encourage demand for more fuel efficient automobiles. The best way to curb demand for harmful, albeit legal products, is to penalize the consumer with taxes. Without demand (or with at least reduced demand), there is no need to produce the harmful products. The tax revenue then should not simply be returned to the consumer so that he or she can just buy more of the same
1
Taxes? Climate Change? Those words are enough to make every single Republican in congress recoil. They don't believe in either of them.
Couple that with a rebate program that is WAY too intellectual for the majority of them to grasp, and good luck in having our esteemed representatives understand the concept, much less vote for it.
My own senator's (the honorable Jim Inhofe) answer to solving the issue of climate change is to throw snow balls in the halls of congress, while our so-called president believes that it's a Chinese conspiracy. That is the level of intellectual capacity that the gentlemen offering this plan are facing, both in congress and the White House.
My hat off to the idea and the plan. It's the first idea (whether one likes it or not) that I have seen in the past eight years coming out of the Republican party. It is worth debating, but I am afraid unsellable to this Republican majority. The only plan they might, emphasize might, understand is one consisting of two letters: No.
Couple that with a rebate program that is WAY too intellectual for the majority of them to grasp, and good luck in having our esteemed representatives understand the concept, much less vote for it.
My own senator's (the honorable Jim Inhofe) answer to solving the issue of climate change is to throw snow balls in the halls of congress, while our so-called president believes that it's a Chinese conspiracy. That is the level of intellectual capacity that the gentlemen offering this plan are facing, both in congress and the White House.
My hat off to the idea and the plan. It's the first idea (whether one likes it or not) that I have seen in the past eight years coming out of the Republican party. It is worth debating, but I am afraid unsellable to this Republican majority. The only plan they might, emphasize might, understand is one consisting of two letters: No.
1
This probably isn't the "problem solved, you can go home now" complete solution that the authors make it out to be, but it is a good idea and a good start, and I would support it wholeheartedly over the only other politically viable alternative, which is essentially nothing. But I do not believe for one second that either Trump or the Republican congress will give it any consideration.
It would be smart for the Democrats in Congress to latch onto it and push it, showing that they are doing everything possible to work within conservative principles and values, while their Republican counterparts just keep making up excuses for doing nothing. But that would require political savvy, carefully designed strategy, and a united, coordinated effort. So I'm not holding my breath over that one, either.
It would be smart for the Democrats in Congress to latch onto it and push it, showing that they are doing everything possible to work within conservative principles and values, while their Republican counterparts just keep making up excuses for doing nothing. But that would require political savvy, carefully designed strategy, and a united, coordinated effort. So I'm not holding my breath over that one, either.
3
It is very reasonable for people to be suspicious of a “Conservative Case for Climate Action.” The plan does have merit. Unfortunately, for a long time conservatives and Republicans have had a hostile and dismissive reaction towards the threat and science of climate change. The current administration has taken this hostility to new levels. If conservatives want to make a case for the use of conservative ideas to combat climate change, they first need to convince us that they take the threat of climate change seriously. Otherwise, it is much like letting a fox build a hen house. The fox may have a great idea and build a great hen house, but the wise hen will be very suspicious and careful.
1
Editor: please post this comment to "A Conservative Case for Climate Action" 2-8-2017. It was accidentally posted to an article about Margaret Warren.
Taxes on carbon are regressive. Hopefully the proposal to return carbon taxes as a dividend takes income into account. Tax waste and waste disposal instead, and remove subsidies from fossil fuels. Imitate Nature. Nature reuses everything. Design products that last, are easily repaired, with standardized, interchangeable parts. We throw away too much plastic, paper, and other trash. Convert trash into useful products that also sequester carbon: standrdized beams, panels, and connectors, building blocks made of trash and plastic, fiber reinforced to make them structurally sound. Reuse them for hundreds of years. The cost will come down as they are amortized over a long lifetime. We will find new uses for carbon, but the clock ran out on fossil fuels more than thirty years ago. It is time for everyone to engage in conservation measures and avoid energy intensive activities until such time as we have green transportation, energy supplies, and carbon sequestration technology.
Taxes on carbon are regressive. Hopefully the proposal to return carbon taxes as a dividend takes income into account. Tax waste and waste disposal instead, and remove subsidies from fossil fuels. Imitate Nature. Nature reuses everything. Design products that last, are easily repaired, with standardized, interchangeable parts. We throw away too much plastic, paper, and other trash. Convert trash into useful products that also sequester carbon: standrdized beams, panels, and connectors, building blocks made of trash and plastic, fiber reinforced to make them structurally sound. Reuse them for hundreds of years. The cost will come down as they are amortized over a long lifetime. We will find new uses for carbon, but the clock ran out on fossil fuels more than thirty years ago. It is time for everyone to engage in conservation measures and avoid energy intensive activities until such time as we have green transportation, energy supplies, and carbon sequestration technology.
3
This is almost exactly what a broad coalition of climate scientists, environmental economists and climate activists have been advocating for many years. One form has been put forward by the Citizens Climate Lobby. Putting a price on carbon (tax bads not goods) and so recognizing the external cost of carbon pollution - indeed recognizing the very concept of a market externality - is precisely what many, including myself, have been pushing for. So yes, I support this in most details. I am disappointed that it is being presented as a bold new idea as opposed to taking up a very mature one, and downright infuriated by the obstructionism that ruled while Obama was President, but that is, I suppose, the way that the sausage is made.
72
I think this idea has a lot of merit. Anyone who understands simple economics knows that markets fail when the private actions of individuals impacts others - pollution is a classic example. The solution being proposed is a textbook response to this problem (which is simply to say it is common sense). I'd worry about a few things though:
1) Is measuring what has to be taxed so simple? For example, can I easily tell what is the carbon emission associated with an imported good from China? Don't I need to know what materials were used to produce it? How it was transported? How the tools uses to make the good were produced? It might be that a certain good doesn't directly contain any carbon but that a lot of carbon was emitted in the process of producing it. The incentives to measure that correctly are all wrong.
2) The other concern I have is that the proposal to return $2,000 to each person sounds good, but is unlikely to happen in isolation. Suppose such a rebate was in place, isn't it likely that tax policy and welfare policy will adjust taking things carbon dividend into account? The government and the democratic process cannot commit to run the rest of fiscal policy as if this dividend were not in place. This isn't a fatal flaw, it just underlines the problem of trying to make policies as if they can be isolated from the rest of government decision making.
1) Is measuring what has to be taxed so simple? For example, can I easily tell what is the carbon emission associated with an imported good from China? Don't I need to know what materials were used to produce it? How it was transported? How the tools uses to make the good were produced? It might be that a certain good doesn't directly contain any carbon but that a lot of carbon was emitted in the process of producing it. The incentives to measure that correctly are all wrong.
2) The other concern I have is that the proposal to return $2,000 to each person sounds good, but is unlikely to happen in isolation. Suppose such a rebate was in place, isn't it likely that tax policy and welfare policy will adjust taking things carbon dividend into account? The government and the democratic process cannot commit to run the rest of fiscal policy as if this dividend were not in place. This isn't a fatal flaw, it just underlines the problem of trying to make policies as if they can be isolated from the rest of government decision making.
2
Rationality is not Trump's strong suit. He and his Republican lackeys in Congress will never go for it. Sad.
3
How is this distinctively conservative?
It strikes me as neither conservative nor liberal to tax negative externalities. (Though it does strike me as anti-libertarian to do so.)
Distributing the proceeds of the tax as a flat rebate is, again, neither conservative nor liberal. If the purpose of a tax is to alter behavior, you need not tie it to any particular distributive proposal or to finance other parts of the state.
The export stuff is puzzling. On its face, it does look like a loophole, because companies can get around the carbon tax by exporting their carbon-intensive products to countries without a carbon tax. Why wouldn't leaving out the export subsidy but keeping the import tax be sufficient to induce compliance with lowering admissions?
It strikes me as neither conservative nor liberal to tax negative externalities. (Though it does strike me as anti-libertarian to do so.)
Distributing the proceeds of the tax as a flat rebate is, again, neither conservative nor liberal. If the purpose of a tax is to alter behavior, you need not tie it to any particular distributive proposal or to finance other parts of the state.
The export stuff is puzzling. On its face, it does look like a loophole, because companies can get around the carbon tax by exporting their carbon-intensive products to countries without a carbon tax. Why wouldn't leaving out the export subsidy but keeping the import tax be sufficient to induce compliance with lowering admissions?
1
President Obama and Congress "did not see eye to eye," you say?
That's clearly a disingenuous characterization of the blind obstructionism of The Mighty Do-Nothing-But-Obstruct Republican Congresses during President Obama's administration.
President Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations? That's a lot better than Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) waving a snowball in front of our faces from the Senate floor and saying that some "God" he claims to believe in can dial the thermostat back any time "He" wants.
Here's Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) on Climate Change: "God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
This article has a "first, second, third, and finally" list. First should have been removal of religious, science-denying zealots like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) from the US Congress. Second should have been recognition of the absolute right of US citizens to expect that their government will protect their air and water and health within our own borders. Third should have been unambiguous support the Paris Climate Accord to secure America's leadership in keeping our planet sustainable and habitable. Finally should have been repudiation of the notion that only corporations and profit-making enterprises have any rights with America's borders.
"Regulation" derives from "regular," as in predictable and reliable.
No government, no country. Just greed.
That's clearly a disingenuous characterization of the blind obstructionism of The Mighty Do-Nothing-But-Obstruct Republican Congresses during President Obama's administration.
President Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations? That's a lot better than Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) waving a snowball in front of our faces from the Senate floor and saying that some "God" he claims to believe in can dial the thermostat back any time "He" wants.
Here's Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) on Climate Change: "God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
This article has a "first, second, third, and finally" list. First should have been removal of religious, science-denying zealots like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) from the US Congress. Second should have been recognition of the absolute right of US citizens to expect that their government will protect their air and water and health within our own borders. Third should have been unambiguous support the Paris Climate Accord to secure America's leadership in keeping our planet sustainable and habitable. Finally should have been repudiation of the notion that only corporations and profit-making enterprises have any rights with America's borders.
"Regulation" derives from "regular," as in predictable and reliable.
No government, no country. Just greed.
27
I would use a significant portion of the carbon tax revenue to improve energy efficiency in poor households, at least in the beginning when many poorer people would be strongly affected by such a tax.
5
Energy efficiency and cutting out the waste would reduce our energy consumption by 50%. That's where it needs to begin. When I was in the home solar business in the late 2000's, we would first do an energy audit of the home considering solar PV and see how much we could reduce their electricity consumption before we'd propose a particularly sized system. A quick glance around the house would often uncover an old fridge in the garage where a couple of sixpacks were stashed. This waste of electricity was huge, especially during the hot summer days when the temperature in the garage would go well over 100F. Energy audits are often offered by your utility company for free or relatively low cost vs the savings on your bill. As they say in the responsible recyling business: Reduce:Reuse:Recycle. Reducing is always first.
1
I earned a masters in Sustainable Development and am very concerned about our country's and the world's direction on climate change. The only way to make a difference is to put a price on carbon. I would also argue that this should be at the carbon producer level (oil and gas etc..) all the way down to the final consumer. Broadly, this is indeed a good plan.
However, before proposing a good plan, conservatives, libertarians and the GOP first need to acknowledge the problem. This is the main challenge as climate change denial, denial of facts and science seem to be synonymous with the GOP.
However, before proposing a good plan, conservatives, libertarians and the GOP first need to acknowledge the problem. This is the main challenge as climate change denial, denial of facts and science seem to be synonymous with the GOP.
104
It shouldn't be seen as Liberals for Climate Action or Conservatives for Climate Action, but Rational Human Beings for Climate Action. We are already suffering from the changing weather patterns brought on by climate change and they are getting worse every year we don't do anything about it - let alone go backward, as Trump and his fossil fuel buddies seem determined to do. Even China is closing down as many coal facilities as it can and replacing them with clean, renewable energy sources.
Our Congress is so corrupted by energy company money that neither party is going to do anything to reverse our decline. Our only savior is to educate the people and let them vote all of these corrupted sock-puppets for the fossil fuel lobby out of office.
Our Congress is so corrupted by energy company money that neither party is going to do anything to reverse our decline. Our only savior is to educate the people and let them vote all of these corrupted sock-puppets for the fossil fuel lobby out of office.
69
Thank you! This is the first thing I thought when I read this headline, before even reading the piece.
1
I have made the point here for several years that climate action is a core conservative agenda item, but that never got much traction in a liberal echo chamber, so I hope your article will have better luck.
As for a carbon tax, although I did not embrace this for years, a carbon tax is probably now the most practical solution to end fossil energy. It will actually bring costs down, now that renewable energy is at least on par with fossil fuels when it comes to electricity costs. For a few years, we may still require tax relief for low income families to make sure there are no unintended regressive taxation consequences, but that relief can be paid by the revenue from the carbon tax.
As for a carbon tax, although I did not embrace this for years, a carbon tax is probably now the most practical solution to end fossil energy. It will actually bring costs down, now that renewable energy is at least on par with fossil fuels when it comes to electricity costs. For a few years, we may still require tax relief for low income families to make sure there are no unintended regressive taxation consequences, but that relief can be paid by the revenue from the carbon tax.
35
I also agree that climate action is a conservative imperative. The problem is the people in the GOP call themselves conservative but actually are not.
The reason your point doesn't get traction is that it is an invalid point. The conservatives most certainly do not take action on climate, and apparently don't even see a need. Where did you get that idea? Perhaps if the Brothers Koch didn't finance the conservatives so generously they would play a different game, but that's not the way things are. Oil pipelines and more coal mining are not features of climate action, unless you mean by changing it for the worse. Action, yes. Just not the kind that progressives favor. Here's a proposal that I don't understand why conservatives can't get behind: Pour research and development into alternative energy, not even dismissing nuclear. Thousands, if not more, new jobs; cleaner air; more profits. What's not to like? The petroleum industry, if it would look beyond next quarter's profit, should even want to fund it and get in on the ground floor.
Obama did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address climate change because Republicans fought him tooth and nail on everything and because they refuse to admit it is a problem. And the writers of this piece refuse to admit that their party is a problem. They hide from the reality of their party the way their party hides from climate change.
Their proposal is nice to hear, but their honesty and courage and willingness to face unpleasant truths is still Republican. No Republican now in office has joined them, and any that did would be primaried. There is a reason why they do not mention the reason why climate change was addressed mainly by executive orders. There is an elephant in the room whose existence is being carefully ignored.
They are profiles in courage, Republican style. Compared to them, the Donald is a breath of fresh air and honesty.
Their proposal is nice to hear, but their honesty and courage and willingness to face unpleasant truths is still Republican. No Republican now in office has joined them, and any that did would be primaried. There is a reason why they do not mention the reason why climate change was addressed mainly by executive orders. There is an elephant in the room whose existence is being carefully ignored.
They are profiles in courage, Republican style. Compared to them, the Donald is a breath of fresh air and honesty.
9
Sounds good in principle. How can I help?
PS My state senator here in MA plans to reintroduce a carbon pricing bill in 2017. It would be a use fee with proceeds returned to citizens. Version of the bill introduced in the previous legislative session here - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S1747
PS My state senator here in MA plans to reintroduce a carbon pricing bill in 2017. It would be a use fee with proceeds returned to citizens. Version of the bill introduced in the previous legislative session here - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S1747
6
Silly me, I didn't realize the need to breath fresh air, drink clean water, and eat food was exclusive to liberals. That there needs to be a "Conservative case for climate action" reveals just how toxic the Republicans climate change denying has become. The giant crack in Antarctic ice shelf that has grown 17 miles in 2 months is not reality enough. The millions of refugees that are not being displaced by war, but instead famine/drought/crop killing pests that are also migrating toward better climates is not real enough. Temperatures dropping and rising by 20-30 degrees a day is not real enough.
So now the solution is to sell them on the idea of how financially beneficial meaningful climate legislation could be. If a few bucks now is more important the non negotiable needs of human beings to be able to survive on this planet in the future, we all better start saving up for condos on Mars.
So now the solution is to sell them on the idea of how financially beneficial meaningful climate legislation could be. If a few bucks now is more important the non negotiable needs of human beings to be able to survive on this planet in the future, we all better start saving up for condos on Mars.
16
Nice plan! Really, excellent! Trouble is that it doesn't fit well with the dispensational Christian narrative lens that seems to shape so much of conservative policy making. The more apocalyptic the news gets, the more convinced these people get that the end of the world is nigh, and that's good news for them. Everyone who matters to them will simply be raptured off a doomed planet to watch it's final destruction in High-Def, and then be returned to a renewed planet with none of the problems we face now. Good luck overcoming that "burn one, get one free" worldview.
5
Good luck with that worthwhile agenda! But look, if the last weeks and years have taught us anything it is that the GOP is by ethos and inclination a party of opposition, that is, opposition to government, to taxes, and above all, to change. Failure to recognize this has been a big problem for the Democratic Party. Since the GOP has controlled much of government all over America, the DP has assumed that the GOP is the party of policy, and that the role of the DP is to oppose that party and its policies. But as the world has changed, the GOP has changed, and the DP has to keep locating a new target.
Stop! Take charge of the narrative. Let the purblind Neanderthals hunt you with their cudgels and spears. Climate change is a very suitable place to start. Of course Dems have been on the right side of that for years, but from an oppositional stance. Now, take leadership.
Stop! Take charge of the narrative. Let the purblind Neanderthals hunt you with their cudgels and spears. Climate change is a very suitable place to start. Of course Dems have been on the right side of that for years, but from an oppositional stance. Now, take leadership.
3
This is a good concept, but I fear the devil is in the details. First and foremost, Republicans have to reach a consensus that there is a threat from Climate Change. Without that acknowledgement, we don't even have a starting point. Second, we are talking about creating a whole new bureaucracy with the government which is a distinctly un-Conservative notion. I'm sure you can get buy in from lots of people who believe that climate change is occurring, however I predict it won't be enough. Humans are much better at reacting and adapting to change than preventing it from occurring. Forget the Wall at the Mexican border, we are going to have to build walls around the majority of our coastal cities, just to keep them from flooding.
1
I wish I could be optimistic. The carbon tax plan has been around since the Reagan administration. Back in the day, Republicans such as Henry Paulson (former chairman of the board of the Nature Conservancy) understood the dangers, cared deeply and proposed market-based approaches to climate change. But the mere idea of climate change was then and is now rejected by most Republicans.
Given that trump based his campaign on running against establishment Republicans like these folks, what are the chances, really, that they will gain any traction with the trump administration? And with so few Republicans in Congress willing to stand up for what is right and good, how can they possibly succeed? Sad.
Given that trump based his campaign on running against establishment Republicans like these folks, what are the chances, really, that they will gain any traction with the trump administration? And with so few Republicans in Congress willing to stand up for what is right and good, how can they possibly succeed? Sad.
2
It wasn't that the Republicans didn't see eye to eye on climate change. They outright denied that climate change is real and happening right now. They support climate denial in this country. Getting republicans to stop taking fossil fuel money will be a yuge task, but red states will reap great rewards in the green energy biz.
A carbon fee, returned to the taxpayers, will reduce emissions quickly. A great start. Big businesses need to support a carbon tax/fee (business owners have children, too!). The president should sit down with top climate scientists and listen to them. We are skating on very thin ice and don't have much time to act.
A carbon fee, returned to the taxpayers, will reduce emissions quickly. A great start. Big businesses need to support a carbon tax/fee (business owners have children, too!). The president should sit down with top climate scientists and listen to them. We are skating on very thin ice and don't have much time to act.
4
Timely, piece, during this period of contention and uncertainty.
I've always preferred a carbon tax over a carbon credit trading system. I would be inclined to add some cut-off, of the annual dividend, for those earning above a negotiable threshold, otherwise worth a try.
I'm a democrat, a proud liberal, an engineer and a citizen who believes that we must relearn how to speak with, learn from and compromise with one another.
I've always preferred a carbon tax over a carbon credit trading system. I would be inclined to add some cut-off, of the annual dividend, for those earning above a negotiable threshold, otherwise worth a try.
I'm a democrat, a proud liberal, an engineer and a citizen who believes that we must relearn how to speak with, learn from and compromise with one another.
2
In light of (not-so) recent revelations that NOAA 'scientists' have been manipulating temperature data, it's difficult to accept alarmists' latest caterwauling. I suspect that climate cultists are more concerned that Trump et al will cut off the green gravy train.
Temperature data has not been manipulated. The dispute you are referencing is about the way data is distributed, not the actual data itself. An independent party was able to confirm the results. Also, one paper could not discount the mountain of evidence that inckudes global temp rise in air and water, global ice melt, rising sea levels, increasing acidification of the oceans, thawing tundra, flora/fauna response to changing climate, increase in storm volatility, increase in almospheeic CO2 etc. If you're going to deny human activity driven climate change, you need to account for all these observations. What is your explanation then?
So, in this proposal, companies that can afford to pay the carbon tax can go on polluting. This tax is the cost of doing business.
Look at it another way, these companies 'buy' the right to pollute from citizens because the carbon tax money is paid to citizens in this proposal.
This proposal is less about minimizing pollution and more about businesses's managing the cost of polluting.
Look at it another way, these companies 'buy' the right to pollute from citizens because the carbon tax money is paid to citizens in this proposal.
This proposal is less about minimizing pollution and more about businesses's managing the cost of polluting.
4
@Vijai Tyagi Illinois - But the money paid to the citizens will (or should be) be based on income and similar factors, not their carbon footprint. It would be there to cushion the blow to lower-income households, who would _still_ be encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint by the increased costs of carbon-based fuels.
As far as I can tell, reasoned conservative solutions to pressing problems (like a carbon tax) is dead. Conservatives in power seem solely interested in holding the party line and paying back their big donors with a denial of science and freedom to destroy the environment and our planet's climate. I would be thrilled to be proven wrong.
7
The problem is not to charge more ( that will be simply offloaded onto the taxpayer ) for offending polluters, but to actually reduce pollution.
Hat requires MORE regulation that there is presently and MORE harsh penalties for those that continue to sully our planet.
Every other day, we are seeing massive spills or containment leaks that are creating enormous harm to people and the environment. We then learn, that the offenders get a small fine ( if at all ) and in some cases, the clean up costs are unloaded onto the taxpayer.
This needs to stop immediately.
I will grudgingly admit that cap and trade ( spend ) will help on the surface, but conservatives must admit that ground water lies below it.
Hat requires MORE regulation that there is presently and MORE harsh penalties for those that continue to sully our planet.
Every other day, we are seeing massive spills or containment leaks that are creating enormous harm to people and the environment. We then learn, that the offenders get a small fine ( if at all ) and in some cases, the clean up costs are unloaded onto the taxpayer.
This needs to stop immediately.
I will grudgingly admit that cap and trade ( spend ) will help on the surface, but conservatives must admit that ground water lies below it.
6
Not going to happen. Compare and contrast the comments over here with those on the (almost) identical article published on the WSJ's opinion pages (by Baker and Schultz). The word "tax" makes the republicans rise up in arms. Not only are the comments on the WSJ rude to James Baker and George Shultz, they are devoid of fact or meaning. The Republican party of the thinking and responsible men is dead.
Which is actually not surprising as it was killed by the same very men who now are trying to rescue "conservative" principles like the carbon tax.
Which is actually not surprising as it was killed by the same very men who now are trying to rescue "conservative" principles like the carbon tax.
7
The authors, who detail a very workable and positive proposal need to include two critical steps. Step one is getting their Republican brethren to accept that climate change is a problem that needs solving. The issue in the past hasn't been a difference in philosophy between Democrats and Republicans over the type of solution but rather the unwillingness of Republicans to agree that there was a problem. You can't (and won't) fix something that you won't admit needs fixing. Step two is to get their fellow Republicans to agree to any type of new tax. Grover Norquist and his Club for Growth has locked them into pledges to never support any sort of new tax. I wish them well in their endeavors.
7
There is a climate solutions caucus in the House, with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (10 and 10 presently). It will continue to grow as the political will for action is build by you and me. The only hindrance is cynicism.
Cap-and-trade has been shown to be effective, rather than "big stick" regulations, people do vote with their $$. So this seems like a good idea.
One other thing that always bothered me about fuel/energy prices being artificially low, because the full cost of their "externality" (pollution, climate change, support/military in the middle east) is not accounted for, is that such a tax will increase the cost of transportation. So a consequence is that it should help support local jobs.
One other thing that always bothered me about fuel/energy prices being artificially low, because the full cost of their "externality" (pollution, climate change, support/military in the middle east) is not accounted for, is that such a tax will increase the cost of transportation. So a consequence is that it should help support local jobs.
2
This appears to me to be a very good idea. If Democrats were smart, they would form a political alliance with these conservatives and use tax policy to make real progress on carbon reduction. Such an alliance would remind us that our greatest political asset is our ability to compromise, to find common ground in order to serve a greater good. It is precisely this political asset that Trump stands against. He's a "no compromise" guy unwilling to seek common ground. He regards himself as the guiding common good. This is, of course, ridiculous -- which is why he is undeserving of the office he holds.
4
This is exactly what Citizens Climate Lobby is doing. Join us!
As a longtime climate advocate, I wholeheartedly support this plan. The question is of course will a Republican Congress and president enact it. If they do, they would not coincidentally vastly improve their prospects for becoming a true majority party. With irrational denilaism out of the public's craw, there would be a lot of new possibilities for for Republicans and policymaking as a whole.
11
It is at best simple-minded, as well as flatly false, to suggest, as the authors do, that clean power plants are only necessary to protect us from global warming. The pollution from power plants like coal plants harms everyone in breathing distance. Pollution causes bad health AND global warming. We would need clean power even if global warming were not a threat. Pollution including particulates cause asthma and other respiratory illness and otherwise compromise everyone's health. This is well-known, acknowledged and accepted. "Mountain-top removal" coal mining (which is exactly what it sounds like) pollutes the water in the immediate vicinity (thousands of streams) when the mountain top is dumped to the side to expose the coal, devastating the ecosystem and ultimately everything that depends on a healthy ecosystem-incuding us humans. We should stop burning coal ASAP, with or without a carbon tax.
7
I think this plan omits a first, critical, step: forming or reforming a new party to include practical and progressive people from both major parties to meet in the middle. In fact, I would suggest the people who take this action would not have to abandon their existing parties, just simply join a complementary one that "exists" simply for the purposes of advancing specific agenda items, like the plan the authors suggest . . . It would be similar to college sports, perhaps, where conferences have certain members in basketball or field hockey, and other members in football.
Of course, it probably would never work, but given enough time between elections there might be hope that the public would learn the value of coalition over confrontation.
Of course, it probably would never work, but given enough time between elections there might be hope that the public would learn the value of coalition over confrontation.
4
It's not like everything ever proposed by Democrats is completely unacceptable to Republicans, and everything ever proposed by Republicans (eye-roll) is completely unacceptable to Democrats, it's just "Obama." That is what has prevented what you just proposed from happening.
1
A supremely logical and politically-savvy approach to carbon pollution: behavioral economics will compel people to choose a less carbon-intense lifestyle (e.g. more efficient cars), trade - the punching bag du jour - and concerns about unfair advantage are addressed, and with fewer regulations to boot. Brilliant! I want to get involved. I will push my representatives in Minnesota and friends in Ohio to support this idea. How else can we get involved?
10
Join Citizens Climate Lobby, which is building the political will for this solution to climate change. 50,000 members already!
1
Carbon taxes aren't evil, per se. Consumption taxes are better than income taxes. But the Rube Goldberg rebate scheme is silly.
Instead, simply eliminate corporate taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment.
I can guarantee serious conservative consideration for such a common sense proposal.
Instead, simply eliminate corporate taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment.
I can guarantee serious conservative consideration for such a common sense proposal.
1
You are talking to a wall of Republican fossil fuel paid ignorance. Individual Americans will continue to put solar panels on theirs roofs and when the tipping point comes the state governments will start to charge them for their overage in production of electricity because that is what the fossil fuel industry will want them to do.
By the time the danger of planetary warming is admitted to it will be too late to save our children and grand children from the wars and disease and floods that will follow in its wake. Humanity is too stupid and selfish to survive its own greed.
By the time the danger of planetary warming is admitted to it will be too late to save our children and grand children from the wars and disease and floods that will follow in its wake. Humanity is too stupid and selfish to survive its own greed.
2
There is a great deal that is attractive in this plan, but it offers little to the rural poor who must drive long distances and who hold disproportionate influence over American elections. Returning more of the proceeds of the tax to rural counties, perhaps by directing a larger share to low-income families instead of distributing them equally, might help to temper opposition in rural counties.
1
Finally, real ideas to debate. I personally don't care which political party addresses climate change, just so long as we do it. Three decades ago we passed up on the chance to lead the world in the development and production of alternative energies. The turbines in every new wind farm around the globe will not be American-made. However, this plans sounds like innovation, at least a good start to real action. More of the same, please, conservatives, and let's get moving.
5
Rather than continuing to fight the lost battles of the Obama administration, it would be more productive to engage and support policies such as these that will have very beneficial effects for all, except the free-loading fossil fuel industry. Get involved in the present tense, speak out and take actions that will promote a more just and sustainable future. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us.
1
Good luck! Nice to see world class economists who supported the GoP advancing a climate change mitigation plan based on a carbon tax. Assuming the numbers are credible there are still issues to clarify...
1. A climate denying president and legislators have been elected. The EPA head will oppose anything harming oil and coal industry bottom lines.
2. Most Americans don't know or care about the Paris Treaty and are uninformed about Climate Change. So the question is how you will win over vested industrial and political interests empowered by the election you helped influence who will do anything within their power to preserve their bottom line?
3. At what point will carbon tax costs tip the decision of coal, big oil, auto manufacturers, etc. in favor of carbon reducing technologies? That is a critical calculation.. If energy companies with older coal-powered generators will refuse/delay adding scrubbers and other pollution reducing technologies what happens?
4. The carbon tax, promoted by Democrats, has been toxic to Republicans. It is a tax.
5. Give $2,000 to a poor family or to everyone? Wealthy families with much bigger carbon footprints? The wealthy will not be brought over to your program by $2,000. So why not distribute revenue according to need?
6. Another NYT article says alternative energy is hiring 50,000 workers this year. Why not use some of this revenue to fund its growth?
Good luck!
1. A climate denying president and legislators have been elected. The EPA head will oppose anything harming oil and coal industry bottom lines.
2. Most Americans don't know or care about the Paris Treaty and are uninformed about Climate Change. So the question is how you will win over vested industrial and political interests empowered by the election you helped influence who will do anything within their power to preserve their bottom line?
3. At what point will carbon tax costs tip the decision of coal, big oil, auto manufacturers, etc. in favor of carbon reducing technologies? That is a critical calculation.. If energy companies with older coal-powered generators will refuse/delay adding scrubbers and other pollution reducing technologies what happens?
4. The carbon tax, promoted by Democrats, has been toxic to Republicans. It is a tax.
5. Give $2,000 to a poor family or to everyone? Wealthy families with much bigger carbon footprints? The wealthy will not be brought over to your program by $2,000. So why not distribute revenue according to need?
6. Another NYT article says alternative energy is hiring 50,000 workers this year. Why not use some of this revenue to fund its growth?
Good luck!
2
The CAFE standards show how futile it is to try to curb emissions by regulation. Increasing fuel efficiency in theory reduces consumption, but in fact it also reduces the cost of each mile driven and so encourages people to drive more. More fuel efficiency has also encouraged purchase of larger vehicles, at least partially offsetting any fuel savings. A carbon tax is the only hope of real emissions reduction, and environmentalists should get on board no matter what the revenue is used for, and even if it means scrapping regulations like the Power Plan. Renewables don't need subsidies any more to be competitive, they just need fossil fuels to be priced at their full cost to society.
Despite my own bias, I found this to be intriguing. Also, come to find out, I studied economics and just so happen to have studied out of the books of This authors partner, Mr. Mankiw. It seems this older generation of conservatives still have a rational head on their shoulders, but how will this jive with the current population of republicans?
The conservatives in power today seem more hell bent on denying science and condemning any publication or any legislation proposed that in anyway addresses climate change. How then can these conservative economists influence the obtuse minded conservative body now in power?
The conservatives in power today seem more hell bent on denying science and condemning any publication or any legislation proposed that in anyway addresses climate change. How then can these conservative economists influence the obtuse minded conservative body now in power?
1
Thank you, Conservative Leadership Council! Now go out there and sell it! The biggest threat to our planet (after climate change) is conservative climate deniers. I'll support ANY proposal that gets conservatives on board.
2016 was the worst coral bleaching yet. We are predicted to lose the entire reef ecosystem in the next 30 years if we don't slow ocean warming. Can you imagine? No Great Barrier Reef! Just as scientists scrambled to preserve weather data when Trump was elected, others are preserving coral species in safe havens in the event that we fail to turn things around. Ocean scientists who have raised the alarm about climate change effects on ocean ecosystems were vilified and scorned for their efforts.
With all of these obvious signs, why do conservatives ignore the treat? Trump has even had to deal with it and the penny didn't drop. The dunes at one of his Scotland resorts are threatened because of rising sea levels. Instead of focusing on rising sea levels due to climate change, he tried to build a sea wall (loves walls!) and dumped his frustration on the EU. Conservatives who recognize the climate change threat have a huge task ahead of them getting their party to come on board. I hope that their stature is great enough that they won't be vilified and scorned. And I wish them success! Good luck!
2016 was the worst coral bleaching yet. We are predicted to lose the entire reef ecosystem in the next 30 years if we don't slow ocean warming. Can you imagine? No Great Barrier Reef! Just as scientists scrambled to preserve weather data when Trump was elected, others are preserving coral species in safe havens in the event that we fail to turn things around. Ocean scientists who have raised the alarm about climate change effects on ocean ecosystems were vilified and scorned for their efforts.
With all of these obvious signs, why do conservatives ignore the treat? Trump has even had to deal with it and the penny didn't drop. The dunes at one of his Scotland resorts are threatened because of rising sea levels. Instead of focusing on rising sea levels due to climate change, he tried to build a sea wall (loves walls!) and dumped his frustration on the EU. Conservatives who recognize the climate change threat have a huge task ahead of them getting their party to come on board. I hope that their stature is great enough that they won't be vilified and scorned. And I wish them success! Good luck!
2
Typical brainless conservative muddle. To transform our fossil fuel based energy system the market will not do. Anyone who does anything that spoils their competitiveness by changing from an established energy to a new energy system will be crushed, it's what history shows us. To make a successful transformation society has to set a big set of regulations in place to enable everyone who makes the transformation equal with those who do not in the market place and to punish those who refuse, then the transformation can occur smoothly. If you are a mindful conservative you insist upon sunset clauses for these laws and regulations, you do not insist upon mindlessly insisting that markets will fix the problem. Climate change is real and ignoring it assures that our country will be ruined by it instead of adapting to it.
2
The GOP Congress and the Trump administration are hell-bent on extracting even more carbon form fuels from their cozy underground lairs, transporting them in new pipelines to refineries and ports where they will find their way into foreign markets and in cars, factories and industrial processes domestically. This proposal would cut profits and perhaps reduce investments in those endeavors.
Is that a bad thing? Not for the environment and the planet as a whole. Not for the innovation, research and discovery of alternative energy sources. Not for anyone but the corporate bunch, and all the politicians who gain political contributions and likely personal gain from investments (yes, Virginia, there is a blind trust, and it comes down the chimney).
Bravo to the authors for their work. Even if every part of it might not be equally embraced by environmentalists and climate scientists and economics, it is a sincere effort to solve a complex problem.
Is that a bad thing? Not for the environment and the planet as a whole. Not for the innovation, research and discovery of alternative energy sources. Not for anyone but the corporate bunch, and all the politicians who gain political contributions and likely personal gain from investments (yes, Virginia, there is a blind trust, and it comes down the chimney).
Bravo to the authors for their work. Even if every part of it might not be equally embraced by environmentalists and climate scientists and economics, it is a sincere effort to solve a complex problem.
1
This exact policy position has been advocated for years by rational people. The tax code is an excellent tool to encourage positive behavior while discouraging negative. The problem with AGW denial has always been that conservatives have long associated AGW with government "out to get them", a common symptom of paranoia they inherited in their DNA from evolution. It is sub-conscious, they aren't even aware of it. I have never had a conservative take me up on an offer to drive or ride in my electric car to illustrate that it is sub-conscious. The tricky parts of this policy position are convincing conservatives that AGW is real and administering the border taxes. The fact that the positions cited here are from a conservative group is commendable.
Good ideas, but the authors lack credibility and must prove themselves with action. They suggest that Obama did not sign any meaningful climate legislation because "he and congress did not see eye to eye." That is a gross misreading of what happened. Republicans in congress steadfastly refused accept the reality of climate change or work with Democrats in any shape or form to act to stop it. Obama would have loved to sign a carbon tax or cap and trade policy, but Republican intransigence forced him to do what he could through executive orders and regulation.
If Republicans are serious about climate action they must pass a carbon tax that is sufficient to meet the Paris accord standards. As for reducing regulation, some of that can be justified after the fact but let's examine each regulation and only remove the ones that are not needed. This Republican obsession with cutting regulations as a matter of principle is absurd and stands in the way of a livable future climate.
If Republicans are serious about climate action they must pass a carbon tax that is sufficient to meet the Paris accord standards. As for reducing regulation, some of that can be justified after the fact but let's examine each regulation and only remove the ones that are not needed. This Republican obsession with cutting regulations as a matter of principle is absurd and stands in the way of a livable future climate.
8
A carbon tax will achieve no reduction in CO2 emissions, because there is no way we can get our energy from non carbon sources. Renewables are absolutely incapable of providing the energy we need, and Nuclear has pollution problems of it's own, and will not be competitive, no matter how much taxes you impose on carbon.
1
Not so -- If no substitutes can be found, people will simply consume less energy, i.e. travel less, and turn the thermostat up in summer and down in winter.
But Thorium-based Liquid Salt nuclear reactors are a promising alternative that supposedly creates far less radioactive waste (like 1/100 as much), while being far safer from disasters. Worth looking into anyway.
But Thorium-based Liquid Salt nuclear reactors are a promising alternative that supposedly creates far less radioactive waste (like 1/100 as much), while being far safer from disasters. Worth looking into anyway.
The illegal immigration impact of a carbon tax and dividend are often overlooked and merits additional scrutiny. If only legal residents of the U.S. are entitled to a dividend, then the illegal residents will be paying the tax but not receiving a dividend. In effect, the carbon tax and dividend is also an unavoidable tax on illegal residents. Collecting the tax at the wellhead, coal mine or import terminal/pipeline and passing that cost on will permeate through the economy and impossible to avoid. Perhaps this is how to have Mexico 'pay for the wall' after all. Instead of the illegal-resident income going back to Mexico or wherever, more of it stays in the U.S. to pay for a higher cost of living for illegal residents. Starting small with the tax and ramping up on a gradual but firm schedule will provide certainty for business without dislocation or threat to our economic well being. Industry and economists can weigh in on the ramp rate and schedule. Starting small will also give time for the program to get up and running and work out the inevitable bugs while the stakes are small. As already mentioned by others, it would be an effective jobs program because energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit and many to most energy efficiency jobs are dispersed, local, labor intensive and resistant to complete automation.
4
The conservative case for climate action should be the same as the progressive case for climate action: moral responsibility. We already know that it makes sense economically (even if those invested in dying, destructive but well-entrenched industries e.g. coal stubbornly cling to their ways).
The impetus for climate action is one of moral responsibility. Principle--not dollars--should inform our action.
The impetus for climate action is one of moral responsibility. Principle--not dollars--should inform our action.
4
You're assuming those in power have morals. They do not have pushed this argument aside by denying the problem exists, rather than say they don't care what happens in the future. Therefore, it becomes necessary to debate the current administration on its own terms, economic expedience.
1
then you can live in a hut ... but don't start a fire, that creates pollution.
While it is a welcome development that there is a proposal to address fossil fuel externalities, the authors are disingenuous when it comes to how they portray President Obama and how destructive their party's role has been for America and the world.
The Republicans in Congress refused to work with him in any way on this issue and his only option was to pursue change through executive action or negotiation with industry (e.g. CAFE). If the opposition party had come to him with a proposal or even just a willingness to engage on the issue, whether via a carbon tax or cap and trade, you can bet he would have engaged in a serious negotiation with them. When Republicans scream "Solyndra" or other people criticize particulars of the Obama energy policies, they so often miss this point.
A $40 per metric ton tax sounds rather low unless the unspecified increases in the proposal are substantial. The proposed Washington State carbon tax that was defeated in November began at $15 (in 2017) but would have increased to $100. There also needs to be more detail added to ensure we continue the progress that has been made, whether it is building a smart grid, improving vehicle and appliance efficiency, and, importantly, furthering basic science that will make clean energy cost competitive, make America a leader in clean energy technology, and create jobs.
I don't know whether the authors have any juice with the Trump administration. I doubt it, but if they do, it would be welcome.
The Republicans in Congress refused to work with him in any way on this issue and his only option was to pursue change through executive action or negotiation with industry (e.g. CAFE). If the opposition party had come to him with a proposal or even just a willingness to engage on the issue, whether via a carbon tax or cap and trade, you can bet he would have engaged in a serious negotiation with them. When Republicans scream "Solyndra" or other people criticize particulars of the Obama energy policies, they so often miss this point.
A $40 per metric ton tax sounds rather low unless the unspecified increases in the proposal are substantial. The proposed Washington State carbon tax that was defeated in November began at $15 (in 2017) but would have increased to $100. There also needs to be more detail added to ensure we continue the progress that has been made, whether it is building a smart grid, improving vehicle and appliance efficiency, and, importantly, furthering basic science that will make clean energy cost competitive, make America a leader in clean energy technology, and create jobs.
I don't know whether the authors have any juice with the Trump administration. I doubt it, but if they do, it would be welcome.
13
A carbon tax is a bad solution at least because it is regressive. Poor people can't afford it, and rich people won't care and will continue to over-consume. Unless it could be structured so that the tax rate increases with consumption, so that the tax deters the rich and does not overtax the poor. Cap and trade is an effective solution that has already been shown to work in the sulfur dioxide/acid rain context. I would favor that solution, since we have to limit and reduce carbon emissions, and this would promote increasing investment in sustainable energy alternatives. We also need financial incentives for removing CO2 and other green house gases from the atmosphere, so long as it is a net removal. We should invest in carbon sinks, like increasing forested areas instead of removing trees from, and then building on, every square inch of available space.
3
A carbon tax with full rebate cancels out the regressive nature of the tax. Low income households come out ahead and the rich end up paying a small percentage of their income unless they reduce their carbon footprint (which they have the financial means to do). Reduced emissions will come primarily through changes by businesses and investors rather than just through consumer choices, so the price signal to businesses is key. Sulfur dioxide was a much simpler problem than CO2. A Cap and Trade is not preferable to a carbon tax which is much simpler, more transparent, and more difficult to game than a system with trading.
30
They talk about rebates to families but fail to mention how much the program will cost the American Family. I like the idea but they do need to better explain how much this will cost families. Another great idea taxing imports from countries with sloppy environmental regulations. This will discourage industries from leaving and hopefully encourage foreign countries to embrace environmental controls.
Perhaps with an Republican Label the ideas will be more palatable to Conservatives. It is sad that we can only advance changes in this current congress if they contain a Republican label.
Perhaps with an Republican Label the ideas will be more palatable to Conservatives. It is sad that we can only advance changes in this current congress if they contain a Republican label.
4
I recall very well my graduate school professor in the late 1980s - a Republican-leaning Chicago school economics type - who first introduced me to the idea of cap and trade, emission taxes, etc.. A market-based solution to environmental problems, rather than inefficient per-plant limits generally favored by liberals, who would seemingly be aghast at the notion that you could "sell" a "right to pollute." All I wanted - then or now - was cleaner and water, and if this is the more efficient means to achieve it, by all means.
Trump is canny, but if he were really smart, he would go "Nixon in China" on the environment, and embrace an idea like this.
Trump is canny, but if he were really smart, he would go "Nixon in China" on the environment, and embrace an idea like this.
51
But according to Trump, there is no climate problem.
"the proceeds would be returned to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments."
That works only for those who both pay income taxes and get refunds. Many don't. For example, refunds are intercepted for any number of reasons, and for those already on the margin this is just another collection action.
It takes no account of the year between spending the money on higher costs and getting back a refund. Those on the margin can least afford to loan such large sums to pay for climate action.
It trusts government to make the refunds. The government often does not. It even "borrowed" the Social Security Trust Fund and now says it can't tax to pay it back. It routinely fails to spend the gasoline taxes on the intended purposes. Trust government to refund money, long term, consistently? That is a joke.
No, this idea is done on the backs of those least able to pay.
That works only for those who both pay income taxes and get refunds. Many don't. For example, refunds are intercepted for any number of reasons, and for those already on the margin this is just another collection action.
It takes no account of the year between spending the money on higher costs and getting back a refund. Those on the margin can least afford to loan such large sums to pay for climate action.
It trusts government to make the refunds. The government often does not. It even "borrowed" the Social Security Trust Fund and now says it can't tax to pay it back. It routinely fails to spend the gasoline taxes on the intended purposes. Trust government to refund money, long term, consistently? That is a joke.
No, this idea is done on the backs of those least able to pay.
3
Well-done! I appreciate the work that went into this proposal.
Please note that this article linked to only a tiny portion of the treasury report-- the full report is here-- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documen...
The Treasury's full report is an analysis of this carbon tax proposal from Treasury's viewpoint--how to impose, collect, rebate and deal with border adjustments.
Since the authors estimate that their plan would achieve nearly double the emissions reductions of all Obama era regulations--it would be great to see the report they did that substantiates that assertion. That is, where is the analysis of how this carbon tax impacts emissions over time and the accompanying explanations done either by EPA, or DOE or Regional Economic Models Inc?
Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate, so please show us projected emissions reductions.
Much thanks for your hard work.
Please note that this article linked to only a tiny portion of the treasury report-- the full report is here-- https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documen...
The Treasury's full report is an analysis of this carbon tax proposal from Treasury's viewpoint--how to impose, collect, rebate and deal with border adjustments.
Since the authors estimate that their plan would achieve nearly double the emissions reductions of all Obama era regulations--it would be great to see the report they did that substantiates that assertion. That is, where is the analysis of how this carbon tax impacts emissions over time and the accompanying explanations done either by EPA, or DOE or Regional Economic Models Inc?
Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate, so please show us projected emissions reductions.
Much thanks for your hard work.
Passage a revenue-neutral carbon tax would easily be the most important single legislative acheivement of this era. Our children and grandchildren will thank us. As a lifelong Democrat, I urge Democrats in Congress to let Republicans lead on this and even take credit for it. In Washington State, some on the left opposed the carbon tax referendum, to their everlasting shame. This is one of those times when bipartisanship is not only desirable, but essential to our nation's and world's fate. By addressing climate with courage, America has a chance not to be great "again", but to be great now, and in the future.
1
The author's proposal is the only rational way to deal with climate change. While there are a number of hard-core climate "deniers" out there, most opposition to proposed action on climate change (including my own) is because the proposed actions do more to increase government control over the economy and reward crony capitalists than they do to address global warming.
So the one thing missing from the proposal is that in addition to eliminating CO2 regulation, all subsidies and mandates for ALL forms of energy must be eliminated. No more tax credits to GE for building wind turbines or "Energy Star" appliances and no tax credits for rich people buying Teslas.
So the one thing missing from the proposal is that in addition to eliminating CO2 regulation, all subsidies and mandates for ALL forms of energy must be eliminated. No more tax credits to GE for building wind turbines or "Energy Star" appliances and no tax credits for rich people buying Teslas.
Kudos to the conservative statesmen involved in trying to find a way to get the anti-science blowhards in Congress to come aboard with a plan that furthers a carbon footprint reduction scheme. This well-thought out plan, however, is still vulnerable to the whims of an irresponsible Congress that favors expediency over long-term planning.
What is to keep this compromised Congress from highjacking the collected fees for other purposes? Once the cash is absorbed into the treasury and the earmarked monies converted into bonds, nothing will stop Congress from delaying the repatriation of funds to average households. They can justify this move by pointing to the need to cover government expenses and the shortfall of revenues which will undoubtedly result from any "tax reform" Ryan, McConnell and Trump get enacted.
Like I said before, it sounds like a good plan but let's not invest too much hope in the current administration and Congress to faithfully execute it.
What is to keep this compromised Congress from highjacking the collected fees for other purposes? Once the cash is absorbed into the treasury and the earmarked monies converted into bonds, nothing will stop Congress from delaying the repatriation of funds to average households. They can justify this move by pointing to the need to cover government expenses and the shortfall of revenues which will undoubtedly result from any "tax reform" Ryan, McConnell and Trump get enacted.
Like I said before, it sounds like a good plan but let's not invest too much hope in the current administration and Congress to faithfully execute it.
It it would be great if conservatives actually proposed a policy that would benefit the nation and the world. Unlikely it will happen because the so called president is only interested in theatrics that play to the emotions of his rabid base. Then we have senators who claim climate change is not real and as proof throw a snowball in the senate. The current crop of Republicans will continue to lie to a gullible public and as long as they are in control will drive the country over a higher cliff than the last Republican administration and this time there's unlikely to be the political will to avoid a depression.
1
I think a useful policy of the Times would be to provide a brief description of the funding structure of any organization such as Climate Leadership Council whenever a piece like this is published. Who, for example are the three largest donors to this organization? If it is other such organizations, the funding should be traced to the corporations or individuals writing the checks. This would apply to all others such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and all other such groups with generic or benign sounding names. All such groups have an agenda, and it is important to follow the money. Vast sums are being spent to influence opinion, and they aren't necessarily doing it for the public goo.
2
This might have already been mentioned, but the dividends of the second goal increase only as the total tax collected on carbon dioxide emissions increase, which only occurs if emissions themselves increase. In other words, if we think of these as two separate goals of reducing carbon emissions and increasing wealth redistribution, then the greater success of one requires the greater failure of the other. It seems that environmentalists, populists, and progressives in general might be more "welcoming" of a plan that does not pit two of their ideals at odds with each other.
1
Hope springs eternal, a famous saying that may be applicable in the case of Climate Change. First, you have to eliminate people in power that get paid to remain willfully ignorant about the dangers of a runaway carbon pollution, affecting not only the U.S. 'happy-go-lucky' polluters domestically, but worldwide poor countries that may have minimal impact in producing the contamination...and maximal harm in their health and life. We have an obligation, in strict justice, to make amends with our awful footprint. Your proposals may work, mind you, but the devil is, as usual, in the details. And if the current government, all three branches, being in the hands (or feet?) of the G.O.P., inaction would be an awful show of incompetence, unscrupulousness for the environment we are part of, and and awful and dangerous joke on us. So, we shall dissect your proposals for sure; but saying is not the same as doing, by a mile. Look at the doggone republican obstructionism during the Obama era, to any and all proposals, even those whose idea was republican to begin with, just because a democrat was at the helm. Actions speak louder that the garbage of demagoguery, empty in results, and Trump's road to victory is proof of it. We need a 'czar' to show what needs to be done, and gather all political forces in a locked room until a unified efficient and effective proposal (for climate control) is concocted; and only then, unlock the door.
1
Republicans fiddle while the planet burns.
This approach is better than Republican obstructionism, but it still inexcusably wastes time and effort. This it does to preserve the right's Manichean, authoritarian mindset.
This country's greatness and ability to overcome existential threats was largely based on the two party system and a mindset Hayakawa described as the multi-valued orientation - open-minded, pragmatic, evidence based, willing to admit mistakes and move on - the culture of freedom.
We forget that the Jim Crow states were never really vested in this system. The Dixiecrat system was one party rule and what Hayakawa called the two-valued orientation - Manichean, authoritarian, ideological instead of evidence-based - the culture of oligarchy and dictatorship.
When the Dixiecrats switched parties in the Southern Strategy, many of us hoped it would mean the Jim Crow mentality would fade from the political stage. Instead the Dixiecrats went from being a marginalized wing of the Dems to taking over and transforming the GOP.
To their credit, the Democrats cling fiercely to the system that actually made us great, even though it sometimes makes them look pointless, like one hand clapping.
In order to respond to the climate crisis Republicans and the dubiously named conservative movement must dump their destructive authoritarian mindset and re-embrace American pragmatism.
This approach is better than Republican obstructionism, but it still inexcusably wastes time and effort. This it does to preserve the right's Manichean, authoritarian mindset.
This country's greatness and ability to overcome existential threats was largely based on the two party system and a mindset Hayakawa described as the multi-valued orientation - open-minded, pragmatic, evidence based, willing to admit mistakes and move on - the culture of freedom.
We forget that the Jim Crow states were never really vested in this system. The Dixiecrat system was one party rule and what Hayakawa called the two-valued orientation - Manichean, authoritarian, ideological instead of evidence-based - the culture of oligarchy and dictatorship.
When the Dixiecrats switched parties in the Southern Strategy, many of us hoped it would mean the Jim Crow mentality would fade from the political stage. Instead the Dixiecrats went from being a marginalized wing of the Dems to taking over and transforming the GOP.
To their credit, the Democrats cling fiercely to the system that actually made us great, even though it sometimes makes them look pointless, like one hand clapping.
In order to respond to the climate crisis Republicans and the dubiously named conservative movement must dump their destructive authoritarian mindset and re-embrace American pragmatism.
3
Simply removing regulations and applying a carbon tax sounds good, but there are no details. What regulations would be eliminated? How would THAT affect the environment in other ways? If coal plants are allowed to dump coal burning byproducts such as coal ash anywhere they please, then a safe, clean water supply is at risk. It is idiotic to think that eliminating regulations and paying families $2,000 a year from a $40 ton carbon tax is a solution. A family will much more than that just for healthcare from illnesses associated with pollution, such as cancer and heart disease. I do not know what it takes for people to understand where we are with the environmental issues. Pollution is making us sick, killing us, and most of all it is killing the planet. Taxes, growing companies and the economy simply will not matter. How can we have life if we are enslaved by big polluters to breath, eat and drink pollution? How can we be free if we do not have the right to clean air, water, and food? And how can we pursue happiness if we are sick and dying. The backers of this idea are not presenting a good solution to climate change, they are finding a way to continue polluting and making us feel like something is being done. James Baker...really! The Enron and private equity guy. Wow, and the best of Wall Street who's policies led to the global financial crisis of 2008. To save the species we have to act now and act boldly. This is not a bold action.
2
It is crazy the time was years ago. Wouldn't have the Rube Goldberg regulations Obama was forced to create.
First lets for Republicans to mention, '... he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem' is rich. The place was controlled by Republicans who publicly stated, they do not believe human activity has impacted climate change. In the face of all the empirical data that shouts otherwise. They obviously had/have personal agendas that would not allow any kind of bipartisan agreement. Though he did fail to get meaningful environmental legislation with his party in power. Perhaps because he was still dealing with an economy still in meltdown.
Second your johnny come lately to the discussion. Obama supported this republican idea all along. at a news conference at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, on Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2015. Obama stated, "I have long believed that the most elegant way to drive innovation and to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on it. This is a classic market failure,". Source http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-says-new-tax-most-... . The February 2016 he delivered a budget to Congress that had a flawed Carbon Tax proposals. But with the obstructionist republicans in charge it went nowhere. You should have countered this proposal through your Republican nonlawmakers then we would all ready have a bipartisan solution in place.
First lets for Republicans to mention, '... he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem' is rich. The place was controlled by Republicans who publicly stated, they do not believe human activity has impacted climate change. In the face of all the empirical data that shouts otherwise. They obviously had/have personal agendas that would not allow any kind of bipartisan agreement. Though he did fail to get meaningful environmental legislation with his party in power. Perhaps because he was still dealing with an economy still in meltdown.
Second your johnny come lately to the discussion. Obama supported this republican idea all along. at a news conference at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, on Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2015. Obama stated, "I have long believed that the most elegant way to drive innovation and to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on it. This is a classic market failure,". Source http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-says-new-tax-most-... . The February 2016 he delivered a budget to Congress that had a flawed Carbon Tax proposals. But with the obstructionist republicans in charge it went nowhere. You should have countered this proposal through your Republican nonlawmakers then we would all ready have a bipartisan solution in place.
3
While I commend these Republicans for trying, I see no success with this idea.
The Repiblican Party they represented is gone. Replaced by regulation hating, tax hating, climate science denying, money grubbing, ideologues. In my opinion this will not see the light of day.
I also question, as have others, why the corporations would not just pass it along to consumers. If it is to be distributed to consumers, then just raise prices and get it back. No harm, no foul, from their point of view. I would say use it to subsidize healthcare, care, not insurance, for the poor. The pollutants companies emit create health problems so why not let them pay for it?
Also, the real goal is to clean up the air. It seems to me that regulations, there's that word again, to make them limit what they spew into the air is the logical way to go. Figuring out how to clean the pollutants out before they are emitted should certainly be a job creator.
Also, the fines for illegal release should be high enough that companies want to comply. A few million is pocket change, make it billion. The idea that since they create jobs they should be able to crap up the world is ridulous and only makes sense to those that breathe air-conditioned air and drink bottled water in their ivory towers all their lives.
The Repiblican Party they represented is gone. Replaced by regulation hating, tax hating, climate science denying, money grubbing, ideologues. In my opinion this will not see the light of day.
I also question, as have others, why the corporations would not just pass it along to consumers. If it is to be distributed to consumers, then just raise prices and get it back. No harm, no foul, from their point of view. I would say use it to subsidize healthcare, care, not insurance, for the poor. The pollutants companies emit create health problems so why not let them pay for it?
Also, the real goal is to clean up the air. It seems to me that regulations, there's that word again, to make them limit what they spew into the air is the logical way to go. Figuring out how to clean the pollutants out before they are emitted should certainly be a job creator.
Also, the fines for illegal release should be high enough that companies want to comply. A few million is pocket change, make it billion. The idea that since they create jobs they should be able to crap up the world is ridulous and only makes sense to those that breathe air-conditioned air and drink bottled water in their ivory towers all their lives.
5
Many commenters wonder how they will sell this plan. This op ed piece conveniently leaves out an important piece from the actual plan: "Robust carbon taxes would also make possible an end to federal and state tort liability for emitters". So that's the offer to the fossil fuel companies to make them swallow the carbon tax. It is disguised as some kind of logic, although how the proposed carbon tax makes it possible to end liability for past harm done escapes me. It is probably not a bad trade off to bribe the fossil companies to get them to stop blocking progress on slowing global warming, but let's not pretend it is other than a bribe.
75
This is just anti-corporatism. The buyers of fossil company products are also culpable. Remember, fossil fuel was "good", miracle even, before it became "bad".
1
We should certainly limit contributions to climate change, but it is too late to stop it.
We need to consider geo-engineering ideas to reverse it. There are many suggestions, and they now need serious discussion.
We need to consider geo-engineering ideas to reverse it. There are many suggestions, and they now need serious discussion.
3
I am a progressive Democrat, and I support Messrs Feldstein, Mankiw, and Halstead on this issue. I do not like regulations any more than they do. Democrats have gone the regulatory route largely because Republicans have consistently refused to consider either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, either of which would be more efficient and less intrusive. A carbon tax would reduce America's carbon footprint while at the same time reducing the government's regulatory footprint. Refunding the tax to the American people in the form of equal per capita demogrants (they estimate $2,000 for a family of four) largely solves any regressivity problems. Bravo!
115
THEODORE SETO: You don't sound like a progressive democrat and I doubt that you are one. I don't think it solves regressivity problems by sending $2000 to every family of four, since the rich receive it when they don't need it and the poor need more than $2000 (think lousy schools, lousy supermarkets, lousy infrastructure, long commuting distances, unemployment). Meanwhile, a tax that is the same for everyone is by definition regressive-you pay some amount per ton of CO2, regardless of how rich or poor you are. That is the definition of regressive. A progressive tax would tax less per ton for the bare minimum needed (so the poor, who presumably don't consume the resources necessar to create a big carbon footprint) pay little, and would tax increasingly more per ton over the bare minimum needed (so that overconsuming wealthy would pay a proper penalty for their overconsumption). This is how our income tax was in those halcyon days of the 1950s that Republicans like so much to hearken back to.
1
The shame of the denial that human activities are mainly responsible for the trends in climate is that across the liberal-to-conservative spectrum we could have useful arguments about how to reduce our carbon footprint. This op-ed is a useful step in the right direction -- a small group of self-identified conservatives acknowledging that climate change is a problem that economic activity causes, and a proposal to do something about it.
THEODORE SETO: Republican Richard Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, belying your statement that "democrats have gone the regulatory route . . . ." I agree that modern Republicans' only solution to every problem is reduce taxes and reduce regulation, since their hypnotized constituents do not require any evidence that this would be effective or any specifics as to which regulations cause which unnecessary costs. Actually we have regulations because companies will hurt the public every chance they get to improve their bottom line. Witness the numerous safety violations of virtually every coal company, just to take one example.
This plan would have no significant effect on the climate of the planet. The root cause of all global environmental problems, including any effect of humans on the climate, is overpopulation, but as this article illustrates there is no leadership to address it. As the population increases from 7.4 to some 10 billion carbon-generating human heaters during this century, neither incremental increases in per capita energy efficiency nor any financial schemes in the US such as those proposed in this article will significantly impact our ongoing environmental disaster. Humans have chosen quantity over quality. The inevitable results are toxic environmental pollution, disease including birth defects, warfare, and massive social upheaval.
12
True, overpopulation is the root cause of our environmental and climate problems. Nonetheless, we still need to address carbon emissions, as both the plan presented here does and the Obama regulations. So, let's address emissions and dust off and refresh old ZPG ideas. They are not mutually exclusive. Or, to use a cliche, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
The introduction of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide began before the population of the world began to increase significantly, the problem is the massive use of fossil fuels to power industrial economies. Switching to sources of energy that do not generate huge amounts of carbon gases will eventually reduce the proportion of these gases in the atmosphere. The growing population is a contributing factor problem but reducing the population will not solve the problem at this point. A full collapse of all human civilization probably would send mankind back to burning non-fossil fuels on a massive scale, which would tend to keep the carbon gases proportion of the atmosphere high unless there was mass extinction of humans simultaneously. What happens when complex human societies disintegrate is not reduction of complexity but a loss of functioning in the extreme because nobody knows how live in the world that results for many generations.
How can the root cause be overpopulation when the lion's share of the problem is created by America?
An economically sensible, proposal allowing each consumer or company to choose the best and lowest cost solution. For the liberal, it would redistribute income. The usual anti tax crowd could have little to gripe about if its made revenue neutral. The tax would reach existing buildings and equipment encouraging refurbishing replacing old systems rather than encouraging companies to keep them to avoid new coes. That would create jobs all over the country in construction. It would allow Trum[ to get rid of loads now unneeded regulations.
A great corally provision would be a transferable or refundable tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration. That would unleash american ingenuity. Nor need it be high tech. Using cover crops to keep the soil covered would capture atmospheric CO2, and store it as carbon in the soil. Likewise ranchers can actively store carbon in grasslands. Such a program would be hugely profitable and popular in conservative rural areas.n
A great corally provision would be a transferable or refundable tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration. That would unleash american ingenuity. Nor need it be high tech. Using cover crops to keep the soil covered would capture atmospheric CO2, and store it as carbon in the soil. Likewise ranchers can actively store carbon in grasslands. Such a program would be hugely profitable and popular in conservative rural areas.n
4
Milton Friedman would applaud this initiative and, for me, that would be enough. Friedman only missed the effects of exponential technology by a hair’s breadth, when he did not include Artificial Intelligence in his well-thought out proposal for Negative Income Tax.
With adequate soft-AI already available, a carbon tax can be levied on a micro-transactional level with exquisite precision. Greenies talk about labelling food for its GM content; they smile when their favourite brand of bran displays a “GM Free” stamp, even though they should know that completely segregating commodities would triple the cost of their cereal bars.
The green activists miss the point when they do not insist on carbon-tax labelling, which does not involve physical segregation, but relies instead on statistical application of standards.
Government acting on a micro, individual level? That is Big Brother: how can an entity micro-serve without micro-watching?
The speedy adaptation of taxes to consumption and production patterns is a different story. It means taking the necessary free market decisions out of the hands of speculators and placing them on an automated level, free of political interference.
The benefits of not needing regulations are much understated. When we achieve the urgent aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with a sensible carbon tax, we will have the whole section of the Federal budget now allocated to emissions regulation to distribute to all citizens.
With adequate soft-AI already available, a carbon tax can be levied on a micro-transactional level with exquisite precision. Greenies talk about labelling food for its GM content; they smile when their favourite brand of bran displays a “GM Free” stamp, even though they should know that completely segregating commodities would triple the cost of their cereal bars.
The green activists miss the point when they do not insist on carbon-tax labelling, which does not involve physical segregation, but relies instead on statistical application of standards.
Government acting on a micro, individual level? That is Big Brother: how can an entity micro-serve without micro-watching?
The speedy adaptation of taxes to consumption and production patterns is a different story. It means taking the necessary free market decisions out of the hands of speculators and placing them on an automated level, free of political interference.
The benefits of not needing regulations are much understated. When we achieve the urgent aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions with a sensible carbon tax, we will have the whole section of the Federal budget now allocated to emissions regulation to distribute to all citizens.
Friedman also might have understood that the citizens dividends distributed would be channeled to landlords and other property owners. The reason is simple. The demand side of the housing market would be expanded without an equal response in supply. The same result would occur with a broad increase in the minimum wage. The solution is one that Milton Friedman proposed (quietly, to be sure), which is for government to change the source of public revenue to the economic rent of land. By doing so, the price mechanism would work in land markets much the same as it works in markets for labor and capital goods. The almost universally-low effective rate of taxation on land rents leaves a high net imputed rental income stream to be capitalized into higher and higher land prices. Only a high land rent tax can remove the profit from speculation and shift resources (including that of the utilities) into new technologies, etc.
The sensible proposals advanced by these economists and former government officials confront one major obstacle, not addressed in the piece. This initiative offers nothing to the fossil fuel companies, which will certainly experience a decline in demand for their products. Since these corporations have very deep pockets and contribute generously to the campaigns of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, they will obviously enjoy a seat at the bargaining table.
Perhaps a tax credit that would encourage them to increase their research into the development of alternative fuels might weaken their opposition to a carbon tax. If the plan offers these companies nothing, however, no Republican congress will enact it. That would not be true in a perfect world, but, alas, we live in a society that just elected Donald Trump president.
Perhaps a tax credit that would encourage them to increase their research into the development of alternative fuels might weaken their opposition to a carbon tax. If the plan offers these companies nothing, however, no Republican congress will enact it. That would not be true in a perfect world, but, alas, we live in a society that just elected Donald Trump president.
1
I'm writing this comment when only 5 comments are showing. The prevailing attitude is negative and defeated. We who understand climate change must force ourselves to understand a couple other things: first, unless and until we can bring a significant number of Republicans into the effort, we will pass no legislation to fix it. Second, we do not need all of them; just enough to join with Democrats who are already on board. The statistics on voter attitudes in the article are true. Already there is a bi-partisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House. In 2015 there was the Gibson Resolution, a group of Republicans acknowledging our moral responsibility to act on climate. We, especially those of us with Republican representatives, should be calling those reps to praise this Republican ice breaker crashing into the party's blockade. These leaders have a meeting scheduled today in the White House with Pence, Ivanka, and a bunch of economic advisors. Remember how rapidly things changed on gay issues. This policy can be huge, and we must encourage and reinforce it to Reps, senators, and our local newspapers.
9
Frankly, I think this policy proposal is disingenuous. Its real purpose is to undermine the Clean Power Plan. The carbon tax/dividend idea is a good one, as long as the tax is high enough to change corporate behavior, but it will never be accepted by Congress or Trump.
Too bad Republican dogma and its well heeled enablers are inextricably married to the fossil fuel industry. The true growth opportunities lie in renewable energy projects, and retrofitting existing domestic infrastructure with new energy efficient technology. Human nature tends to avoid the challenges and uncertainties of change, preferring the comforting familiarity of a past seen through rose tinted glasses. It is a crying shame, that, on the threshold of a bright and prosperous future offered by adapting to intelligent change, Americans have chosen instead to cling to an outmoded way of life that will ultimately leave them poorer, and erode the boundless privilege that has been America's birthright.
1
C'mon Reed. Trump will create jobs by having people wash each lump of coal, providing what is comically called "clean coal."
2
The first pillar seems okay. Imposing a gradually increasing tax on CO2 emissions would progressively dissuade users by escalating costs over time.
The second part, though, would cause households to actually want increased emissions so that they would get more dividends. 'So much for reducing emissions.
With the first two pillars combined, there is no net tax effect and behavior would not favorably change (although there might be a modest redistributive effect on income).
The carbon tax revenues would be better spent on something else, like infrastructure or reducing the national debt or clean energy research.
The third pillar is a thinly-disguised protectionist tariff/subsidy scheme that would undoubtedly violate most of our international trade agreements and hurt our economy in several ways, primarily by exacerbating economic inefficiency, raising costs without an offsetting benefit. Not a good idea.
The fourth pillar represents the Climate Leadership Council's true objective for this plan, which is to eliminate many of the regulations that help to control corporate behavior (look at their website, check them out). Those regulations, though, help to constrain the lust for profits that all too often come at the expense of the rest of us. Another bad idea.
I like the idea of a carbon tax; the rest of this article is mere prattle.
The second part, though, would cause households to actually want increased emissions so that they would get more dividends. 'So much for reducing emissions.
With the first two pillars combined, there is no net tax effect and behavior would not favorably change (although there might be a modest redistributive effect on income).
The carbon tax revenues would be better spent on something else, like infrastructure or reducing the national debt or clean energy research.
The third pillar is a thinly-disguised protectionist tariff/subsidy scheme that would undoubtedly violate most of our international trade agreements and hurt our economy in several ways, primarily by exacerbating economic inefficiency, raising costs without an offsetting benefit. Not a good idea.
The fourth pillar represents the Climate Leadership Council's true objective for this plan, which is to eliminate many of the regulations that help to control corporate behavior (look at their website, check them out). Those regulations, though, help to constrain the lust for profits that all too often come at the expense of the rest of us. Another bad idea.
I like the idea of a carbon tax; the rest of this article is mere prattle.
4
This is a welcome and serious proposal from the conservative side of the political divide. And, it mirrors a proposal by climate scientist Jim Hansen, who more than any other scientist, brought the problem to our attention.
However, the authors probably have their work cut out for them in convincing the current administration to adopt such a proposal. Much was made of EPA-nominee Scott Pruitt's admission that the Earth is warming and man may play some role in that, but his view is at least 30 years behind where the scientific community is at: Namely, that the Earth is definitely warming, that essentially all the warming seen over the last half century ago is due to humans and would have been even larger were it not for some offsetting cooling due to emissions of sulfate aerosols (which cannot and will not practically continue to rise in the future without exacerbating pollution problems), and that the projected warming on a business-as-usual path of fossil fuel emissions would cause dramatic and dangerous climate change and must be mitigated in order to avoid these effects.
However, the authors probably have their work cut out for them in convincing the current administration to adopt such a proposal. Much was made of EPA-nominee Scott Pruitt's admission that the Earth is warming and man may play some role in that, but his view is at least 30 years behind where the scientific community is at: Namely, that the Earth is definitely warming, that essentially all the warming seen over the last half century ago is due to humans and would have been even larger were it not for some offsetting cooling due to emissions of sulfate aerosols (which cannot and will not practically continue to rise in the future without exacerbating pollution problems), and that the projected warming on a business-as-usual path of fossil fuel emissions would cause dramatic and dangerous climate change and must be mitigated in order to avoid these effects.
3
I suspect the authors know it, but the idea implied here that the absence of strong legislative action on climate change is the result of an ideological impasse where Democrats favor regulation and Republicans favor “market solutions” is ridiculous. Climate change legislation has been blocked by Republicans’ denial of science, and their almost mystical or religious misinterpretation of basic economics that holds that efficient markets form all by themselves, that market failures - externalities is the relevant category here - essentially do not exist. Both regulation and taxes are instruments governments can use to correct market failures and drive efficiency. A carbon tax would be a terrifically powerful step in the right direction, but we don’t have it because of Republican obstruction, moving of the goalposts, spurious redefinitions of economic concepts, and willingness to sacrifice global and national well-being for short-term political objectives. And so we are left with the regrettably inadequate and reversible actions that the Obama administration managed to implement.
11
The plan is a very interesting one but could probably be improved by using it to pay for infrastructure repair and expansion across all sectors and replacing the federal fuel tax. This would remove a major impediment to the improvement of public transportation. Some of the funds could also be used to mitigate, through environmental recovery programs, the implied subsidies to extractive industry by removing pollution regulations that push the cost of recovery onto the public sector. The redistributive effects are questionable.
However, the main issue would be Republican opposition to the plan.
However, the main issue would be Republican opposition to the plan.
1
Replacing Obama's command-and-control "Clean Power Plan" with a moderate tax on CO2 is a good idea. However, the proposed $40/ton tax is based on much too low a discount rate and the naive assumption that government revenues will be spent with 100% efficiency.
The $40/ton figure is approximately the Obama Administration's estimate of the "Social Cost of Carbon," based on a "mid-range" discount rate of 3.0% per year. Since the up-front costs of a carbon tax are relatively certain, whereas the distant benefits are highly uncertain, it is instead appropriate to use a much higher discount rate. At a 5.0% per year discount rate, the Obama Administration estimated the SSC to be only about $13 per year (in 2017 dollars).
Furthermore, in a recent blog post entitled "The Carbon Tax: Welfare Triangle or Welfare Obelisk?" at http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o... , I show that if government spending is not perfectly inefficient, or if there is already a universal distortionary revenue tax in the economy, any environmental tax should be only a fraction of the estimated social cost of the damage done, and that 50% is a generous estimate of that fraction.
I conclude that a tax of approximately $6.50 per ton would be economically justified at present, conditional on cancellation of the "Clean Power Plan" and other ad-hoc restrictions on CO2 emissions.
The $40/ton figure is approximately the Obama Administration's estimate of the "Social Cost of Carbon," based on a "mid-range" discount rate of 3.0% per year. Since the up-front costs of a carbon tax are relatively certain, whereas the distant benefits are highly uncertain, it is instead appropriate to use a much higher discount rate. At a 5.0% per year discount rate, the Obama Administration estimated the SSC to be only about $13 per year (in 2017 dollars).
Furthermore, in a recent blog post entitled "The Carbon Tax: Welfare Triangle or Welfare Obelisk?" at http://blog.independent.org/2016/08/07/the-carbon-tax-welfare-triangle-o... , I show that if government spending is not perfectly inefficient, or if there is already a universal distortionary revenue tax in the economy, any environmental tax should be only a fraction of the estimated social cost of the damage done, and that 50% is a generous estimate of that fraction.
I conclude that a tax of approximately $6.50 per ton would be economically justified at present, conditional on cancellation of the "Clean Power Plan" and other ad-hoc restrictions on CO2 emissions.
2
HU MCCULLOCH: Your techno-speak boils down to denying that climate change is a clear and present existential threat that we must take seriously and address NOW, contrary to all scientific evidence. It also bafflingly suggests that we don't actually need cleaner air and water which would result from the clean power plan. In fact, we do need cleaner air and water, and everyone in this country wants cleaner air and water, since polluted air and water causes real harm to our health. Your 1984-doublespeak disserves everyone but the wealthy, who expect to be able to pay any price for the clean air and water they plan on buying, while the rest of us suffer.
2
If anything, a $40 social cost of carbon understates the true costs imposed by fossil fuel emissions. From an intra-generational perspective, as argued in the current court cases being adjudicated in Oregon & Washington, the plaintiffs argued that a 3% discount rate increases the likelihood that we will impose the cataclysmic costs of a looming climate catastrophe on future generations. That said, our current ideological polarization & political gridlock may require us to start with a reasonably low carbon tax in the $25 - 40/ton range, and then increase it at 3.5% + the rate of inflation, until it hits $100/ton in real terms.
3
So these four pillars will do the job? Let's examine each one: Pillar 1: $40 per ton tax on CO2 emissions. I assume that tax would be levied on the production or use of a fuel that produces CO2. This would be added to the price of the fuel, wouldn't it? So in addition to a "powerful signal" to polluting organizations the prices of their products would also rise, wouldn't they? Pillar 2: dividends would be returned to the American people via quarterly dividend checks. So the government would in effect become a profit making organization able to pay dividends to Americans? Would those dividends be taxable? Could they be redirected to other uses by the organization responsible for the collection and payment? Which Americans will receive the dividends, based on taxes paid, or equally divided, 300 million ways? Pillar 3: Exporters get CO2 taxes rebated to them? I guess that's because bad air will remain outside our borders, right? Finally, the final pillar the Clean power Act would be revoked. Only if the proposals for the first three pillars have been in place and successfully operating prior to this implementation or would this be done first? So USA becomes a dividend paying entity with a new set of regulations and rules being imposed in order to accomplishing something much more effective and simple. Of course there would be no lobbying involved related to the pillars, how the dividends are paid and measurement of the tons of CO2 introduced , will there?
4
The proposal states explicitly that the dividends are to be equal. And they should be, too. Everyone will pay for this in higher prices. Why should the dividend be bigger for those who can pass the cost of the tax on to their customers?
So what's your plan, Dick M? If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Pricing carbon to make emissions part of the economic equation is the only way to motivate the needed shift from fossil fuel energy to cleaner sources. Without that shift, there is no way for modern societies to effectively minimize climate change in coming decades.
Sure, this proposal would need some fine-tuning. How about suggesting ways to address some of your concerns? The goal is to become a low-carbon society. If that doesn't happen, politicians in the future will face issues such as the forced migration of millions of people, increasing weather disasters and spreading diseases.
Pricing carbon to make emissions part of the economic equation is the only way to motivate the needed shift from fossil fuel energy to cleaner sources. Without that shift, there is no way for modern societies to effectively minimize climate change in coming decades.
Sure, this proposal would need some fine-tuning. How about suggesting ways to address some of your concerns? The goal is to become a low-carbon society. If that doesn't happen, politicians in the future will face issues such as the forced migration of millions of people, increasing weather disasters and spreading diseases.
A very sensible proposal but:
1) Unlikely to be sufficient. Additional regulation in the form of building codes, planning regulations, appliance standards, etc., will be needed. R&D investments and industrial policies to speed new technologies will be needed. Greater international action, preventing deforestation and helping poorer nations will be needed. Even William Nordhaus, for a long time the most persuasive advocate of the virtues of a universal carbon tax, now acknowledges this fact.
2) A clear goal of this and accompanying pieces is to persuade conservatives to support climate change mitigation. Presenting a carbon tax as the "conservative" solution is largely a rhetorical trick. This is a concession of market failure and this Pigovian tax is a tactic to rectify (partially) a market failure. The admission of market failure, particularly one that threatens our civilization, completely undermines the crude free-market fundamentalism that is one of pillars of American conservatism. Is this a unique market failure? Unlikely. Are Pigovian taxes the only or most effective ways to deal with all market failures? Unlikely. Is this proposal going to persuade the considerable majority of American conservatives, who are considerably more dogmatic than the authors? Unlikely.
3) "Pro-growth, pro-competitiveness, and pro-working class" is neither Mr. Trump's stated nor actual agenda.
1) Unlikely to be sufficient. Additional regulation in the form of building codes, planning regulations, appliance standards, etc., will be needed. R&D investments and industrial policies to speed new technologies will be needed. Greater international action, preventing deforestation and helping poorer nations will be needed. Even William Nordhaus, for a long time the most persuasive advocate of the virtues of a universal carbon tax, now acknowledges this fact.
2) A clear goal of this and accompanying pieces is to persuade conservatives to support climate change mitigation. Presenting a carbon tax as the "conservative" solution is largely a rhetorical trick. This is a concession of market failure and this Pigovian tax is a tactic to rectify (partially) a market failure. The admission of market failure, particularly one that threatens our civilization, completely undermines the crude free-market fundamentalism that is one of pillars of American conservatism. Is this a unique market failure? Unlikely. Are Pigovian taxes the only or most effective ways to deal with all market failures? Unlikely. Is this proposal going to persuade the considerable majority of American conservatives, who are considerably more dogmatic than the authors? Unlikely.
3) "Pro-growth, pro-competitiveness, and pro-working class" is neither Mr. Trump's stated nor actual agenda.
4
Yes! You've covered a lot in a short space
The 'border tax' to protect our production is funny considering that Europeans and others have been taxing gasoline very highly (double the price) for a very long time and that goes into their production costs and household costs. They did it for reasons before climate change was an issue, for reasons of congestion, pollution (diesel in particular), and balance of trade. Gas taxes, as opposed to more general carbont taxes, have been proposed here for a long time for many reasons including climate change, but gain no traction in the land of "the open road, individualism, waste precious resources, low prices! etc.". Time to grow up and put the myths away, take some responsibility.
6
The carbon tax and dividend plan proposed is absolutely workable and just as important, absolutely required to address the ongoing "tragedy of the commons" behavior allowed by the fossil fuels industry to discharge their pollution into the atmosphere without cost or consequence. And oh by the way, this plan is almost identical to the market-based plan proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby, a non-partisan grass-roots organization that has elected and gained support from 20 members of Congress, equally split between GOP and Dems. It time, nay its even past time, that US Congress take a stand to support this concept of a carbon fee and dividend approach to provide US and global businesses the push needed to move beyond our current unsustainable model of fossil fuel usage and global atmospheric pollution that will most likely result in rising sea levels and climate changes on a scale previously never seen for our grandchildren and their children.
6
It's cute to say that President Obama and Republicans in Congress did not "see eye to eye" on legislation to combat global warming. That formulation makes it sound like the two parties had a difference of opinion about the legislative solution to the problem, and it implies that both parties share more or less equal blame for failing to enact legislation.
In fact, throughout Obama's presidency, Congressional Republicans refused to accept that global warming exists. When one party refuses to acknowledge a problem, the blame for failing to solve that problem falls squarely on that party.
Now that President Obama is out of office, conservatives who never lifted a finger to help him ameliorate global warming seem to be coming out of the woodwork, and that's fine. That's a good thing.
Just don't pretend that Republicans tried to address the problem while Obama was in office, and that the failure was due to the two sides' inability to "see eye to eye" on the solution.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
In fact, throughout Obama's presidency, Congressional Republicans refused to accept that global warming exists. When one party refuses to acknowledge a problem, the blame for failing to solve that problem falls squarely on that party.
Now that President Obama is out of office, conservatives who never lifted a finger to help him ameliorate global warming seem to be coming out of the woodwork, and that's fine. That's a good thing.
Just don't pretend that Republicans tried to address the problem while Obama was in office, and that the failure was due to the two sides' inability to "see eye to eye" on the solution.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
85
A carbon fee and dividend system is a smart, market-based choice for reducing carbon in the atmosphere. A 2016 report form PEW shows that 51% of those surveyed believe “reductions on power plant carbon emissions” can “make a big difference to address climate change.” Climate change affects all of us, and more importantly, it disproportionately affects those we love most: our children and grandchildren. A study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) from 2013 showed that a carbon fee and dividend system would not only produce lower atmospheric carbon, but also provide a stimulus that would add jobs to our economy. In addition, the impressive growth of California’s economy despite enacting strict environmental protections, including a carbon cap and trade system, proves that markets can remain robust while protecting our health and well-being. Doing nothing – or going backward – has never been the American way. We are leaders. To be “great,” whether again or continuously, America must lead. Let’s put partisan differences aside and join with all of the people who are working tirelessly to create forward-thinking solutions. Let’s be great.
4
Who would decide how much carbon an exported or imported product produced? How would this policy be enforced? Conservatives argue against regulation and enforcement when Democrats propose such policies but here they are proposing the same thing. The only point to giving some fraction of a carbon tax back to citizens as a tax rebate is to make this tax more attractive. Who are the citizens? The companies paying the tax? If carbon polluters share in this rebate, it becomes pointless as an incentive to do the right thing. Why not spend the carbon tax revenues on public infrastructure which reduces the need for energy since energy is one of the largest sources of carbon pollution?
9
Why didn't programs like this get passed in the last eight years and why was Obama forced to try to limit carbon emissions by executive regulations? Because (conservative) Republicans, backed by the huge fossil-fuel interests, were solidly opposed to any real action at all. It is absurd to blame Obama for lack of action. There is no reason to suppose that any kind of constructive action will be taken as long as Republicans hold power.
121
Obama had the bully pulpit. He didn't use it. He could have gone directly to the American people and generated the kind of public support that gets Congress to pay attention. Obama was elected thanks to a well-organized grass-roots movement, backed up by a media in love with what his election was supposed to say about how far the USA had evolved since Jim Crow. His biggest mistake was that once elected he sent his supporters home, so the only echo Congress was hearing was that of the Tea Party. Look how many people are descending in the streets and calling their representatives now that Trump is President. What if Obama had tapped into that energy? It was there all along, he just didn't use it.
It was also the fetish of opposing anything Obama did, to claw back power and because they hated Obama for no particular reason (race?).
It is at best disingenuous to state that Democrats are only interested in "heavy-handed regulation", as I am certain you know. To imply that Democrats are in favor of regulation for regulation's sake is to try to create a false equivalence of blame, which I am sure is your intent. No doubt Obama would have championed such a plan, and no doubt it would have had zero chance with the GOP congress. I expect it still has zero chance, and for the reasons we all know. But given Republican intransigence for eight years, regulation imposed by executive order was a last resort, one that I am glad the president for whom I voted had the courage to implement. You should have had the courage to propose such a plan long ago, but it seems courage is in short supply, replaced by blind ideological fealty.
74
“CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.”
Obviously, Mr. Feldstein prepared this op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, was refused and pitched it more successfully to the Times instead.
The notion of a carbon tax likely has little traction at a national level (as opposed to a state level, where in SOME states that have less concern about taxes generally than others it’s gained SIGNIFICANT traction) since it represents about as regressive a tax as is imaginable: corporations that pay it will pass on costs to their customers, who will be forced to pay it regardless of their basic inability to pay. Gas taxes are the most obvious example.
But most disappointingly, this idea, coming from putative Republicans, perpetuates and intensifies the approach of addressing climate change challenges by doing less, consuming less, rather than by getting on with figuring out how to proactively cleanse our biosphere of unwanted carbon by artificial means … while NOT artificially depressing consumption or endangering economic growth dependent on cheap energy.
Back to the drawing-board, professor.
Obviously, Mr. Feldstein prepared this op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, was refused and pitched it more successfully to the Times instead.
The notion of a carbon tax likely has little traction at a national level (as opposed to a state level, where in SOME states that have less concern about taxes generally than others it’s gained SIGNIFICANT traction) since it represents about as regressive a tax as is imaginable: corporations that pay it will pass on costs to their customers, who will be forced to pay it regardless of their basic inability to pay. Gas taxes are the most obvious example.
But most disappointingly, this idea, coming from putative Republicans, perpetuates and intensifies the approach of addressing climate change challenges by doing less, consuming less, rather than by getting on with figuring out how to proactively cleanse our biosphere of unwanted carbon by artificial means … while NOT artificially depressing consumption or endangering economic growth dependent on cheap energy.
Back to the drawing-board, professor.
3
Many conservatives see nothing but unintended consequences when it comes to helping poor people, but never wonder about the unintended consequences of geoengineering. So, too, they jump on any negative research about Head Start as an excuse for halting attempts to help poor children, but are happy to ignore repeated billion-dollar failures when it comes to carbon capture and sequestration.
And please forgive my skepticism when they object to regressive taxation.
And please forgive my skepticism when they object to regressive taxation.
31
Richard,
You make some valid points, but this isn't the time for perfection to be the enemy of the good. The carbon dividend helps address the regressiveness you cite.
In an ideal universe, we could immediately shift to clean energy sources from fossil fuels that have powered industrial development for well over a century. In reality, that won't happen immediately for a number of reasons, especially the fossil fuel industry's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign against action on climate change.
We have to accept progress in stages, and pricing carbon is the most progressive step that can happen now.
You make some valid points, but this isn't the time for perfection to be the enemy of the good. The carbon dividend helps address the regressiveness you cite.
In an ideal universe, we could immediately shift to clean energy sources from fossil fuels that have powered industrial development for well over a century. In reality, that won't happen immediately for a number of reasons, especially the fossil fuel industry's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign against action on climate change.
We have to accept progress in stages, and pricing carbon is the most progressive step that can happen now.
2
You make some valid points, Richard, but let's not allow perfection to be the enemy of the good.
Pricing carbon to make emissions part of the economic equation is the only way to effectively address climate change in coming decades.
In a perfect universe, we could immediately shift from fossil fuel dependency to clean energy sources. In reality, that won't happen, due in part to the billion-dollar propaganda campaign against climate change by the fossil fuel industry.
By pricing carbon, we can motivate the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. In particular, a carbon tax would stimulate innovation and investment in clean energy technology.
The regressiveness of a carbon tax is eased by the carbon dividend.
This proposal is a tool to create incentive for governments, business and consumers to reduce their carbon footprint and invest in technology needed for a low-carbon future.
Pricing carbon to make emissions part of the economic equation is the only way to effectively address climate change in coming decades.
In a perfect universe, we could immediately shift from fossil fuel dependency to clean energy sources. In reality, that won't happen, due in part to the billion-dollar propaganda campaign against climate change by the fossil fuel industry.
By pricing carbon, we can motivate the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. In particular, a carbon tax would stimulate innovation and investment in clean energy technology.
The regressiveness of a carbon tax is eased by the carbon dividend.
This proposal is a tool to create incentive for governments, business and consumers to reduce their carbon footprint and invest in technology needed for a low-carbon future.
Where were these people for the last eight years?
282
They were waiting for a Republican president. Obama could have proposed this exact plan, and there would not have been one Republican member of Congress that would have supported it. Any legislation on climate change will have to come from a Republican president. I know many environmentalists that have said this for decades, because no Republican will vote for climate change legislation pushed by a Democratic president (they don't want to give a Democrat any kind of legacy - in my opinion, it's one of the largest problems in our government). Democrats on the other hand, don't have the same issues voting for legislation they believe is good, just because it came from the other side of the aisle.
I also love how these guys get in their shots at Obama and the Democrats. As if Republicans have any high ground to stand on when it comes to climate change. They know full well the only reason legislation wasn't passed, and therefore Obama had to resort to executive orders (which everyone can agree is not an efficient way to address the problem) is because of complete Republican opposition - because he was a Democrat.
I also love how these guys get in their shots at Obama and the Democrats. As if Republicans have any high ground to stand on when it comes to climate change. They know full well the only reason legislation wasn't passed, and therefore Obama had to resort to executive orders (which everyone can agree is not an efficient way to address the problem) is because of complete Republican opposition - because he was a Democrat.
2
They were working at Exxon Mobil and related places, or cloistered. The truth is that this could have been done a decade ago but (like incremental improvements to Social Security) the politics of no-compromise kept this closeted to avoid "giving Obama a victory". In this way, like it took "Nixon to go to China" it takes a populist no-nothing to let the Republicans and their extractive corporate allies to come clean. I am thrilled by this, a glimmer of hope in a dark year of disappointment and dread.
1
Citizens' Climate Lobby has hundreds of chapters and thousands of citizen volunteer lobbyists who have been working to build political will to adopt this plan for seven years now. The goal has always been to provide a climate solution acceptable to conservatives and liberals.
Apparently the time has come.
Apparently the time has come.
Wow! This seems like a great plan. Too bad the GOP is only interested in rolling everything back instead of moving good ideas forward. The only thing they seem interested in is pay back... see HR 861 to abolish the EPA. Who knew I would be wasting my time trying to protect Nixon legislation. What I want to see next from these respected contributors is the tactics they will use to sneak it into the Ryan agenda. Too bad they already made the mistake of submitting what the Republican president considers a fake news site. Infowars or breitbart would have been the place to start. I have zero faith in the GOPs ability to listen to reason.
7
Forty per ton isn't enough. Better, carbon pricing should start out at 120. That way, your family would get back 6,000$ per year. Since Carbon appears in Methane (CH4) as well, it should also be taxed, but at a higher rate based on its greater global warming effects. Carbon also appears in chlorofluoroCarbons which are also potent greenhouse gasses, and so on.
Republicans have a chance to lead. Carbon pricing is needed so that capitalism can address global warming on its own. Ok, let's see you deliver.
Republicans have a chance to lead. Carbon pricing is needed so that capitalism can address global warming on its own. Ok, let's see you deliver.
12
There's a similar Op-Ed in The Journal, penned by James Baker and George Schultz. This is all fine and dandy, but … Republican voters have been told by their talk radio Thought Masters that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax invented by the world's climatologists, assorted Chinese communists, and Al Gore.
That they've been misled, at best, and flat-out lied to, at worst, might upset them a hair, no? How are you going to explain this to Limbaugh? Doing away with growth- and efficiency-impeding regulations and enacting a simple plan such as this seems like a gem of an idea. But I want to see the GOP get behind it. To say that I'm skeptical is the understatement of the year.
But if by the grace of the good God in Heaven above they do, hey, that'll be swell. "If a fact inconveniences my political philosophy, deny the fact" seems to be the current modus operandi—and this is about as true of liberals as it is of conservatives.
That they've been misled, at best, and flat-out lied to, at worst, might upset them a hair, no? How are you going to explain this to Limbaugh? Doing away with growth- and efficiency-impeding regulations and enacting a simple plan such as this seems like a gem of an idea. But I want to see the GOP get behind it. To say that I'm skeptical is the understatement of the year.
But if by the grace of the good God in Heaven above they do, hey, that'll be swell. "If a fact inconveniences my political philosophy, deny the fact" seems to be the current modus operandi—and this is about as true of liberals as it is of conservatives.
7
If progressives open their hearts and minds to their fellow citizens, rather than belittle and demean them, it is quite possible that this can happen. How about a bipartisan march, rather than snarky comments?
1
The column beautifully ignores something, not sure what maybe, that it once again fails to sell me on tax credits for carbon reduction, or are those jobs that boil down to throwing stones over a fence and then throwing them back again (Thoreau)) truly necessary?.
Having read the column including the qualifications of the people proposing this idea and then having checked the credentials of the authors of this specific column (at the end), I wish the best of luck to the proponents. And I ask what makes any of them think that the administration or Congress has displayed any inclination to deal with this problem. Just exactly who is it that is expected to embrace a new idea for Climate Action (whether you call it "Conservative" in the title of the column or not)? Trump? Bannon? Perry? Science deniers in Congress? Tea Partiers? Representatives from coal mining states? Maybe the idea of giving money to citizens is the spoonful of political sugar but it begs the question of why all the deficit hawks seem suddenly grounded now that a Republican resides in the White House (or at least visits regularly).
23
President Trump is not an ideologue. He will reach for legislation that has broad public support and few enemies. This is such a case. We just need to build political will for a livable world and this will be a truly possible reprieve from environmental catastrophe.
If we put as much effort into addressing climate change as we did in going to the moon the issue would already be solved. The space race created jobs, new technologies were developed, higher education was very affordable, we reduced the deficit, and of course we beat the Russians. Sounds logical, we just need a visionary like JFK to make it possible.
10
Actually, we need to get Republicans out of the way to make it happen.
Good plan, but no need to tar Democrats with the brush of disappointment over a solution with no burdensome regulation. At least you might equally insult Congressional Republicans by pointing out you'd be denying them the opportunity to oppose any action for the sake of opposing it. You think Pres. Obama doesn't know any economists? Does the name Waxman-Markey ring a bell?
13
A good idea destined to a special file Trump has for good ideas.
17
In fact this very sensible approach would have been applauded by President Obama also, had the Republicans not been hell bent to deny not only climate change but also any vote that might be construed as a "victory" for the President. To say that he and Congress "did not see eye to eye" is to obfuscate the nature of the disagreement in which one side, the President, would have gladly signed this bill and the other side would never have allowed it to see the light of day.
210
I don't have a grasp of the scale you're proposing. Is $40 per ton enough to make industrial polluters want to reduce their emissions, or will they just consider it a cost of doing business and continue polluting? What will the average company be taxed each year?
7
To translate this into terms that most people can see immediately --
At $40/Metric Ton CO2 this tax would add between 45 and 70 cents/gallon of gasoline, a bit more than that per gallon of diesel or heating fuel, depending on where the fuel came from. (The higher number from sources like the Athabascan Tar sands -- this tax would kill exports of that Canadian crude to the USA.)
This tax would add about 4 cents/kwh for coal-fired electricity, about half that for natural-gas fired electricity.
These taxes are added to the cost of the fossil-fuels as they are produced -- just as taxes on fuels are collected today.
The whole point of such a tax is that it is "a cost of business" or a "cost of life," but it is one that everyone can reduce by using less fossil fuel. Insulate your house better, drive less, or invest in higher-efficiency vehicles, go electric (far higher efficiency and increasingly not from fossil fuels), put solar cells on your roof, etc.
At $40/Metric Ton CO2 this tax would add between 45 and 70 cents/gallon of gasoline, a bit more than that per gallon of diesel or heating fuel, depending on where the fuel came from. (The higher number from sources like the Athabascan Tar sands -- this tax would kill exports of that Canadian crude to the USA.)
This tax would add about 4 cents/kwh for coal-fired electricity, about half that for natural-gas fired electricity.
These taxes are added to the cost of the fossil-fuels as they are produced -- just as taxes on fuels are collected today.
The whole point of such a tax is that it is "a cost of business" or a "cost of life," but it is one that everyone can reduce by using less fossil fuel. Insulate your house better, drive less, or invest in higher-efficiency vehicles, go electric (far higher efficiency and increasingly not from fossil fuels), put solar cells on your roof, etc.
2
The $40 per ton rate goes up in steps, perhaps by $20 per ton per year ($60 the 2nd year, $80 the 3rd, etc). It is expected to be passed on to consumers who also get equal dividends from the collected taxes. (If I use lots of gasoline, my dividend won't cover all of it. If you use only a little, you keep the change.) Corporations get to see something of the future (basic oil prices will still fluctuate) and can plan their production accordingly.
Could this (finally) be the start of an honest bipartisan conversation on this subject, and an acknowledgment of the fact that the true cost of society's carbon addiction has been ignored for over a century? I hope so.
29
Naaaaahhhh!
The authors of this op/ed and their co-authors of the plan outlined here miss the obvious; the Republican Party that they once represented no longer exists. Facts, truth, and rational approaches to problems solving no longer hold sway in the "burn it down/tear it down" caucus the GOP has become. Finally, since the plan is longer than 140 characters and it's not likely to be on the "Morning Joe, " the chances that the current occupant of the White House even hears about it are slim.
44
Well, let's wait and see. If Trump and the Congress ignore this also, then there is no choice but to Resist effectively.
The time for nitpicking about who gets credit is passed. at this point anyone who doesn't see the need to preserve the environment is blind, or critically shortsighted. Innovative ideas coupled with frameworks to put them in place quickly and effectively are welcome.
38
Precisely. Who cares about credit, address the problem.
1
Or is corrupted by fossil fuel donations
Calling anything "repeal and replace" is dooming it to stand in line behind the losing GOP efforts to come up with a thoughtful healthcare plan.
There will be very little effective legislation coming out of the most chaotic congress in history, especially on a "Chinese hoax" such as climate change.
There will be very little effective legislation coming out of the most chaotic congress in history, especially on a "Chinese hoax" such as climate change.
6
Never worked before what makes them think it will this time?
Nothing like this has never been done in the US. We have a more complicated system (that works pretty well but is complicated) that includes tax incentives, at-source regulation such as CAFE standards, and state incentives and rebates. This choice offers a more comprehensive and less complicated system, and yet preserves individual choices. By that I mean if you really really must have a 1985 pickup getting 7 MPG or want to buy a brand new 2027 pickup with 7 MPG, you can. You just have to pay your fair share of the damage, offset by the dividend we all receive.
2
Two comments.
The authors appear to be mostly from former Republican administrations. Would have had more credibility if some Democrats from former administrations were involved and named. And a scientist or two for additional credibility.
The article did not address “why” your Carbon Tax Plan is an improvement over the Clean Power Plan.
The authors appear to be mostly from former Republican administrations. Would have had more credibility if some Democrats from former administrations were involved and named. And a scientist or two for additional credibility.
The article did not address “why” your Carbon Tax Plan is an improvement over the Clean Power Plan.
13
I am a Democrat and a working scientist who spent most of my career on climate physics (I now do research hurricanes). Every scientist I know would support this plan, and in fact its details are identical to what many of us have put forward, including Dr. James Hansen (retired from NASA-GISS).
This plan is superior to the CPP, and the architects of the CPP will admit so instantly-- the only reason it was not put forward by Democratic administration is the perception it could not be passed (and it would need to be passed through Congress).
This plan is better because it is broad-based plan, affecting all sources of CO2, and because it uses the market, rather that regulatory control. It is well established in economics that the market will be more efficient.
Particularly noteworthy is that this plan is revenue neutral, and reasonably progressive, because the proceeds are returned per capita.
This plan is superior to the CPP, and the architects of the CPP will admit so instantly-- the only reason it was not put forward by Democratic administration is the perception it could not be passed (and it would need to be passed through Congress).
This plan is better because it is broad-based plan, affecting all sources of CO2, and because it uses the market, rather that regulatory control. It is well established in economics that the market will be more efficient.
Particularly noteworthy is that this plan is revenue neutral, and reasonably progressive, because the proceeds are returned per capita.
1
The Clean Power Plan is aimed at specific infrastructure, where this plan is a much broader and comprehensive measure. The economics of electricity would change, with companies with high carbon generation collecting a higher tax than those offering cleaner sources. The invisible hand takes over from there. The inefficient plants would phase out as soon as they became uncompetitive. The price of electricity generation using sustainable sources is close already due to technology improvements; this would settle the issue without further regulation.
Climate scientist James Hansen proposed this sort of carbon fee and dividend plan at least 8 years ago in his book "Storms of my Grandchildren." The idea has been promoted by the Citizen's Climate Lobby since then. The fee raises the price of carbon so that market forces will limit its emissions. The dividend makes it revenue-neutral so that most consumers will enjoy a net benefit based on the higher fees paid by heavy consumers. Simulations have shown it to be more effective in lowering emissions than proposals based on setting limits.
I'm always amazed when Republicans strut ideas.
Republicans ran Congress for the last 6 years without one meaningful piece of legislation to show for it. Instead the House voted to repeal ACA over 50 times. Where are we on that?
What happened to Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" campaign? And O'Connell hasn't had an original idea yet. Wait, take that back - he silenced a senator for her use of the 1st Amendment. That may be a first.
I'm not opposed to this carbon tax. Or an overhaul of the tax system. Is the, impotent "do nothing" Congress?
Gentlemen, where is your chutzpah? Call your congressional colleagues on the mat and personally put them on the hot seat instead of writing columns for newspapers.
Republicans ran Congress for the last 6 years without one meaningful piece of legislation to show for it. Instead the House voted to repeal ACA over 50 times. Where are we on that?
What happened to Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" campaign? And O'Connell hasn't had an original idea yet. Wait, take that back - he silenced a senator for her use of the 1st Amendment. That may be a first.
I'm not opposed to this carbon tax. Or an overhaul of the tax system. Is the, impotent "do nothing" Congress?
Gentlemen, where is your chutzpah? Call your congressional colleagues on the mat and personally put them on the hot seat instead of writing columns for newspapers.
67
Give McConnell his due. He also stole a seat on the Supreme Court, and the nominee, Gorsuch, will always have an asterisk next to his name that says:
*Seat stolen by Republicans in 2016 when they refused to due their Constitutional duty.
*Seat stolen by Republicans in 2016 when they refused to due their Constitutional duty.
Kinda like a dog walking on its hind legs, isn't it?
This is a very good, market based idea - which is why the Republicans will never do it.
In spite of their rhetoric, Republicans are mostly concerned about protecting crony capitalism and the incomes of their rich donors.
Actually doing someting which would help the environment, make the economy more efficient, and reduce inequality - heaven forbid!
In spite of their rhetoric, Republicans are mostly concerned about protecting crony capitalism and the incomes of their rich donors.
Actually doing someting which would help the environment, make the economy more efficient, and reduce inequality - heaven forbid!
165
Re-distributive socialism coming from conservative luminaries. Interesting.
8
History has shown (and our last election is part of that) that where the welfare of every person is ignored long enough, social upheaval and simmering resentments undergird societies. Eventually anger erupts and bloodshed is the result. Redistribution in one way or another is the way that social justice percolates through societies. Ignore that and millions suffer so that .01% can live in ridiculous luxury. That is the bare fact of history and every war reveals its truth.
2
Clack: whatever you call it, it works in civilized societies.
2
A carbon tax is a nose in the tent of a deadly camel that would suck out life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It sounds like one part climate hoax, one part massive tax, one part massive redistribution of wealth. I expect this from the Sanders/Warren Democrats not the out of touch Bush Establishment Republicans. Dead on arrival with Trump thank goodness.
4
The physics and science of AGW have been clear for over a century to anyone who takes the trouble to understand them -- if you don't, you would be better off listening to those who have made understanding our climate their life's work. There is no "climate hoax" other than the disinformation spread by fossil fuel interests since about 1995, when they realized that the necessary corrective actions might cut into their profits. Even formerly skeptical economists such as William Nordhaus now agree that the hidden costs of carbon emissions needs to be paid for up front rather than let our common atmosphere continue to serve as a sewer for fossil fuel emissions.
1
I'd like to see your analysis of how this would "suck out life, liberty" etc. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not a "massive redistribution of wealth" but more like a fair apportioning of the costs inflicted on the general public by a small group of people who are unaware, for example, that hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Americans are sick or dying because of there has been no formal cost recognition applying to carbon pollution.
Check out this link from MIT which discusses how healthcare costs are affected, with an improvement to cost ration exceeding 10X: http://news.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824
Check out this link from MIT which discusses how healthcare costs are affected, with an improvement to cost ration exceeding 10X: http://news.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824
1
This is the climate change equivalent of Nixon going to China! For a carbon tax proposal to come from distinguished Republicans is an earth shattering event. Oh, my God, it even makes sense! A carbon tax in not a panacea, but it is the core element in any meaningful way to change climate policy for the good of humanity. Please, environmentalists, hold back from pushing you own pet methodologies or nitpicking the elements of this proposal and get behind the push for a carbon tax.
40
This isn't exactly a tax, it is a carbon-based income redirection scheme. The idea is to rebate the tax to the least efficient energy consumers.
Good, they have moved on to the bargaining stage. We're making progress, but I don't think they have confronted reality yet.
12
Wait and see how this is received by the Kochs, Pruitt, erc.
The plan looks like a good one. We can always hope that Republicans will stop their anti-science crusade and enact these kinds of sensible solutions that are based on good science and good economics.
Cough. Of course, they won't. But, we very much appreciate the efforts of the authors of this report.
As soon as you use the word 'tax,' even one that will return $2000 a year to families, you will see crazy partisans howling from the rafters.
Also, I'm growing a bit tired of the criticism that Obama didn't try to enact environmental legislation and just used executive orders. The Republicans shut everything down, so Obama took the paths available. If you want to know who is killing our planet (and thus ourselves), look at the so-called conservatives in the Congress.
That said, you are correct that the time is now.
Cough. Of course, they won't. But, we very much appreciate the efforts of the authors of this report.
As soon as you use the word 'tax,' even one that will return $2000 a year to families, you will see crazy partisans howling from the rafters.
Also, I'm growing a bit tired of the criticism that Obama didn't try to enact environmental legislation and just used executive orders. The Republicans shut everything down, so Obama took the paths available. If you want to know who is killing our planet (and thus ourselves), look at the so-called conservatives in the Congress.
That said, you are correct that the time is now.
307
Regarding your point about the term "Carbon Tax", I suggest the NYT style guide call for referring to this for what it is -- Carbon Tax and Dividend.
It doesn't work without the dividend.
It doesn't work without the dividend.
How about instead you say "This is a good policy. I will support it. I will make it known it comes from republicans, but it fits my morals and achieves what I want, and so I, a Democrat support it. I hope we can work together to get this passed."
Instead you say "good idea, but you idiots are too hide bound to do anything about it."
That isn't helpful.
Instead you say "good idea, but you idiots are too hide bound to do anything about it."
That isn't helpful.
I can't speak for all Republicans or conservatives because I'm a moderate.
I have never had a discussion on the merits of the science that ended with the proponent actually telling me WHY my concerns were not valid. I was just told thst they are invalid, that the reasons are beyond my comprehension, and that I should leave the science to scientists.
I have an electrical engineering degree with a concentration in control theory, focused on the same maths, and even the same software used by climate scientists to form climate models. I took more math in my degree plan that anyone but a pure physicist, and I graduated from a school that gets the same ABET accreditation as MIT, Cal Tech, and the other great American universities. I have seen the degree plans for geologists and other scientists in the field all the way through the PhD level, and I have more math under my belt than almost all of them.
For any other scientific discipline, I am considered more than qualified to give an objective peer review. And I'm treated like a pleeb by climate scientists.
AGW alarmism is a religion, not a science.
signed,
a heretic
I have never had a discussion on the merits of the science that ended with the proponent actually telling me WHY my concerns were not valid. I was just told thst they are invalid, that the reasons are beyond my comprehension, and that I should leave the science to scientists.
I have an electrical engineering degree with a concentration in control theory, focused on the same maths, and even the same software used by climate scientists to form climate models. I took more math in my degree plan that anyone but a pure physicist, and I graduated from a school that gets the same ABET accreditation as MIT, Cal Tech, and the other great American universities. I have seen the degree plans for geologists and other scientists in the field all the way through the PhD level, and I have more math under my belt than almost all of them.
For any other scientific discipline, I am considered more than qualified to give an objective peer review. And I'm treated like a pleeb by climate scientists.
AGW alarmism is a religion, not a science.
signed,
a heretic
Conservatism has no role to play in whether climate change by fossil fuels is fact or not. It is a political philosophy and its only role should be in determining how to address it politically. Denying climate change merely serves the interest of the fossil fuel industry over humanity's and bespeaks its total philosophical bankruptcy. The carbon tax is a good idea.
51
Belief in magic requires that no direct cause and effect be evident in an action intended to produce a result.
Quite simply those that supported Trump over Hillary are more worried about illegal immigration, the anti-white, anti-Christian attitudes and the intolerance of progressives for anyone who does not walk lockstep with the radical social experiment of the past 8 years. We see the climate as something that is eternally changing and that is even more enforced with the recent coming to light of documents showing how the Obama administration skewed numbers to make the problem appear more critical than it was.
5
Of course climate is eternally changing. No climate scientist denies that and in fact, that is what detailed study of the geologic record tells us. It also tells us that CO2 is a primary driver of climate change and that we, as in humanity, have increased CO2 into the atmosphere in the last two centuries at rates 30 times faster than any geologic process known in the past million years.
The geologic record also tells us what happens when CO2 rises at even a 10th the rate of what is going on now. Sea level rises, and weather patterns shift.
It is folly to think we cannot influence the atmosphere, because that is exactly what we have done.
The issue here is that the science has been politicized by the industries that stood to lose the most if we moved to a post-fossil fuel economy. What has been documented is that companies like Exxon knew as far back as the 1970s what CO2 was going to do to the atmosphere, yet they went ahead and used the tobacco playbook to delay, delay, delay.
That tactic worked spectacularly, as your comment illustrates.
The geologic record also tells us what happens when CO2 rises at even a 10th the rate of what is going on now. Sea level rises, and weather patterns shift.
It is folly to think we cannot influence the atmosphere, because that is exactly what we have done.
The issue here is that the science has been politicized by the industries that stood to lose the most if we moved to a post-fossil fuel economy. What has been documented is that companies like Exxon knew as far back as the 1970s what CO2 was going to do to the atmosphere, yet they went ahead and used the tobacco playbook to delay, delay, delay.
That tactic worked spectacularly, as your comment illustrates.
2
You really do need to get past this. The situation is every bit as bad as 99% of the scientists say. It has nothing to do with a social agenda. It's extremely difficult to explain the sequence of acidification of the oceans, record land surface and ocean heat year after year, record low Arctic sea ice and huge fractures in the Anarctic ice shelf. Leave President Obama out of this -- it's not a political issue.
2
When you say "we see the climate..." science is not an ideological or political matter -- except to those who reject science, and that is what you are doing.
Please be specific; what "documents showing ..?"
Please be specific; what "documents showing ..?"
1
Nice try.
"Finally, regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax would be eliminated, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan."
"Finally, regulations made unnecessary by the carbon tax would be eliminated, including an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan."
4
Sounds wonderful. As you say, environmentalists and populists should love it. It is vital that we take effective action on climate change.
I understand that both liberals and conservatives consider emissions taxes to be the preferred solution to the problem from an economics perspective.
I suppose we're about to find out whether this is indeed a unique political moment, enough so that your plan can overcome reflexive GOP opposition to any tax increase.
I hope there's a well-conceived public relations and lobbying effort just about ready to go in support of your plan.
I understand that both liberals and conservatives consider emissions taxes to be the preferred solution to the problem from an economics perspective.
I suppose we're about to find out whether this is indeed a unique political moment, enough so that your plan can overcome reflexive GOP opposition to any tax increase.
I hope there's a well-conceived public relations and lobbying effort just about ready to go in support of your plan.
2
Trump and Republicans before him have called for reductions in government regulations and mandates. They say that reductions in government regulations and mandates will increase economic activity. Most would consider an increase economic activity to be inflationary. However, to the extent that government regulations and mandates increase costs, reducing those costs is deflationary. Additionally, one entity's higher costs imposed by government regulations and mandates, is spending that is another person's income.
An example would be Trump and Republicans' promise to stop the war on coal. Armstrong Coal had their earnings conference call the day after the election. The President of Armstrong Coal was giddy and said he could not decide who he was happier to see go, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency or the head of occupational safety regulation at the Department of Labor. Both of whom he considered as nemeses to the coal industry. He also said that he had been in contact with some of Armstrong Coal's major customers, electric power utilities, which shared his views.
If coal is the least expensive way to generate electricity, but environmental regulations and mandates force utilities to use other more expensive sources, then eliminating those regulations and mandates reduces power costs and is deflationary. Likewise, if environmental regulations and mandates force coal miners and/or utilities to spend money on additional..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4025083
An example would be Trump and Republicans' promise to stop the war on coal. Armstrong Coal had their earnings conference call the day after the election. The President of Armstrong Coal was giddy and said he could not decide who he was happier to see go, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency or the head of occupational safety regulation at the Department of Labor. Both of whom he considered as nemeses to the coal industry. He also said that he had been in contact with some of Armstrong Coal's major customers, electric power utilities, which shared his views.
If coal is the least expensive way to generate electricity, but environmental regulations and mandates force utilities to use other more expensive sources, then eliminating those regulations and mandates reduces power costs and is deflationary. Likewise, if environmental regulations and mandates force coal miners and/or utilities to spend money on additional..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4025083
Reality has already asserted itself on the USA coal industry -- it's dead as far as domestic consumption is concerned, and eastern coal is deader than that -- costs too high to be competitive on the world market for coal.
Western coal may survive a bit longer, but only by export, if they can export, and it is not in our national interest to do so (the damage from their CO2 exceeds the benefit we get from it).
Natural gas, wind-power and increasingly solar power have killed coal -- the first two are cheaper right now, and solar is getting very close.
The $40/MTCO2e of this proposed tax adds about 4 c/kwh to the wholesale cost of coal-fired electric power. That is a "killing" penalty for electricity, given the alternatives.
Western coal may survive a bit longer, but only by export, if they can export, and it is not in our national interest to do so (the damage from their CO2 exceeds the benefit we get from it).
Natural gas, wind-power and increasingly solar power have killed coal -- the first two are cheaper right now, and solar is getting very close.
The $40/MTCO2e of this proposed tax adds about 4 c/kwh to the wholesale cost of coal-fired electric power. That is a "killing" penalty for electricity, given the alternatives.
2
Look fellas, your plan would only work if the republican party had not been already captured by an alliance of ideologues and industry lobbyists who don't care at all about climate change. In their view climate change is inevitable so they might as well make as much money now while they still can.
I find it ironic that right-wing economists consistently suggest taxes as the means to achieve policy goals. Yes, in theory, taxing externalities and simultaneously eliminating regulations is the most efficient way to deal with those externalties. In the real world, these schemes do not work because of lobbying and tax avoidance by businesses to get out of actually having to pay anything. These businesses and the wealthy interests that control them are steadfastly opposed to any form of taxation. They have been on a crusade against the idea of tax for decades now. The real world effect of your proposal would be elimination of regulations + no tax of any kind, which would be completely worthless. They would first eliminate the regulations and then the lobbyists would stall or neuter any tax and we, the affected non-responsible parties would not only bear the burden of paying to fix their mess, we also wouldn't have any legal basis for punishing them for causing it. Yeah, real brilliant.
I find it ironic that right-wing economists consistently suggest taxes as the means to achieve policy goals. Yes, in theory, taxing externalities and simultaneously eliminating regulations is the most efficient way to deal with those externalties. In the real world, these schemes do not work because of lobbying and tax avoidance by businesses to get out of actually having to pay anything. These businesses and the wealthy interests that control them are steadfastly opposed to any form of taxation. They have been on a crusade against the idea of tax for decades now. The real world effect of your proposal would be elimination of regulations + no tax of any kind, which would be completely worthless. They would first eliminate the regulations and then the lobbyists would stall or neuter any tax and we, the affected non-responsible parties would not only bear the burden of paying to fix their mess, we also wouldn't have any legal basis for punishing them for causing it. Yeah, real brilliant.
6
As a liberal-leaning climate change concerned person, I think that such a plan is a valid basis to discuss and possibly come to a shared action plan. In fact, I would not be surprised if this plan was harder to sell to conservatives than liberals.
The authors should make their analysis public so that it is possible to verify that the stated objectives can be reached. This is essential to create a consensus. A possible sticking point might concern the rules that need to be put in place to insure compliance. With respect to individual conducts, conservatives tend to support law enforcement (liberals also support law enforcement but this is besides the point here). They understand that fines and police have a role to play to make sure that people stop at red lights (to take a non-controversial example). On the other hand, conservatives often (sometimes ?) consider that industries should be left to self-regulate without oversight, even in light of contrary evidence (e.g. see how finance industry behaved in the housing bubble or how products are less safe in countries where rules and controls are less present). A fair playing field (and functioning market) can exist only if there is an arbiter that enforces the rule. I think that many EPA rules simply plays this role but there is certainly room for discussion. Carbon pricing is certainly an alternative to other taxes or regulations if done in good faith.
The authors should make their analysis public so that it is possible to verify that the stated objectives can be reached. This is essential to create a consensus. A possible sticking point might concern the rules that need to be put in place to insure compliance. With respect to individual conducts, conservatives tend to support law enforcement (liberals also support law enforcement but this is besides the point here). They understand that fines and police have a role to play to make sure that people stop at red lights (to take a non-controversial example). On the other hand, conservatives often (sometimes ?) consider that industries should be left to self-regulate without oversight, even in light of contrary evidence (e.g. see how finance industry behaved in the housing bubble or how products are less safe in countries where rules and controls are less present). A fair playing field (and functioning market) can exist only if there is an arbiter that enforces the rule. I think that many EPA rules simply plays this role but there is certainly room for discussion. Carbon pricing is certainly an alternative to other taxes or regulations if done in good faith.
5
A carbon tax of $40 a ton would increase the cost of a gallon of gas by about 40 cents. Estimating that a typical rural family uses 1000 gallons of gas to employ and provide services for themselves (my family uses at least 1500 gallons), this tax would cost a rural family $4000 even before the carbon tax from their other energy needs kicked in. The rebate offered by this proposal is only $2000 for a family of four. Clearly it favors an urban over a rural life style; particularly galling insofar as the environment that rural people support is already a carbon sink that dwarfs their energy use.
5
A victim of math in the age of Devos, and she hasn't been on the job even a day! (1000 x $0.40 = $400. 1500 x $0.40 = $600.)
But Mark does get one of the problems with the proposal: All the taxes will be passed onto the consumer via almost every product sold. I suppose the idea is to crush carbon inefficient businesses in the market place, but that would require a regulatory regime to insure enterprises report their carbon usage accurately.
The major problem is political and I would take the proposal seriously and raise more questions about its particulars if those signing onto it included Republican members of Congressional leadership like Sen. McConnell and Rep. Ryan.
A majority of the current Republican Congress is beholden to the fossil fuel industry, mostly Big Oil companies and their suppliers. I do not expect them to bite the hand that feeds them.
But Mark does get one of the problems with the proposal: All the taxes will be passed onto the consumer via almost every product sold. I suppose the idea is to crush carbon inefficient businesses in the market place, but that would require a regulatory regime to insure enterprises report their carbon usage accurately.
The major problem is political and I would take the proposal seriously and raise more questions about its particulars if those signing onto it included Republican members of Congressional leadership like Sen. McConnell and Rep. Ryan.
A majority of the current Republican Congress is beholden to the fossil fuel industry, mostly Big Oil companies and their suppliers. I do not expect them to bite the hand that feeds them.
5
The authors draw, without acknowledgement, on James Hansen's "carbon fee and dividend" proposal (www.citizensclimatelobby.org). While lower-income consumers spend *proportionately* more of their income on energy, higher-income consumers use more energy in total. Under Hansen's proposal everyone receives the same dividend, so those who use more fossil fuel than the national average would pay those who use less. Mr. Dunau's rural family of four would gain more than they lost, while everyone would have extra incentive to reduce their fossil fuel use.
Anthropogenic global warming is a cost of "cheap" fossil fuels that hasn't been included in the prices consumers pay for a gallon of gasoline or a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a coal-fired power plant, but everyone pays for it one way or another. The goal of a carbon tax is to "internalize" AGW's costs in the price of fossil fuels, making alternative energy more price-competitive. Market forces would then drive the expansion of alternative energy supplies and infrastructure, in turn driving down the price.
AGW is already costing the US economy billions of dollars annually, and that's expected to rise rapidly along with global temperatures, and the sooner we switch to a carbon-neutral economy, the lower the final bill will be. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, along with a border tax adjustment on imported goods, accomplishes the goal at the lowest total cost to America. For more information see www.carbontax.org.
Anthropogenic global warming is a cost of "cheap" fossil fuels that hasn't been included in the prices consumers pay for a gallon of gasoline or a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a coal-fired power plant, but everyone pays for it one way or another. The goal of a carbon tax is to "internalize" AGW's costs in the price of fossil fuels, making alternative energy more price-competitive. Market forces would then drive the expansion of alternative energy supplies and infrastructure, in turn driving down the price.
AGW is already costing the US economy billions of dollars annually, and that's expected to rise rapidly along with global temperatures, and the sooner we switch to a carbon-neutral economy, the lower the final bill will be. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, along with a border tax adjustment on imported goods, accomplishes the goal at the lowest total cost to America. For more information see www.carbontax.org.
4
Higher petroleum costs could also lead to more vibrant local services being available. Maybe we wouldn't have to drive so far to get groceries or a drug store because our small towns would be revitalized. Could higher priced gas lead to the death of Walmart? But I think it would be great if there were heftier financial incentive to switch to alternative fuels: rural areas can more easily support self-generated alternative power. Solarize sullivan!
A revenue neutral carbon tax is an excellent amd viable option for finally adressing carbon emssions with policy. However, a few questions that I will look for in the policy paper upon release. First, we have reached a point where concrete emissions reductuons targets are a necessity, and round-about paths to emissions such as a carbon tax may not be adequate if not employed agressively enough.
Second, many of the regions with high carbon emissions, lagely from coal plants, are also regions with lower incomes. These high poverty areas would essentially be subsidizing wealth transfer to higher income areas that have been able to afford more early adoption, will pay less in carbon tax, and will receive a larger proportional share of the refund than high carbon areas subsidizing larger portions. Further many low cost consumer goods are imported, adding another burden to low income families.
Finally, I would like to see the rate schedule.for increases. This would have to ramp quickly and aggressively, and be protected from temporary delays in implememtation to truly be effective.
Politically, do you believe a conservative legislature can ever get behind something labeled a tax?
Second, many of the regions with high carbon emissions, lagely from coal plants, are also regions with lower incomes. These high poverty areas would essentially be subsidizing wealth transfer to higher income areas that have been able to afford more early adoption, will pay less in carbon tax, and will receive a larger proportional share of the refund than high carbon areas subsidizing larger portions. Further many low cost consumer goods are imported, adding another burden to low income families.
Finally, I would like to see the rate schedule.for increases. This would have to ramp quickly and aggressively, and be protected from temporary delays in implememtation to truly be effective.
Politically, do you believe a conservative legislature can ever get behind something labeled a tax?
6
Chris -- you want greater reductions in CO2? Increase the tax rate.
This is very good plan AS LONG AS THERE AREN"T FAVORED PARTIES who are exempt from the tax. You want to watch legislators play dirty tricks? Watch for that.
This is very good plan AS LONG AS THERE AREN"T FAVORED PARTIES who are exempt from the tax. You want to watch legislators play dirty tricks? Watch for that.
1
I don't think this plan will work. The reason I think that isn't because of the plan itself. It's because the Republican leanings of the co-authors. Republicans have destroyed their own credibility. If they offer a plan, I instinctively (not rationally, I admit) presume it to be doubletalk covering up an intention to benefit the wealthy while making the world a worse place.
I'm sorry. I know this isn't rational or defensible. I'd just like to let Republicans know what they've done to themselves.
Regarding the plan itself, I don't see the motivation for companies to reduce their carbon emissions. Will they be passing the carbon tax on to consumers? If so, where's the motivation? And if consumers will see larger reimbursements with greater usage of electricity, where is their motivation? And if companies are to get rebates for exporting to countries without such carbon taxes, won't that effectively subsidize exports to those countries? Let me add that when I see a phrase like "Our own analysis finds" coming from Republicans, I instantly, instinctively, suspect the introduction of a lie.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but such cynicism has been nurtured and earned.
I'm sorry. I know this isn't rational or defensible. I'd just like to let Republicans know what they've done to themselves.
Regarding the plan itself, I don't see the motivation for companies to reduce their carbon emissions. Will they be passing the carbon tax on to consumers? If so, where's the motivation? And if consumers will see larger reimbursements with greater usage of electricity, where is their motivation? And if companies are to get rebates for exporting to countries without such carbon taxes, won't that effectively subsidize exports to those countries? Let me add that when I see a phrase like "Our own analysis finds" coming from Republicans, I instantly, instinctively, suspect the introduction of a lie.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but such cynicism has been nurtured and earned.
6
I'm a liberal scientist. So is James Hansen. We like this plan.
I fail to see how doing away with regulations would positively effect our approach to climate change. Regulations have in fact been the prime factor in the country's improvement of the environment and the lessening of CO2 emissions. It could be argued as well, that the regulatory pressures have helped spawn the current growing alternative energy industry.
6
The case is simple: act or allow the planet to perish and inflict unimaginable suffering on our children and grandchildren. Period.
The issue is only political because "conservatives" have made it so. When conservatives can heal themselves of science denialism, perhaps some constructive conversation can be had. Until then, all of this discussion is wasted effort.
The issue is only political because "conservatives" have made it so. When conservatives can heal themselves of science denialism, perhaps some constructive conversation can be had. Until then, all of this discussion is wasted effort.
22
A laudable plan and I salute you for at least acknowledging that climate change is in fact real and caused by human activity! That said, your first step should be to persuade Trump that he's dead wrong about climate change and that by promoting the oil and gas industry and suppressing renewable energy he is strangling one of the most promising high-paying job-creating initiatives in the country (solar currently employs more than oil, coal and gas put together).
The best way to fight climate change is to give the renewable energy sector all the help it needs (which, increasingly, means political help not financial) as this will not only off-set carbon emissions but will create jobs.
Yes, a carbon tax is an excellent idea and it sounds wonderful to hand out cash to everyone in the country like Christmas presents but a sounder plan would be to dedicate at least part of those funds towards boosting the renewable energy industry and subsidizing electric vehicles.
That said, your first and biggest obstacle remains the sitting President who, judging by his actions thus far, is getting his marching orders direct from Big Oil. America is being left behind on this issue and is beginning to look foolish and backward.
Turning your back on progress and superior technology is simply anti-American. Even the Saudis have come to recognize that an energy revolution is taking place and its either get on board or get used to being the kid in the corner wearing the dunce cap.
The best way to fight climate change is to give the renewable energy sector all the help it needs (which, increasingly, means political help not financial) as this will not only off-set carbon emissions but will create jobs.
Yes, a carbon tax is an excellent idea and it sounds wonderful to hand out cash to everyone in the country like Christmas presents but a sounder plan would be to dedicate at least part of those funds towards boosting the renewable energy industry and subsidizing electric vehicles.
That said, your first and biggest obstacle remains the sitting President who, judging by his actions thus far, is getting his marching orders direct from Big Oil. America is being left behind on this issue and is beginning to look foolish and backward.
Turning your back on progress and superior technology is simply anti-American. Even the Saudis have come to recognize that an energy revolution is taking place and its either get on board or get used to being the kid in the corner wearing the dunce cap.
6
Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish...
US workers, the climate, national and economic security, the world would be a lot better off if investment was made in a national push to develop and refine renewable energy technologies, an idea conspicuously absent in this plan which seems to be more about doing the absolute least to upset incumbent interests while paying overdue lip service to climate change.
The Bush administration squandered a decade of progress on climate change. This country and the world needs to face up the the fact that half measures will not cut it, and simply make ever more drastic measures unavoidable in the future.
US workers, the climate, national and economic security, the world would be a lot better off if investment was made in a national push to develop and refine renewable energy technologies, an idea conspicuously absent in this plan which seems to be more about doing the absolute least to upset incumbent interests while paying overdue lip service to climate change.
The Bush administration squandered a decade of progress on climate change. This country and the world needs to face up the the fact that half measures will not cut it, and simply make ever more drastic measures unavoidable in the future.
6
I will wait and see what economists and climate scientists think of this proposal, because I lack the expertise to evaluate it. But I welcome a conservative proposal that seriously addresses the issue of climate change. Unfortunately there is no sign that the current administration is equally willing to base their agenda on the current scientific understanding of our climate future or on fact-based economics. What hope is there to come up with sensible policies in an administration so willing to ignore facts and science?
8
The flaw in the plan is consumers / tax payers get a "rebate" on the carbon taxes coal pays. This is a disincentive for household consumers to change their usage habits, even a disincentive to switch their electric supplier to a company that supplies clean energy from hydroelectric or wind power (a choice available in TX) because the more coal that burns, the greater the tax rebate to consumers.
5
Your reasoning is not correct. Energy from coal would be taxed and would thus be more expensive, so indeed there is a positive incentive for them to switch to clean energy, which would not face these taxes and hence be less expensive. And, your argument about the greater tax rebate is confused: Each individual consumer has a negligible impact on the total tax rebate; What they can control is how much of the carbon tax they pay: they pay less if they get their energy from clean sources.
2
The carbon dividend is important because it eases the tax burden on consumers. It isn't intended to -- and won't -- equal the extra amount consumers will pay if they continue lifestyles of high carbon emissions.
Pricing carbon isn't the solution to climate change. It is a tool to motivate modern societies to shift from fossil fuel energy to cleaner sources, which is the solution. Making carbon emissions part of the economic equation creates inventive for all players -- government, business, consumers -- to invest in the transition away from fossil fuels. That transition is the only way to effectively minimize climate change in coming decades.
Pricing carbon isn't the solution to climate change. It is a tool to motivate modern societies to shift from fossil fuel energy to cleaner sources, which is the solution. Making carbon emissions part of the economic equation creates inventive for all players -- government, business, consumers -- to invest in the transition away from fossil fuels. That transition is the only way to effectively minimize climate change in coming decades.
2
Uh, no. The cost of what you buy has its CO2 tax built in. Switch and you get lower costs, and your rebate changes almost not at all due to your individual choice.
The rebates here are not what you payed in the taxes as an individual. The rebate is your per capita share of what everybody paid.
The rebates here are not what you payed in the taxes as an individual. The rebate is your per capita share of what everybody paid.
3
Alleluia, finally some rational Republicans. Remember that Rex Tillerson supported a carbon tax. If all fossil fuel companies have such a tax then the most innovative will win out. A carbon tax can be applied quickly, efficiently and, as the authors point out, even to imports, thus sharing the pain with the world. Will Trump listen to these senior statesmen?
4
Thank you for bringing up the conservative case for climate action.
However, we should set our goals wider while starting with your repeal and replace.
In Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" I have spelled out the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of carbon-based international monetary system which also uses as its carbon-reduction methodology Fee and Dividend, very much borrowing from James Hansen and the 350 organization. It could be called the revolutionary case for climate action which emphasizes the severity of the looming climate catastrophe.
About this Tierra carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person Bill McKibben wrote on May 17, 2011: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
However, we should set our goals wider while starting with your repeal and replace.
In Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" I have spelled out the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of carbon-based international monetary system which also uses as its carbon-reduction methodology Fee and Dividend, very much borrowing from James Hansen and the 350 organization. It could be called the revolutionary case for climate action which emphasizes the severity of the looming climate catastrophe.
About this Tierra carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person Bill McKibben wrote on May 17, 2011: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
5
It's nice to see these paragons of the Republican establishment have their "come to Jesus" moment regarding an idea put forth years ago by James Hansen, formerly head of the NASA Goddard climate science organization. However, it was the GOP establishment who the voters rejected in favor of Trump.
Based on the decisions of the last 3 weeks, doing anything that makes sense is a foreign concept to the current administration, let alone viewing the world rationally.
I am afraid we are in for a rough ride for the next few years on climate change, just as we were during the Bush 43's term. The only thing that might change minds is a flood that turns the National Mall into a lake which laps up to the Washington Monument. Even then I am not optimistic.
Based on the decisions of the last 3 weeks, doing anything that makes sense is a foreign concept to the current administration, let alone viewing the world rationally.
I am afraid we are in for a rough ride for the next few years on climate change, just as we were during the Bush 43's term. The only thing that might change minds is a flood that turns the National Mall into a lake which laps up to the Washington Monument. Even then I am not optimistic.
20
I think we are "in for a rough ride' too ... but one should note that there is a silver lining to the Republicans being in power -- now they own it. One can see the effect of this on the Obamacare "repeal:" after 6 years of the most outrageous nonsense and lies and promises that could not possibly be real -- now the Republicans are in a cold sweat -- because they own it. And people are very angry now that all the Republican lies may come to pass -- or not.
Reality always wins. The Republicans are being forced to face it.
Go to a town hall and heckle a Republican about reality.
Reality always wins. The Republicans are being forced to face it.
Go to a town hall and heckle a Republican about reality.
1
I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem that the incentive to reduce non-industrial carbon utilization seems arithmetically off.
Each person would absloved of 12.5 tons of carbon per year if the family of four receives an end of year payment of $2000 and the tax per ton is $40. That is a LOT of carbon to allocate per person. To effect meaningful reductions in family carbon useage a higher tax would need to be imposed without a concomittent increase in family subsidy.
Each person would absloved of 12.5 tons of carbon per year if the family of four receives an end of year payment of $2000 and the tax per ton is $40. That is a LOT of carbon to allocate per person. To effect meaningful reductions in family carbon useage a higher tax would need to be imposed without a concomittent increase in family subsidy.
2
You are wrong because you are missing the point that the subsidy is given equally to everybody whereas the tax falls hardest on those who have a large carbon footprint. So, the subsidy does not really reduce their incentive to make meaningful reductions: A family that has essentially no carbon footprint comes out $2000 ahead whereas one that has a carbon footprint twice as large as average would pay twice as much in taxes as they receive in rebate and would come out $2000 behind.
That said, I agree that one can debate whether the $40 per ton is high enough to provide enough incentive. I don't think this number is too far out of line with estimates of the externality involved, although I am not up on the latest estimates and they do say that this would be the starting point and it would go up with time.
That said, I agree that one can debate whether the $40 per ton is high enough to provide enough incentive. I don't think this number is too far out of line with estimates of the externality involved, although I am not up on the latest estimates and they do say that this would be the starting point and it would go up with time.
1
It is not a bad idea, but one feature of the dividends paid to American families is that eventually they will dry up. If the country moves to less fossil fuels, the tax revenue should diminish over time. So I would add a third component: since the less wealthy have born the brunt of the consequences of fossil fuels over time, why not lower the dividend somewhat and create an IRA for all persons below a certain income level that would only be able to be accessed at retirement or catastrophic financial event and start the IRA with a renewable energy mutual fund among others and offer an incentive for adding to that IRA. Lastly your assumption that Republicans respond to the will of the people is fantasy. Most Americans want increased background checks for gun purchases and want Planned Parenthood funded. They also don't agree with huge tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republicans follow the money, not the public. Your proposal is, therefore, doomed.
8
The President has said he thinks global warming is a Chines hoax. And the dutifully obedient congressional Republicans agree that that it is a hoax, but more the product of junk science. So the first order of business is to make the Republicans, from the President down, do a complete reversal of one of their carved in stone positions.
Then there is the issue of wealth distribution. More taxes for the rich and dividends for the poor sounds like something the conservatives would go to political war to prevent. It's one of the liberals' biggest accused sins.
But I think the thing most problematic about the tax carbon/repeal regulation approach is the assumption that random private sector strategies to maximize profits in the carbon tax environment will result in a coherent, national, electric power production and distribution system, based on renewable energy sources. That is the ultimate tool for beating global warming, and countries around the world are working hard to achieve it.
As we diddle around to avoid having the government direct the implementation of the system (similar in role to build the interstate highway system), and rely on the private sector casino approach, it will be too late. The US has the wealth, technology, and industrial capacity to build and implement the system (a monster job creator). We should just do it.
Then there is the issue of wealth distribution. More taxes for the rich and dividends for the poor sounds like something the conservatives would go to political war to prevent. It's one of the liberals' biggest accused sins.
But I think the thing most problematic about the tax carbon/repeal regulation approach is the assumption that random private sector strategies to maximize profits in the carbon tax environment will result in a coherent, national, electric power production and distribution system, based on renewable energy sources. That is the ultimate tool for beating global warming, and countries around the world are working hard to achieve it.
As we diddle around to avoid having the government direct the implementation of the system (similar in role to build the interstate highway system), and rely on the private sector casino approach, it will be too late. The US has the wealth, technology, and industrial capacity to build and implement the system (a monster job creator). We should just do it.
11
I wish the authors the best in advancing this legislation. For years, most authoritative papers that I've read by climatologists and economists have agreed that a carbon tax is the most straightforward way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
I do have one concern, however. There needs to be a way to reduce the upfront tax paid by the working poor (especially in rural areas), who are dependent on automobiles for transportation.
Indeed, why give all the proceeds back in a populist gesture? Let's consider spending most (or all) of that money to improve public transportation.
I do have one concern, however. There needs to be a way to reduce the upfront tax paid by the working poor (especially in rural areas), who are dependent on automobiles for transportation.
Indeed, why give all the proceeds back in a populist gesture? Let's consider spending most (or all) of that money to improve public transportation.
4
Tom -- you have hit the one distributional problem of this tax -- the rural population drives more -- and at present tends to drive larger less-efficient vehicles.
It should be noted however that a side-effect of this tax will be to produce substantial new revenue and a lot of jobs for many rural areas -- by simulating investment in wind-power, solar power, and bio-fuels.
It should be noted however that a side-effect of this tax will be to produce substantial new revenue and a lot of jobs for many rural areas -- by simulating investment in wind-power, solar power, and bio-fuels.
Let me get this straight. There's a carbon tax on carbon emissions, which will encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions, and the proceeds from this tax will go to the people in the form of a dividend. So, over time, if the companies that produce carbon emissions get the message through the carbon tax and end up greatly reducing their carbon emissions, then their carbon tax payments should decrease, and then the dividend to the people should also decrease. So the family of four originally getting $2,000 will see that dividend decrease over time. The companies and the environment get rewarded, but the people lose out. Interesting. Well, if that anomaly won't become a problem, I would be for it, because of its overall goal.
5
I see your point, Pete, but this is part of a broad transition in how America uses energy.
The carbon tax will reduce emissions by making companies and people more conscious of their actions in order to save money. It also will motivate innovation to come up with cleaner sources of energy and manufacturing.
In that way, it would be a "tipping point" in how business addresses climate change. Instead of fighting to maintain the status quo of fossil fuel energy, business would invest in moving to cleaner energy sources that don't emit carbon and therefore don't incur the tax.
Consumers also will benefit from that transition, as cleaner home energy and (hopefully) auto/truck fuel will bear a lower or even negligent carbon tax levy.
There would have to be some fine-tuning along the way, but the reduced carbon dividend over time would reflect that companies and people were shifting to cleaner energy sources and therefore paying less in a carbon tax.
The carbon tax will reduce emissions by making companies and people more conscious of their actions in order to save money. It also will motivate innovation to come up with cleaner sources of energy and manufacturing.
In that way, it would be a "tipping point" in how business addresses climate change. Instead of fighting to maintain the status quo of fossil fuel energy, business would invest in moving to cleaner energy sources that don't emit carbon and therefore don't incur the tax.
Consumers also will benefit from that transition, as cleaner home energy and (hopefully) auto/truck fuel will bear a lower or even negligent carbon tax levy.
There would have to be some fine-tuning along the way, but the reduced carbon dividend over time would reflect that companies and people were shifting to cleaner energy sources and therefore paying less in a carbon tax.
4
Pete -- where do those dividends coming from? They come from the broad consumption of fossil fuels -- including buying gasoline for your car, heating oil (or natural gas etc) for your house. Businesses by fuels and those costs become incorporated in their products, that people buy.
If one is the "average citizen (as far as CO2 is concerned) this tax is revenue-neutral -- you get back what you were taxed. If you used more fossil fuels (directly or indirectly) you are being taxed, if you used less then you are in fact getting a dividend.
The total rebates will drop as CO2 reductions occur, that does not affect the "average" person at all, due to the intrinsic neutrality.
The fact of the matter is that the poor buy less (duh) than the rich, and so this tax/dividend will be progressive -- most poor people will get a significant dividend from it. The rich will pay ..,. unless they change their fossil fuel usage.
If one is the "average citizen (as far as CO2 is concerned) this tax is revenue-neutral -- you get back what you were taxed. If you used more fossil fuels (directly or indirectly) you are being taxed, if you used less then you are in fact getting a dividend.
The total rebates will drop as CO2 reductions occur, that does not affect the "average" person at all, due to the intrinsic neutrality.
The fact of the matter is that the poor buy less (duh) than the rich, and so this tax/dividend will be progressive -- most poor people will get a significant dividend from it. The rich will pay ..,. unless they change their fossil fuel usage.
2
First, there's not a single female co-author listed. No diversity evident in the list of names - so no new insights. Second, I see no mention of investing in alternatives like wind and solar or intention to spur innovation. Third, anyone who would trust our air and water and soil to no-regulated industries is probably already suffering from mercury and or lead poisoning.
32
Kathy --all the female scientists I know will support this, as will all the male scientists. It's disturbing to me that you care whether a man or a woman proposes something -- do you doubt that 1 + 1 = 2, unless a woman tells you?
These taxes force investment in non-CO2 producing energy sources; to reduce the tax burden. This is Econ 101. It will indeed reduce CO2 more than the CPP will, notably because it is a broad-based CO2 tax (not just a regulatory scheme on electric generation.
This tax would not affect or roll back regulation on other pollutants.
I know you are instantly suspicious of anything put forward by these men, but this is a good plan -- I am a scientist, a liberal, I marched in the New York City Women's march ... and i support this plan.
The only reason you didn't see this plan put forward by the Obama administration is that we all had the perception that it would be dead-on-arrival in the Republican controlled congress. My guess is that remains true, perhaps even more vehemently now.
But having these prominent conservative Republicans proposing this solution is a very important step forward, and may change the political discourse and end the blanket denial of realities.
These taxes force investment in non-CO2 producing energy sources; to reduce the tax burden. This is Econ 101. It will indeed reduce CO2 more than the CPP will, notably because it is a broad-based CO2 tax (not just a regulatory scheme on electric generation.
This tax would not affect or roll back regulation on other pollutants.
I know you are instantly suspicious of anything put forward by these men, but this is a good plan -- I am a scientist, a liberal, I marched in the New York City Women's march ... and i support this plan.
The only reason you didn't see this plan put forward by the Obama administration is that we all had the perception that it would be dead-on-arrival in the Republican controlled congress. My guess is that remains true, perhaps even more vehemently now.
But having these prominent conservative Republicans proposing this solution is a very important step forward, and may change the political discourse and end the blanket denial of realities.
9
If this is an example of the new insights that might be gained from having a female co-author listed, I think I will forgo such insights.
The investments and innovations in renewable energy sources would naturally occur as the carbon technologies became more expensive, but since most of the engineers and executives who would pioneer such innovation are male, I guess it really doesn't count.
The investments and innovations in renewable energy sources would naturally occur as the carbon technologies became more expensive, but since most of the engineers and executives who would pioneer such innovation are male, I guess it really doesn't count.
Kathy, your second and third points are valid, but unfortunately your first point reads like a bad joke. So wherever two or three are gathered together, one must be female for any proposal to be legitimate? For that matter, is anyone on the team gay, lesbian, trans, bi, black or an immigrant?
Climate change is too big an issue to get bogged down in identity politics. Why don't feminists see that triage is necessary? In four years maybe you can change policies on women's issues, but there's no do-over with climate change. We have only a few short years left for action to be effective. So please apply much-needed perspective. And I say that as a female myself.
Climate change is too big an issue to get bogged down in identity politics. Why don't feminists see that triage is necessary? In four years maybe you can change policies on women's issues, but there's no do-over with climate change. We have only a few short years left for action to be effective. So please apply much-needed perspective. And I say that as a female myself.
2
This is a reasonable plan from people with whom I seldom agree. I am frustrated by their need to take a shot at Obama in the beginning, there was no legislation signed not by any fault of his but by total Republican scorched earth obstruction.
That said, how do they propose to get a carbon tax passed by the current Congressional GOP. This is a gang of people who take all of their marching orders on taxes from Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers. And those orders are simple - no new taxes, not ever, no matter what.
And that's why we have massive deficits and why our infrastructure is a disaster and why we won't ever come to grips with major existential threats like climate change.
That said, how do they propose to get a carbon tax passed by the current Congressional GOP. This is a gang of people who take all of their marching orders on taxes from Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers. And those orders are simple - no new taxes, not ever, no matter what.
And that's why we have massive deficits and why our infrastructure is a disaster and why we won't ever come to grips with major existential threats like climate change.
107
As economists, the authors understand that taxing an externality is how to restore market efficiency (thank you, Professor Feldstein, for teaching me that in Ec 10). A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a rational, non-partisan approach that really should get widespread support, for the reasons outlined. (One could argue that an even better approach would be to use the revenue to off-set income taxes, as taxing something undesirable, like a polluting gas, is preferable to taxing something desirable, like earnings, but that's a quibble and risks moving this to a more partisan, redistributive discussion.) As a progressive Democrat, I would strongly lobby my senators and representatives to get behind such a plan. However, I fear that resistance here may very well come from the authors' very own party. Let's see if the party in power in Washington can show true leadership here. I'm skeptical but, for our children's future, willing to be pleasantly surprised. Republicans should remember, that as the world's wealthiest nation, we also stand the to lose the most as climate changes' effects are felt.
17
Yeah, we'll see. The reason for the "heavy-handed regulation" is, in no small part, because the very same GOP refused to co-operate in legislative changes, including a carbon tax. Just last week they proudly undid a regulation geared to keep waterways clean - there was no replacement, just permission for coal producers to again dump in local waterways.
You, not unsurprisingly, make your plan sound like the greatest thing yet - a carbon tax, a cash payout for all Americans... I'd like to have heard any potential down-sides. Are there none or are you simply selling?
You, not unsurprisingly, make your plan sound like the greatest thing yet - a carbon tax, a cash payout for all Americans... I'd like to have heard any potential down-sides. Are there none or are you simply selling?
47
And for all the country types who voted for puppet Trump, when you're out and about fishing and hunting, remember, don't drink the water. And also guys and gals, remember, all that clean water you fished in and Bambi and their mothers drank while Obama was President, well, I think you get where I'm going with this.
2
I find the proposal one of the very very few from the Republican side of the aisle that has merit, but the average Republican voter I know wants to choice to drive the largest most fuel inefficient vehicle, use incandescent light bulbs and unnecessarily waste energy at every part of their life. The proposal works on businesses, but will have no effect on individual behavior. The current Republicans in Congress already revoked some energy efficiency standards for appliances and other devices. They are doing the exact opposite of the proposal. On the other hand, we got very little monetary help for our newly built home that has 1/3 the carbon footprint of the average conventional home. We get nothing for recycling in our area that does not have recycling available. We drive a very fuel efficient vehicle for commuting. We do it for a much more basic reason, it saves money and energy. But try to convince a conservative that energy conservation saves money is an impossible task and the unintended consequence is saving the planet.
24
Tom, I understand your points, and you are taking personal responsibility and doing the moral thing overall. That is all to the good. However, I do think that the proposed financial incentives in this proposal will slowly turn the mood. There will always be the "big truck" types, but perhaps fewer of them if/when the fuel for the big truck costs more, as it will with a carbon tax (or whatever we end up calling it).
I feel the need to tell you that my Republican parents composted, recycled, and converted to zero waste in the late 1980s/ early 1990s, long before I knew of anyone else doing it. They were members of the Audubon Society, donated to the Nature Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. They bought cars with maximum fuel efficiency. My father was the first person I knew to buy CFL bulbs and then LEDs. Environmentalism and conservatism would seem to go hand in hand- conserving resources, conserving energy. Unfortunately, politicians have made these issues partisan in the last twenty years, when they shouldn't be at all. I am an environmentalist because of how my conservative parents raised me- to not be wasteful, to reduce and reuse. To conserve.
Thanks for this effort by the small tribe of remaining rational Republicans, and your ideas have merit in a rational world. Climate change is already quite disruptive- and extremely dangerous. James Hansen, one of the world's greatest climate scientists (and a Republican) has long made similar proposals. They make sense on almost every level, except one: The Republican Party is a subsidiary of the fossil fuel companies, especially Koch and Exxon, and has opposed carbon taxes just as fiercely as the Clean Power Plan for at least a decade.
I applaud the efforts of the authors of this OpEd, but their Party has been hijacked by a sector that is only 2.5% of our economy. Its power derives from desperation, and historical willingness to engage in nefarious (as in bribing our politicians) strategies to keep the oil flowing.
I recently hosted a private event on Nob Hill in San Francisco during AGU in December. The ideas that came out of that are both more disruptive and, in the current environment, more practical. Gangster capitalism, embraced by our fossil fuel sector, cannot be gently overcome. It can only be fought and defeated (though some attendees had other views):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_t-6ku13PGmx-V6kbCFkZCg3TSw9nCJ5
Queries about the strategies presented- each guest was limited to five minutes- can be addressed to me at [email protected]
I applaud the efforts of the authors of this OpEd, but their Party has been hijacked by a sector that is only 2.5% of our economy. Its power derives from desperation, and historical willingness to engage in nefarious (as in bribing our politicians) strategies to keep the oil flowing.
I recently hosted a private event on Nob Hill in San Francisco during AGU in December. The ideas that came out of that are both more disruptive and, in the current environment, more practical. Gangster capitalism, embraced by our fossil fuel sector, cannot be gently overcome. It can only be fought and defeated (though some attendees had other views):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_t-6ku13PGmx-V6kbCFkZCg3TSw9nCJ5
Queries about the strategies presented- each guest was limited to five minutes- can be addressed to me at [email protected]
66
While the environmentally conscientious would welcome climate action, accusing President Obama being
"but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye"
is just intellectually dishonest. And coming from such a luminary group of individuals is just disheartening. Which parts of congressional Republicans wanting to make Mr Obama an one term president do these folks not understand?
Regardless, instead of re-litigating the past, let's look at the present. If the authors could get the current POTUS to execute any restrains, let alone act on the proposal, more power to you. Irrational it may be, the current administration's constituents, as far as climate action is concerned, advocate anything but. And if you look at the entire administration from the POTUS on down, including Energy Sec and EPA Admin, all are political operatives or anti-progressives. And the Republican Congress is still the same regressive Republican Congress. There is no positive change agent. Only regressive ones.
So good luck to the authors if they think the animal can change its stripes
"but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye"
is just intellectually dishonest. And coming from such a luminary group of individuals is just disheartening. Which parts of congressional Republicans wanting to make Mr Obama an one term president do these folks not understand?
Regardless, instead of re-litigating the past, let's look at the present. If the authors could get the current POTUS to execute any restrains, let alone act on the proposal, more power to you. Irrational it may be, the current administration's constituents, as far as climate action is concerned, advocate anything but. And if you look at the entire administration from the POTUS on down, including Energy Sec and EPA Admin, all are political operatives or anti-progressives. And the Republican Congress is still the same regressive Republican Congress. There is no positive change agent. Only regressive ones.
So good luck to the authors if they think the animal can change its stripes
196
I agree with you totally. another way of saying this is "good idea Obama. Now that we are in power, rather than obstruct and not work with you, let us get credit for doing something."
as distasteful as that might be, it's probably a deal that needs to be hit. Get some movement.
as distasteful as that might be, it's probably a deal that needs to be hit. Get some movement.
1
Taxing carbon dioxide emissions would reduce the size of fossil fuel companies and reduce their value by undercutting the value of their reserves. Areas dependent on fossil fuel for jobs and prosperity would be harmed, and their workers would have to move into new careers and probably move after losing money on their houses.
In free enterprise fashion, fossil fuel interests are dealing with their problem the same way tobacco companies did, with massive disinformation campaigns. They have been more successful than the cigarette companies, since they have captured one of our political parties and made their disinformation into unquestionable party dogma. It makes no business sense for them to accept the defeat of a gradual diminishing in their economic wealth and importance when they have not lost and can struggle on for the foreseeable future. The more money they make now, the better their position if and when the climate does start changing.
The Confederacy lost the war and slavery, but rallied and managed preserve white supremacy for a century and maintain or spread their concepts of acceptable race relations throughout the country. We are still building car-based cities and driving large cars and small trucks in them; there is plenty of money still to be made in fossil fuels, and elitist conservative tree huggers will be jeered into joining the Democrats if they do not join in the victory over environmental worries.
In free enterprise fashion, fossil fuel interests are dealing with their problem the same way tobacco companies did, with massive disinformation campaigns. They have been more successful than the cigarette companies, since they have captured one of our political parties and made their disinformation into unquestionable party dogma. It makes no business sense for them to accept the defeat of a gradual diminishing in their economic wealth and importance when they have not lost and can struggle on for the foreseeable future. The more money they make now, the better their position if and when the climate does start changing.
The Confederacy lost the war and slavery, but rallied and managed preserve white supremacy for a century and maintain or spread their concepts of acceptable race relations throughout the country. We are still building car-based cities and driving large cars and small trucks in them; there is plenty of money still to be made in fossil fuels, and elitist conservative tree huggers will be jeered into joining the Democrats if they do not join in the victory over environmental worries.
86
Great great idea. I am a small government liberal. With the 'revenue neutral' rebate, you are also effecting a notable income redistribution from carbon users to everyone, which will help those who are less well off - and who can find ways to reduce the use of carbon producing products that are more heavily taxed. It would also be an effective de-facto subsidy of solar power, which would not be taxed and therefore have a greater rate of return on investment.
2
We do not have an unlimited supply of fossil fuels. "Peak oil" is an estimate of the year when the resource begins to decline, . Both "conservative" and "liberal" estimates of peak oil differ from eacr other by extremely small fractions of the AGE of that resource. Of 36 estimates of that date ( U.S. Energy Information Admin.), a few have us beyond that date and farthest one off is in 2060. There is a 75+ year difference between the most conservative (liberal?) and the most liberal (conservative?) estimates of peak oil. Compare that difference to the 300 million year old Bakken Shale (North Dakota) and you get a sense of what a diminishing resource is. Climate change arguments aside for a moment, will we leave enough fossil fuel to build, place and operate wind, solar and other renewables in the next century? Can we save some oil and gas to do get alternatives on line....or will we have to wait 3.9 years to get going on that?
1