Regardless of whether you believe human activities are a driver of climate change (full disclosure: I do believe it), it seems clear that the fossil fuel industries are dying and renewable energy industries are growing. There is plenty of money to be made in renewables. The catch is that the people who will make the most money in renewables will likely not be the same people who are currently making big money in fossil fuels. For the sake of continued life on the planet, we must therefore appeal to the greedy natures of the people in power — forget "right" versus "wrong" — and simply ask, "From a business standpoint, do you want to invest in a dying industry or invest in a growth industry?"
23
From the Wikipedia article "Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative", section on
"Track Record and Benefits":
RGGI states have reduced their carbon emissions while still experiencing economic growth. Power sector carbon emissions in the RGGI states have declined by over 40% since 2005, while state economies have grown 8%.[7] ...
While multiple factors contribute to emissions trends, a 2015 peer-reviewed study found that RGGI has contributed significantly to the decline in emissions in the nine-state region.[12] ...
Other independent reports have analyzed RGGI's economic impact. For example, two reports by the Analysis Group studied RGGI's first and second three-year compliance periods. They found that the effects of RGGI's first three years are generating in $1.6 billion in net economic benefit and 16,000 job-years,[13] and RGGI's second three years are generating $1.3 billion in net economic benefit and 14,700 job-years.[14] These figures do not include co-benefits such as public health improvements or avoided climate change impacts.
A Clean Air Task Force (CATF) study investigated public health benefits arising from the RGGI states' shift to cleaner power generation.[15] The study found that the RGGI states transition to cleaner energy is saving hundreds of lives, preventing thousands of asthma attacks and reducing medical impacts and expenses by billions of dollars.
"Track Record and Benefits":
RGGI states have reduced their carbon emissions while still experiencing economic growth. Power sector carbon emissions in the RGGI states have declined by over 40% since 2005, while state economies have grown 8%.[7] ...
While multiple factors contribute to emissions trends, a 2015 peer-reviewed study found that RGGI has contributed significantly to the decline in emissions in the nine-state region.[12] ...
Other independent reports have analyzed RGGI's economic impact. For example, two reports by the Analysis Group studied RGGI's first and second three-year compliance periods. They found that the effects of RGGI's first three years are generating in $1.6 billion in net economic benefit and 16,000 job-years,[13] and RGGI's second three years are generating $1.3 billion in net economic benefit and 14,700 job-years.[14] These figures do not include co-benefits such as public health improvements or avoided climate change impacts.
A Clean Air Task Force (CATF) study investigated public health benefits arising from the RGGI states' shift to cleaner power generation.[15] The study found that the RGGI states transition to cleaner energy is saving hundreds of lives, preventing thousands of asthma attacks and reducing medical impacts and expenses by billions of dollars.
9
"...the people behind it: prominent Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. "
Does anyone think that President DT will listen to those three? Nope, he'll do what he did to Jeb, Cruz, Rubio et al in the Republican primaries: make fun of them and call them losers.
The man has no respect for logic nor science. He has respect only for people who make money, but only for that part of their expertise that pertains to making money.
Does anyone think that President DT will listen to those three? Nope, he'll do what he did to Jeb, Cruz, Rubio et al in the Republican primaries: make fun of them and call them losers.
The man has no respect for logic nor science. He has respect only for people who make money, but only for that part of their expertise that pertains to making money.
16
The tax and dividend idea was first proposed by James Hanson, formerly of NASA. I like the idea. If implemented in its original form, it means that if any individual uses less carbon than the average person, he/she would get a greater dividend than they paid in carbon tax.
15
The Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division announced last month that it had one of the most successful years as far as accomplishments in 2016, noting records in environmental enforcement and specifically, record-setting penalties handed down to ships that pollute the waterways.
Link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/environment-and-natural-resources-divisio...
This is the DOJ report on the environment and natural resources:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/page/file/925411/download
The problem is that the Trump administration has a two-for-one sale on federal regulations. Trump wants two regulations to be taken off the books for every new one that is adopted by the federal government.
Essentially, giving the keys to the kingdom to corporations, hoping they do the right thing.
How much of this insanity and haphazard enforcement and prosecution will the filter down to the DOJ through the Trump administration remains to be seen.
America's precious resources — wildlife, waterways, fish, and trees —are at the mercy of Trump and the corporations.
Link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/environment-and-natural-resources-divisio...
This is the DOJ report on the environment and natural resources:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/page/file/925411/download
The problem is that the Trump administration has a two-for-one sale on federal regulations. Trump wants two regulations to be taken off the books for every new one that is adopted by the federal government.
Essentially, giving the keys to the kingdom to corporations, hoping they do the right thing.
How much of this insanity and haphazard enforcement and prosecution will the filter down to the DOJ through the Trump administration remains to be seen.
America's precious resources — wildlife, waterways, fish, and trees —are at the mercy of Trump and the corporations.
32
In today Republican Party even Nixon or Reagan will lose the primaries. That why
the positions of the so called moderates carry no stick.
the positions of the so called moderates carry no stick.
3
Notice the call comes from the ancien régime and not from anyone currently in office.
Sad that only centrists and progressives miss the old grand old party -- the one that wanted to cooperate in the running of the country.
Sad that only centrists and progressives miss the old grand old party -- the one that wanted to cooperate in the running of the country.
5
Thank you, gentlemen.
3
The most important aspect of the “Conservative Climate” proposal is the flexibility of thinking that it demonstrates. We underestimate how hard it is to break free from rigid, formulaic patterns especially when these illusory pictures have generated some emotional, political success. We often speak of the climate debate as a matter of recognizing the mandates of science. There is truth in this but “scientific thinking” goes far beyond the realm of greenhouse gases. Pragmatic problem solving based on evidence, facts and data is a method that should be a central part of public activity. Before this can happen, however, we have to develop a new method of public dialog where “scientific thinking” doesn’t sound pompous and overbearing. Scientists (myself included) have been woefully inadequate in recognizing this need and applying serious effort to this crucial problem.
1
I guess I will have to wait til tomorrow for this paper to explain why trump caused a breach in the California dam. We all know he did it, don't we?
3
The rebate part of the plan sort of muddles the whole process. The tax is imposed upon those who sell the products who pass it along to the customers. The customers in turn are reimbursed with the taxes collected. The customers will still pay only a small amount of the increased costs, so they still have some incentive to use less of the products which produce large amounts of carbon gases, but only a small amount. The regime does not create incentives to replace fossil fuels with non-carbon gas producing energy sources because for the customers, the cost of fossil fuels will still be competitive or cheaper than alternative energy sources. When the availability of petroleum, natural gas, and coal becomes very much more costly, then the alternative energy systems will become more attractive to producers, and then customers will see real savings from replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. So when one steps back, this proposal is actually a plan for extending the useful life of fossil fuel systems until much later.
Now the media need to step up. Kick the lying Trump gang off the front and op-ed pages for a while and let's see some analysis and debate about this proposal from a group of responsible, intelligent Republicans, even if they aren't in office. If the climate change deniers now in Congress don't want to discuss it with a commitment to finding solutions when the great majority of American citizens do, that's on them. Ignore them. They're useless.
13
Just when I was losing faith that any rational thinkers survive in the Republican party, along come a couple of senators who actually seem to value the future of the country, the world, and even their offspring. They have a hard road to travel ahead. hopefully, they stick to their guns and get a few other members on board who still have not been entrapped by their Faustian bargains.
7
February 13, 2017
For the love of Republicans district by district across the nation - yet the range of their emotional behavioral climate so to speak; give cause to note the power brokers and climate tolerances are fragmented more for economic immediate interest and we all know having seen who they put in the White House and in local representation have in severe inability to image patterns for greater effort in the higher debates for impacts of weather politics in the past or now or forever - Conclusion what is blowing in the wind: me, me, now, now. and this is the nature of climate for conservative economic and preservation for survival of the fittest. But where is the hope and the audacity to elders awarded for the greater interest that may be as much local as global - even national.
For the love of Republicans district by district across the nation - yet the range of their emotional behavioral climate so to speak; give cause to note the power brokers and climate tolerances are fragmented more for economic immediate interest and we all know having seen who they put in the White House and in local representation have in severe inability to image patterns for greater effort in the higher debates for impacts of weather politics in the past or now or forever - Conclusion what is blowing in the wind: me, me, now, now. and this is the nature of climate for conservative economic and preservation for survival of the fittest. But where is the hope and the audacity to elders awarded for the greater interest that may be as much local as global - even national.
1
Why not call them militant fundamentalists? That's what they are. Trump seems to want to antagonize Muslims. Something to be said for not providing raw material for propaganda, affirming spurious narrative of religious war, etc.
3
These older and wiser Republicans seem to have little influence on the current GOP elected officials who are Tea Party folk. Trump and the right-wing Republicans have very different perceptions about what threats face the USA. Very few Republicans see the train which is coming toward us in the form of a more rapidly changing climate, largely in one direction. Their perception is that ISIS and immigrants and refugees are the biggest threats to the USA. While ISIS does pose a problem, it is not nearly the threat that climate change is now and will be in years to come, year after year after year. What boggles my mind is how President Trump fights battles in the courts for what he views as grave national security threats with very little evidence. Yet he denies the threats which are upon us now and will only mount in years to come when there is a great deal of evidence from international sources.
9
A time will come when even those who are so adamantly against efforts to save our environment will finally become enlightened. However, anyone who is informed enough realizes that to wait for selfish motivations regarding environmental issues to fall by the wayside is to wait for self-destruction. Hopefully, the involvement of Republican elders will help to underscore how important it is to face the problems of climate change before we reach the point of no return.
5
Imagine the dayes of yore when Republicans actually operated in the world of reality! (Even if you disagreed with many of their premises, conclusions, and stances)
2
This plan is a devilishly ingenious, beautifully crafted, Trojan Horse. It seems to honor the reality of man-made global warming but in actuality it will only insufficiently slow it. Of course in the meantime more well considered plans and policies will be tabled, possibly for years. All the while as we are lulled into a false sense of progress, this Trojan Horse will disgorge industry friendly reforms that allow energy industry oligarchs to pillage and profit at the expense of our commonwealth. Finally, let me add that I am especially disappointed that the Times editorial board, as it did in the lead up to the Iraq War, is again (and so soon) blindly misleading the public.
4
Republicans as a whole deny climate change. They say it's just God's will or some such nonsense. It's not. They're either wrong or they're lying. If you vote Republican you will get one or the other. Some people will never learn. They'll continue to vote Republican. If they're wrong it won't matter. It will be too late to do anything to change course. Republicans need to be removed from elective office with all do haste.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
4
They key is to not call it a "carbon tax" but rather a "carbon dividend."
17
The proposal coming from established conservative Republicans makes it a valuable gain. There are Republican elected officials in states with great wind or solar resources who might be inclined to support policies like this, since they can be benefiting their constituents rather than hewing to a fossilized party line driven by coal-state and oil-state leadership.
1
A carbon tax gradually implemented might be politically viable if all revenues raised would be returned to the economy. The best way to achieve this to lower the FICA tax and make direct contributions to the Social Security Retirement fund which will run out of required funding by 2032. This is a far better way to return funds to consumers than by giving out cash payments. Can you imagine the cost and bureaucracy involved in making cash payments to every U.S. household? There would be no even to the squabbling over who should get what.
1
as a decade long cap and trade guy I have been thru all the struggles to get the issue understood. That GOP folks are pushing is refreshing- recall even McCain had a cap and trade proposal when he ran against Obama. It seems pretty far fetched that the Neanderthals are going to come in from the cold and work with climate scientists who they have been demonizing for the past 10 years to get something done. But maybe YES. One can hope. On the technical side the issue will come down to who if anyone gets a break and or the need to have very strict monitoring as part of the deal to get rid of the regs. Can it happen. Probably not. should it happen. Yes.
1
This isn't a "rare call to climate action;" it's rather a typical call for more taxes. The "elders" merely want more spending money. Taxing carbon has little if anything to do with lowering carbon, or financing alternatives. It is a "sin tax," like on alcohol or tobacco or soda and lines the wallets of Congress and state legislatures. Norway leads the world in electric car conversion, by lowering taxes through a tax credit to finance them. Similarly, coal and oil will find replacements by lowering corporate taxes that increase investable free cash for alternatives (if legislated). BTW, the climate elephant is the Pentagon: the world's single largest consumer of oil and emitter of carbon, completely exempt from climate controls and with a fleet of aircraft, for example, that average nearly 30 years in age. Where has the $6Trillion for the Global War on Terror gone? That may be a better question for the "elders" who otherwise are the poster-child for term limits.
1
It's about time the republicans took a stand on something other than not taking a stand on something other than cutting taxes for the rich, killing of public education, pro-bullying, making it easy for terrorists to by guns and kill innocent - unarmed - women and children, trashing the environment, eliminating the Bill of Rights, keeping people from voting, weakening our science and technology capabilities, undermining workers rights, and ygeny women's rights and and religious freedom.
2
The New York Times and its "progressive" friends hate the working and middle classes, ands seek to destroy our living standards. The answer is NO.
3
Surely, you don't mean to suggest that the GOP will take up a serious proposal.
Politicalluy speaking at the present time, the Climate Leadership Council may as well be from outer space. That's precisely how Congressional Republicans will look upon the Council's proposal . . . a daft and DOA idea that won't even generate a hearing.
Politicalluy speaking at the present time, the Climate Leadership Council may as well be from outer space. That's precisely how Congressional Republicans will look upon the Council's proposal . . . a daft and DOA idea that won't even generate a hearing.
4
You can accomplish far more if you stop worrying about who gets the credit. A carbon tax, even a flawed one, will discourage carbon energy sources in favor of renewables. And in a less tax hating world, it's a sin tax, a useful revenue source for socially good ends.
Bring it on, whoever gets credit or blame.
Bring it on, whoever gets credit or blame.
9
the basic position of most Republicans is that the world is endless and it is here for our exploitation - and that includes all the plants and animals and people in it, too. anything else is Gummint overreach and interferes with our God given right to see everyone and everything as a money making opportunity. a carbon tax or anything else just gets in the way of the true objective. ask any of President Trump's economic advisors.
5
The most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is with a carbon tax. It should be to the everlasting shame of Democrats that it took Republicans to propose one.
Bernie Sanders did propose a carbon tax. Hillary wouldn't touch it, proposing instead higher use of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" even though natural gas is a carbon based fuel and its extraction releases methane, an 84 times as destructive a greenhouse gas as CO2. But the Democratic establishment brushed Bernie aside in favor of Hillary's pseudo-solutions.
In Hillary's pseudo-solutions, the Democrats had a more dangerous foe to dealing with climate change than Trump was in being a denier. Hillary would give us the illusion of doing something when essentially nothing was getting done, and we'd be lulled into doing little more.
The Republican Climate Leadership Council deserve everyone's thanks, thanks for the carbon tax proposal and thanks for allowing Democrats to pretend they now have the "courage" to stand behind a carbon tax.
Democrats are good a playing "me too" when the political risks are minimal. That's why Hillary lost to Trump. She couldn't bring herself to lead on anything, even on an issue as potentially effective and important as a carbon tax.
Bernie Sanders did propose a carbon tax. Hillary wouldn't touch it, proposing instead higher use of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" even though natural gas is a carbon based fuel and its extraction releases methane, an 84 times as destructive a greenhouse gas as CO2. But the Democratic establishment brushed Bernie aside in favor of Hillary's pseudo-solutions.
In Hillary's pseudo-solutions, the Democrats had a more dangerous foe to dealing with climate change than Trump was in being a denier. Hillary would give us the illusion of doing something when essentially nothing was getting done, and we'd be lulled into doing little more.
The Republican Climate Leadership Council deserve everyone's thanks, thanks for the carbon tax proposal and thanks for allowing Democrats to pretend they now have the "courage" to stand behind a carbon tax.
Democrats are good a playing "me too" when the political risks are minimal. That's why Hillary lost to Trump. She couldn't bring herself to lead on anything, even on an issue as potentially effective and important as a carbon tax.
2
There is no chance at all of the President or Republicans in Congress going along with this supposed Republican call to climate action which of course should have been made and repeated years ago but was not.
4
A carbon tax is a typical Republican approach to a problem. In this case it might not be so bad, but the tax system should not be used as a punishment system. We already have an excessively complicated tax system and this is one more ridiculous element. All it does down the line is make people more an more distrusting in government.
I can applaud any bipartisan discussion of the issues.
6
I agree, it moves in the right direction to start pricing externalities into the fossil fuel market.
5
Years ago, before I retired, I remember a "Clean Air" bill that allowed the selling of emission allowances. It could not have been later than the early 1990s. Power generators who used coal on a specific date but had switched to natural gas were allowed to sell their pre-approved emission allowances to a generating company that didn't upgrade. I was appalled when I saw the allowance trading wording in that year's Clean Air Act and a bit embarrassed to be involved, but not in a position to influence a change in the legislation.
I think the plants were supposed to reduce SOx and NOx back then. As I recall, the price of pollution allowances was much higher, but I don't remember the amount of pollutants involved.
I'm disgusted that this far down the road, we're still permitting pollution allowance sales.
We should not tolerate coal fired generation. There are much safer jobs that can be moved to coal mining towns. The locals want mining because they know no other industry. Coal not only burns dirty, it's a very dangerous way to earn a living. You'd know it's just barely a living if you've lived in a coal company house.
Reopening coal mines is no way to help former miners. Build factories, really rehabilitate areas that have been strip-mined, lay underground electric lines, fiber-optic cables, and natural gas lines. Pave the roads. Find a way to get sulfur run-off out of creeks and the water table. (It's a real treat to shower in sulfur water; drinking it is worse.)
I think the plants were supposed to reduce SOx and NOx back then. As I recall, the price of pollution allowances was much higher, but I don't remember the amount of pollutants involved.
I'm disgusted that this far down the road, we're still permitting pollution allowance sales.
We should not tolerate coal fired generation. There are much safer jobs that can be moved to coal mining towns. The locals want mining because they know no other industry. Coal not only burns dirty, it's a very dangerous way to earn a living. You'd know it's just barely a living if you've lived in a coal company house.
Reopening coal mines is no way to help former miners. Build factories, really rehabilitate areas that have been strip-mined, lay underground electric lines, fiber-optic cables, and natural gas lines. Pave the roads. Find a way to get sulfur run-off out of creeks and the water table. (It's a real treat to shower in sulfur water; drinking it is worse.)
9
@ Gráinne - exactly what my comments here today and elsewhere several days ago say while providing the alternative that took over from coal here starting decades ago - another comment of mine says almost ALL the things you say - I think it is in print, will try to find the URLs. You are the first person ever except me to point to exactly those items. And one of the first triggers leading me to write a text book Environmental Geology was learning about research on "försurning" acidification of land and water here in Sweden and wondering why I had heard little or nothing in the US.
Here is the URL to comment here. Will take a bit to find the other one or two.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Here is the URL to comment here. Will take a bit to find the other one or two.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
@ Gráinne - In a first reply I referred to a comment made elsewhere that points to items you point to. Discovered that was many more days ago than I remembered. Here is the URL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/labor-leaders-cheap-deal-with-...
I just checked and even that is not exactly the right one but related. At the one I cannot find I noted that plenty of jobs would be made if my USA - New England, New York did as Linköping SE and others do, bury all utility lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/labor-leaders-cheap-deal-with-...
I just checked and even that is not exactly the right one but related. At the one I cannot find I noted that plenty of jobs would be made if my USA - New England, New York did as Linköping SE and others do, bury all utility lines.
"Send in the clowns..."
1
The proposals of this group ought to carry some weight. I expect their leverage in Congress to be minimal, though, and it's Congress who needs to be influenced. The best way to do that may be indirectly. Industry leaders need to be brought on board. The ideas need to be promoted as a clear win to the general public.
And if you should happen to find yourself at your Senator's or Representative's office and they haven't run off yet then you can ask them about what they're going to do about climate.
And if you should happen to find yourself at your Senator's or Representative's office and they haven't run off yet then you can ask them about what they're going to do about climate.
2
Yes there was a time, when Republican leaders counseled environmental protection along with economic growth. It was, after all, President Nixon who established the Environmental Protection Agency and the sainted President Reagan who referred to environmental protection as "common sense." That was a time when, despite ideological differences, we as a nation looked to science and scientists for understanding of how our planet functions and how human activity may affect that functioning and the platforms of our major political parties were mostly based on facts not "alternative facts."
4
Some commenters are implying that this carbon tax idea is a shell game, because the pain of higher prices is canceled by the balm of a tax rebate. That is not the case. Remember that all consumers will get the tax rebate, independent of the amount of carbon they use.
For example, the price of gasoline at the pump will go up substantially. Gas-hog drivers will indeed get a rebate (which will partly compensate for the higher price of fuel), BUT drivers who lower or eliminate their carbon use, win TWICE, by saving on the inflated cost of fuel AND by getting the same tax rebate. The end result: Those who cut their carbon use make out far better than those who don't. If implemented carefully, this could be a real win-win.
For example, the price of gasoline at the pump will go up substantially. Gas-hog drivers will indeed get a rebate (which will partly compensate for the higher price of fuel), BUT drivers who lower or eliminate their carbon use, win TWICE, by saving on the inflated cost of fuel AND by getting the same tax rebate. The end result: Those who cut their carbon use make out far better than those who don't. If implemented carefully, this could be a real win-win.
6
This is a classic method of bringing externalities--the environmental impacts of business not reflected in the cost of production--into the market, to accurately reflect the true price of goods. Where the market fails to account for them, government plays a legitimate role, through taxation, in forcing externalities into the system. There are many businesses, among the Fortune 500 included, that want this to be implemented, to reflect economic and environmental reality and provide certainty for future planning.
Politics has been the main impediment, so that is where the pressure must be focused. We need worldwide demonstrations, like the Women's March, to stress the urgency of the problem. 350.org is organizing one in Washington for April 27. Be there. Or join a local march. The time is now.
Politics has been the main impediment, so that is where the pressure must be focused. We need worldwide demonstrations, like the Women's March, to stress the urgency of the problem. 350.org is organizing one in Washington for April 27. Be there. Or join a local march. The time is now.
3
I like the concept, but would the dividends come first or the tax, and why would it be quarterly? Most people live on a monthly budget. The transition could be cash-intensive and painful, particularly for farmers/small business owners who would need to shoulder a huge carbon tax but wait a long time for market prices to rise accordingly. So good idea, but let's front-end the dividend and perhaps even provide low-interest transition loans too.
3
The majority of the public will not understand and insist on limiting, human activity caused global warming, unless and until the mainstream broadcast media like CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc (forget FOX News, they're hopeless!) start making an issue of it and the dire consequences of ignoring it. That will not happen as long as the fossil fuel industry provides advertising dollars (read bribes) to these networks, or they somehow muster the courage it takes to become sources of real information instead of being only profit centers.
2
Agreed. Our "news" media are only propaganda tools.
1
That this proposal comes from highly-experienced Republicans is important, because it does fundamentally change the partisanship of the argument -- ending the wall-to-wall denial of reality by the Republican political establishment.
But it opens only the tiniest chink in the wall, let's a little daylight and air through, but what you see (including here in the comments): very few people are looking or listening.
But it opens only the tiniest chink in the wall, let's a little daylight and air through, but what you see (including here in the comments): very few people are looking or listening.
1
Saw a very intelligent presentation on climate change and politics. Speaker showed a graphic that showed how environmental groups rated Democrats and Republicans votes on the environment. They were pretty much the SAME until the early 1990s, where they diverge wildy -- the Democrats for, the Republicans against. I think this was the start of Gingrich and , later, Rove, to somehow persuade the Republicans to play dirty and win at all costs.
4
Yes, and Rupert Murdoch.
1
Exxon under Tillerson also went on record in favor of a carbon tax. Remember that when thinking about what the NYTimes reports in this editorial. The strategy of these republicans is to draw support away from cap-and-trade and any other system that stands a chance of passing a no-tax congress. It's bogus and meant to deceive. The first job of these Republicans (survivors of a different Republican Party) is to overtly and publicly refute their's position party about climate change, about science, and about facts.
2
Great idea, but Republicans will never vote for it, Energy companies will never pay it...getting rid of pollution regs, that cost real money is the only game in town.
Profits will soar, bonuses increase, pollution control is for Democrats to worry about. The current Republican voter base will die faster than the Democratic base and in a few decades, we can go back to protecting the planet, if its still here then,,,
Profits will soar, bonuses increase, pollution control is for Democrats to worry about. The current Republican voter base will die faster than the Democratic base and in a few decades, we can go back to protecting the planet, if its still here then,,,
2
Trump will propose tax rebates for installing residential coal furnaces before he proposes a carbon tax.
4
Donald Trump obviously chose Rex Tillerson and Scott Pruitt for their crucial positions because of his great concern about the environment and mitigating the effects of global climate change. I’m sure that right now, they are eagerly reading this editorial, and going full steam ahead on drafting legislation that will put into effect this reasonable, market based strategy to limit man’s effect on the climate and improve our world for future generations.
And, now, let’s move onto that bridge I was telling you about…
And, now, let’s move onto that bridge I was telling you about…
8
I think we need to put global warming in perspective. During the age of modern man all of Canada and part of the U. S. were under glaciers. The ice melted and the oceans rose about 400 feet (more than they would rise if all remaining ice melted).
This is also a highly politicized issue. Demonstrable parts of Science are not debated. We accept the law of gravity, newtons laws of motions for low speed, and the gas laws because they have been demonstrated unambiguously.
Climate change has also been politicized including Climate gate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
and more recently reports of whistle blower accusations regarding NOAA data.
From: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-conf...
"Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records"
Do I think there is man made component to climate change and that it may have negative impacts? Yes. Do I think all impacts are likely negative? No. Do I think it is distorted from both sides of the issue? Yes.
I think we need to be very careful about how much of our limited financial resources are used to combat man made climate change. Poverty is a massive cause of human suffering, and by decreasing the resources we have to apply to education, health, infrastructure, etc, we move ourselves toward poverty. If government grows for climate change, I would like it to shrink elsewhere.
This is also a highly politicized issue. Demonstrable parts of Science are not debated. We accept the law of gravity, newtons laws of motions for low speed, and the gas laws because they have been demonstrated unambiguously.
Climate change has also been politicized including Climate gate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
and more recently reports of whistle blower accusations regarding NOAA data.
From: https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-conf...
"Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records"
Do I think there is man made component to climate change and that it may have negative impacts? Yes. Do I think all impacts are likely negative? No. Do I think it is distorted from both sides of the issue? Yes.
I think we need to be very careful about how much of our limited financial resources are used to combat man made climate change. Poverty is a massive cause of human suffering, and by decreasing the resources we have to apply to education, health, infrastructure, etc, we move ourselves toward poverty. If government grows for climate change, I would like it to shrink elsewhere.
2
We will spend increasing amounts of our limited financial resources cleaning up after climate change, since part of climate change seems to be that hundred-year weather events are happening more often than every hundred years. Torrential downpours, droughts, weather patterns that get stuck, and temperature extremes seem more prevalent.
We do not spend nearly as much as we could on weather and climate research, and funding is often politicized. Rebuilding south Florida somewhere else will strain our financial resources; delaying this rebuilding for a decade or so might be expensive but worth it.
We do not spend nearly as much as we could on weather and climate research, and funding is often politicized. Rebuilding south Florida somewhere else will strain our financial resources; delaying this rebuilding for a decade or so might be expensive but worth it.
3
You didn't read the article. Government will not grow with this proposal because:
1. the money collected by this tax is *refunded* quarterly to tax-payers. The average user of fossil fuels will be out exactly ZERO dollars. Those that use less will be net-positive, and those that use more will pay more. Gee, that sounds like this thing called a "free market," where you PAY for what you GET.
2. We will be able to reduce or eliminate other regulations because the carbon tax will allow consumers to make informed choices based on price. Stuff that uses fossil fuels inefficiently will now cost more than stuff that uses it more efficiently. When consumers choose the lower-cost products, they will choosing the product that uses fossil fuels most efficiently.
So please re-read until you comprehend. Sorry to be condescending, but come on.
1. the money collected by this tax is *refunded* quarterly to tax-payers. The average user of fossil fuels will be out exactly ZERO dollars. Those that use less will be net-positive, and those that use more will pay more. Gee, that sounds like this thing called a "free market," where you PAY for what you GET.
2. We will be able to reduce or eliminate other regulations because the carbon tax will allow consumers to make informed choices based on price. Stuff that uses fossil fuels inefficiently will now cost more than stuff that uses it more efficiently. When consumers choose the lower-cost products, they will choosing the product that uses fossil fuels most efficiently.
So please re-read until you comprehend. Sorry to be condescending, but come on.
2
No, no, no. Please, with respect, no.
Nobody is disputing that sea levels have changed through history. But the science is clear that modern rapid climate change is virtually 100% man-made. It's also clear that -- while agreed, not *all* aspects of climate change may be negative -- the majority of results *will* be catastrophic for our way of life. Starting with a refugee crisis that will make the current refugee crisis look like nothing.
While I'm sure you are a person of goodwill, the position you're taking seems to be the current fallback for others who are climate change deniers. First it was "climate change is a hoax," now it's "climate change exists but we can't tell how much it's man-made." Next it will be "OK, we agree it's man-made but now it's too late to do anything about it anyway."
Please: The science *is* clear, it *is* man-made, and the consequences will be quite destructive to those of us in America and to the rest of the world.
Nobody is disputing that sea levels have changed through history. But the science is clear that modern rapid climate change is virtually 100% man-made. It's also clear that -- while agreed, not *all* aspects of climate change may be negative -- the majority of results *will* be catastrophic for our way of life. Starting with a refugee crisis that will make the current refugee crisis look like nothing.
While I'm sure you are a person of goodwill, the position you're taking seems to be the current fallback for others who are climate change deniers. First it was "climate change is a hoax," now it's "climate change exists but we can't tell how much it's man-made." Next it will be "OK, we agree it's man-made but now it's too late to do anything about it anyway."
Please: The science *is* clear, it *is* man-made, and the consequences will be quite destructive to those of us in America and to the rest of the world.
4
These are serious proposals made by serious, pragmatic and respected GOP moderates. This lefty liberal says we ought to take a hard look at the proposals, then sit down and talk with the authors. Yes, maybe together we can get something done,
16
Among the reasons Republicans prefer taxes to direct regulation is that taxes have loopholes:
"Imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products,"
Take Exxon. They can either send crude to the US from foreign countries or supply domestic oil. Here are some of the loopholes:
a. they will manipulate the source of the oil based on currency values. If the Euro is worth $2, they pay 20 euros in tax. If it is worth $1, they use domestic supply rather than pay 40 euros.
b. they will manipulate the date of sale to defer taxes
c. They will manipulate production amounts to best time their tax payments
d. They will send low quality or high quality crude to minimize the burden of the tax
With all this market manipulation, more spills are likely making the tax system self-defeating. Otherwise,, it's a great idea.
"Imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products,"
Take Exxon. They can either send crude to the US from foreign countries or supply domestic oil. Here are some of the loopholes:
a. they will manipulate the source of the oil based on currency values. If the Euro is worth $2, they pay 20 euros in tax. If it is worth $1, they use domestic supply rather than pay 40 euros.
b. they will manipulate the date of sale to defer taxes
c. They will manipulate production amounts to best time their tax payments
d. They will send low quality or high quality crude to minimize the burden of the tax
With all this market manipulation, more spills are likely making the tax system self-defeating. Otherwise,, it's a great idea.
5
You but the tax is not assessed on the value of the oil, it's assessed at the time--and by the tons--burned. So who cares if the oil is imported or local, the amount burned*$40 is what is paid. If a product is imported, the amount of oil burned to produce that product*$40 will be added as an import tax.
It's unclear to me exactly how your points correspond with this proposal. Please explain.
It's unclear to me exactly how your points correspond with this proposal. Please explain.
2
Many commenters here are stating, as if it were a fact, that there are no--zero--Republicans currently in Congress who will act on, let alone be willing to listen to, proposals to combat carbon emissions. I don't put much faith in spineless "leaders" like Paul Ryan or Scott Pruit, but there is a group of representatives in the House known as the Climate Solutions Caucus, which currently consists of 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Granted: this is a paltry number, but it's a start, and these representatives need our support. In the current anti-science, pro-fossil fuels environment in Congress, these few individual Republicans are showing some political courage--not to mention common sense. As hard as it may be, we need to promote and applaud their efforts--and encourage others, in both parties, to join the caucus.
Here is a link to the Climate Solutions Caucus webpage:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
Here is a link to the Climate Solutions Caucus webpage:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
7
Proving once again that you have to get experienced Republicans from decades past in order to address real issues forthrightly. Good show, James Baker, George
Schultz, and Henry Paulsen. Wish you'd been in the debate earlier.
Schultz, and Henry Paulsen. Wish you'd been in the debate earlier.
Which big businesess and which billionaires own patents on air filter masks? From past experiences i am confident some folks made wealthy from coal and oil investments have also bought companies manufacturing those masks. Unfortunately, those masks are made in India and China.
The position of elected Republicans on climate change is the surest sign yet that the position of an oligarchy has been adopted. Why on earth would elected Republicans have views so counter to their constituents? They were selected by the oligarchy and provided with election support (money, sophisticated voter demographics, attack ads on opponents which often include misinformation, distortion, and fake news). In return, they took their "no carbon tax pledge", similar to the Norquist "no new taxes" pledge. Today's elected Republicans are bought and paid for, and nothing is more important to the Koch donor network than destroying the EPA and discrediting climate change.
2
Such a tax would bring the price of energy more in line with its true cost. That cost has to include the environmental damage that we'll ultimately pay for in the health effects of pollution and the climate disruption caused by global warming. Would we allow a company or household to toss its trash on the street and leave it to the rest of us to bear the burden of cleaning it up?
6
I believe it was in 2005 when George W. Bush, in his state of the union speech, hinted at the need to tackle climate change through reduced carbon emissions.
Michael Krasney on NPR the next day had a 1 hour program on this with all sorts of experts weighing in on how this might be done. I know he needs to fill up 2 hours of programming every day, but there was zero probability that he or the GOP would ever do anything to end the fossil fuel gravy train. The show should have been about presidential bait and switch as a technique.
Michael Krasney on NPR the next day had a 1 hour program on this with all sorts of experts weighing in on how this might be done. I know he needs to fill up 2 hours of programming every day, but there was zero probability that he or the GOP would ever do anything to end the fossil fuel gravy train. The show should have been about presidential bait and switch as a technique.
1
The carbon tax should be used to build the infrastructure for renewable energy.
3
The plan has a fatal flaw -- I don't see how the Koch brothers will benefit.
10
"Their dismissal of the council’s proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country. A large majority of Americans want the government to address climate change — 78 percent of registered voters support taxing emissions, regulating them or doing both, according to a Yale survey conducted after the election."
Here's the problem.
• 58% of Americans support a single payer health insurance system. The number climbs when people are told more about the way it would work.
• 90% of gun owners support some sort of background checks for purchasing a gun.
• 83% of people would have a “favorable” reaction to their representative in Congress taking “a strong stand in support of policies to protect and strengthen national parks."
• 70% strongly support protecting public lands like monuments and wildlife refuge areas.
• 66% support the expansion of wind, solar, and renewable energy development.
• 65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
• 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes.
• 65% of people support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Gilens and Page present data (http://tinyurl.com/hlov4ou) that show that average Americans, even when represented by majoritarian interest groups, have negligible influence in shaping public policy. Economic elites and their business-oriented interest groups call the shots.
We don't live in a democracy any more.
Here's the problem.
• 58% of Americans support a single payer health insurance system. The number climbs when people are told more about the way it would work.
• 90% of gun owners support some sort of background checks for purchasing a gun.
• 83% of people would have a “favorable” reaction to their representative in Congress taking “a strong stand in support of policies to protect and strengthen national parks."
• 70% strongly support protecting public lands like monuments and wildlife refuge areas.
• 66% support the expansion of wind, solar, and renewable energy development.
• 65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
• 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes.
• 65% of people support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
Gilens and Page present data (http://tinyurl.com/hlov4ou) that show that average Americans, even when represented by majoritarian interest groups, have negligible influence in shaping public policy. Economic elites and their business-oriented interest groups call the shots.
We don't live in a democracy any more.
14
Doesn't the dividend negate the incentive to burn less fossil fuels? Seems like this idea would circulate money around but would not reduce consumption.
Liberals are often too busy to sit up and take note of the fact that many Republican/conservative ideas are both rational and pragmatic. Like Senators Schumer and Warren, they would prefer to shoot first and ask questions later, if at all.
A similar look should be taken by Democrats at school choice. Conservatives are not looking to eviscerate public schools - only to give poor children and their parents a shot at decent schooling.
The key here is "reasonableness".
Not sure if liberals know how to spell that word......
A similar look should be taken by Democrats at school choice. Conservatives are not looking to eviscerate public schools - only to give poor children and their parents a shot at decent schooling.
The key here is "reasonableness".
Not sure if liberals know how to spell that word......
1
Well, with the new Education Secretary I think it will be a lot of conservatives who cannot spell at all.
1
Would it surprise anyone to learn that the oil/gas energy companies have been preparing for a carbon tax for awhile now? Their future project planning has a ghost tax attached.
What's needed to make this happen is Exxon Mobil, Shell, et al, getting their lobbyists to heel the flock. The incentives? Limitation of potential future liability for one. The possibility of a political wind shift down the line that could impose a much worse deal number two. Predictability vs unknowable volatility goes a long way.
A $40 a ton carbon tax isn't going to solve the issue. Neither is 100% compliance with Paris. But they're both a step in the right direction.
What's needed to make this happen is Exxon Mobil, Shell, et al, getting their lobbyists to heel the flock. The incentives? Limitation of potential future liability for one. The possibility of a political wind shift down the line that could impose a much worse deal number two. Predictability vs unknowable volatility goes a long way.
A $40 a ton carbon tax isn't going to solve the issue. Neither is 100% compliance with Paris. But they're both a step in the right direction.
1
And how about carbon credits? While they may be insignificant in the overall picture, they are important nonetheless. Here in Oregon, governor Kate Brown recently protected a large natural area that was on the block. Carbon credits might induce other states to protect their natural resources.
1
Do not despair. That is what the enemy wants us to do. If we give up we really will be cooked.
Thank you Editorial board for writing of an issue that effects ALL of us. Please in every edition let us know the state of the climate in the world. You know , Sally Sue's granddaughters and great granddaughters are going to question why Sally Sue did not march against climate change as soon as this country elected a new president instead of her right to have an abortion. They will question why The New York Times featured an article about Donald Trumps sons on the front page instead of a follow up on the glacier melt on the front page. Reading the letters to the editor they will wonder why people are so filled with revenge instead of offering solutions to climate change and saying we must work together .
5
Exxon, by way of Goggle is listed as earning 7.92 billion dollars for 2016. This is equal to to a rate $251.00/second. Big energy likes drinking from the hose. Any attempt to modify our behavior to reduce carbon emissions by way of of a tax will be be resisted with the uncontrolled flow of money to affect the political outcomes that benefit their position. Rex Tillerson the CEO of Exxon for more than a decade is now slated to be the Secretary of State for the Trump administration. A marriage made in Hades.
1
The plan should include scheduled increases in the tax until it reaches a level sufficient to address global warming.
5
Of course it'll makes no difference to the GOP that the ice shelf is melting at an even crazier pace than expected.
1
Brilliant. But along with it the entire nefarious system of misdirected incentives on renewable technologies needs to be dismantled, and a new regime established to support property owners in implementing renewable energy retrofitting in a way that maximizes property values and minimizes environmental impact. More will be accomplished this way than ever was under the legacy regimes of idiotic incentives which have repeatedly resulted in accountants and bookkeepers designing energy systems, instead of engineers. Too many times idiotic incentives almost forced idiotic technology choices.
Let the repubs pass this with no help from Democrats. This administration will catastrophically implode and take down all those who were part of it.
Why be a part of it?
Why be a part of it?
The really revolutionary part of this story: At least some Republicans finally understand that climate change is real. However, all this ideas about letting market forces deal with the problem are bound to fail. Such forces only work in a free market - that is a market in which supply and demand float freely and determine a price (note: not a market without regulations - that would be a lawless market, and such markets tend not to be free for long). In a carbon tax system, or a cap-and-trade system one of the three - supply, or demand, or price - will always have to be set artifically. The health market for example, does not work either for the same reason: It's no free market, because demand is not free, since following the rule: "I consider this treatment/drug too expensive; I'll rather suffer, or even die" is not really an option.
1
"The new Climate Leadership Council argues that conservatives should support a carbon tax because it is a more market-friendly approach than Mr. Obama’s regulations."
Pres. Obama stated many times that regulation was not an ideal solution. Due to purposeful obstruction in Congress, however, it was the last remaining option available. It is indeed richly ironic that a few thoughtful Republicans seem to have "discovered" the advantages of well-crafted policy.
Sadly, we no longer have the time to waste waiting for the rest of the GOP to come around. And now in the Age of Trump, I hold out no hope.
Pres. Obama stated many times that regulation was not an ideal solution. Due to purposeful obstruction in Congress, however, it was the last remaining option available. It is indeed richly ironic that a few thoughtful Republicans seem to have "discovered" the advantages of well-crafted policy.
Sadly, we no longer have the time to waste waiting for the rest of the GOP to come around. And now in the Age of Trump, I hold out no hope.
5
Climate change exists? A new tax? Hmmm.....where is John Oliver when we need him? Mr. Oliver, if you're listening...
Golden Triangle has for 2 years running done a haiku contest with the winning submissions posted on select streets in downtown Washington, DC. Could you not do your own haiku contest on Trump and climate change and post the winners strategically in major cities? Let me kick it off with a submission...
Ivanka's shoe line
I search Nordstrum's desperate...
My carbon footprint
Golden Triangle has for 2 years running done a haiku contest with the winning submissions posted on select streets in downtown Washington, DC. Could you not do your own haiku contest on Trump and climate change and post the winners strategically in major cities? Let me kick it off with a submission...
Ivanka's shoe line
I search Nordstrum's desperate...
My carbon footprint
1
Maybe they can get Sarah Palin to speak up for those dividend checks, as she did in Alaska.
With the latest climate conference over, it is becoming clear just what Climate Change really means. At the conference, the foundational structures needed for the development of global carbon regulation were agreed to. Climate change is now finally showing its true colors…
It is the first truly global ideology.
Until now, it was difficult to see just exactly what evolutionary trajectory climate change would take. But with Brexit and the opening of a new postmodern path for the Western world, one can now see clearly through this new lens that the issue of climate change is nothing but the ultimate when it comes to the concept of political ideologies. When describing or defining this new ideology, a modernist will call it climate change, but a postmodern philosopher, will see it clearly as Carbon Communism (Carbonism).
And the proof is there if one looks at the core organizing principles of Carbonism and Communism. While Communism seeks to marshal or harness the economic and political power of the nation-state by organizing through the idea of the worker. Carbonism although similarly structured, takes the organizing principle to the next level – first by substituting the nation-state for the world, and then by directly linking the combined economic and political power of each individual in the world, to the natural carbon footprint each individual of the world creates. And in the global context of Carbonism, this individual can either be a person, corporation or business.
It is the first truly global ideology.
Until now, it was difficult to see just exactly what evolutionary trajectory climate change would take. But with Brexit and the opening of a new postmodern path for the Western world, one can now see clearly through this new lens that the issue of climate change is nothing but the ultimate when it comes to the concept of political ideologies. When describing or defining this new ideology, a modernist will call it climate change, but a postmodern philosopher, will see it clearly as Carbon Communism (Carbonism).
And the proof is there if one looks at the core organizing principles of Carbonism and Communism. While Communism seeks to marshal or harness the economic and political power of the nation-state by organizing through the idea of the worker. Carbonism although similarly structured, takes the organizing principle to the next level – first by substituting the nation-state for the world, and then by directly linking the combined economic and political power of each individual in the world, to the natural carbon footprint each individual of the world creates. And in the global context of Carbonism, this individual can either be a person, corporation or business.
1
Give them credit for acknowledging and using the term "climate change." It doesn't matter that they could have taken this position 20 years ago - what matters is that they are willing to take it now.
Anything is fine as long as there is no mandate and no public dollar spent on the pretense of controlling climate.
Renewable energy is legal and will remain so. As long as sufficiently many people are willing to sign sufficiently long contracts at a sufficiently high price for it, utilities will buy the land, build the necessary gear and the required power lines, based on these contracts.
Renewable energy is legal and will remain so. As long as sufficiently many people are willing to sign sufficiently long contracts at a sufficiently high price for it, utilities will buy the land, build the necessary gear and the required power lines, based on these contracts.
Let us recall what the 2016 Republication Party platform declared :
1. required the US to pull out of the Paris Agreement
2. opposed any carbon tax
3.asked that renewable energy incentives be ended
4.called climate change not a " proven Science"
5.rejected Obama's Clean Energy Plan
6.made the use of fossil fuel a priority
Given this frame-of-reference and the new Trump EPA , I don't see Trump or Bannon would agree with either these level-headed Republicans (Baker,Shulz,Paulson) or the 78% of registered voters . The Bannon/Trump team is driven by the "Drill Baby Drill" and "Burn Our Coal " 22% minority . Trump's recent EO's support my conclusion .
1. required the US to pull out of the Paris Agreement
2. opposed any carbon tax
3.asked that renewable energy incentives be ended
4.called climate change not a " proven Science"
5.rejected Obama's Clean Energy Plan
6.made the use of fossil fuel a priority
Given this frame-of-reference and the new Trump EPA , I don't see Trump or Bannon would agree with either these level-headed Republicans (Baker,Shulz,Paulson) or the 78% of registered voters . The Bannon/Trump team is driven by the "Drill Baby Drill" and "Burn Our Coal " 22% minority . Trump's recent EO's support my conclusion .
2
A carbon tax is a smart way to build the costs of burning fossil fuels into the price. When the price does not contain many of the costs borne by society, than it is cheaper than it should be and is over produced.
By making the price closer to the actual costs, which includes the costs of pollution like health problems and global warming, it lowers demand.
Unfortunately, I don't trust these Republicans to actually mean what they say. Most likely they will pull some kind of bait and switch, where the exact opposite of what they say is in the actual language of the bill.
The devil is in the details. Support a clean carbon tax bill, but don't let them fool you into supporting a fake carbon tax bill.
By making the price closer to the actual costs, which includes the costs of pollution like health problems and global warming, it lowers demand.
Unfortunately, I don't trust these Republicans to actually mean what they say. Most likely they will pull some kind of bait and switch, where the exact opposite of what they say is in the actual language of the bill.
The devil is in the details. Support a clean carbon tax bill, but don't let them fool you into supporting a fake carbon tax bill.
3
These people in power, the Koch brothers, big oil and gas industries and the politicians who cow-tow to them don't seem to realise that they are not immune from the results of all of these carbon emissions. They may live in their bubble in DC or wherever but that bubble is not a barrier to the smoke and carbon emissions. I guess they just don't care what happens to the rest of the country and their own families.
Such greed will come back to bite them when they find it hard to breathe without an oxygen mask.
Such greed will come back to bite them when they find it hard to breathe without an oxygen mask.
2
I want climate change to accelerate. I love snow and climate change means more snow where I live. In the Boston area, 135 years of record keeping shows that 6 of the 8 heaviest snowfall seasons have occurred in the last 25 years.
1. 2014-2015: 110.6 inches
2. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches
6. 1977-1978: 85.1 inches
7. 1992-1993: 83.9 inches
8. 2010-2011: 81.0 inches
A future with more snowstorms, especially in the Northeast.
Climate change is happening. It's a scientific fact. Snow lovers (like me) should rejoice. Climate change is good because snow is fun. Stop fighting climate change. Get outside in winter and enjoy the snow.
Not a denier. Not a skeptic. I am a climate change fan !
GO CLIMATE CHANGE !
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States
"These comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms".
1. 2014-2015: 110.6 inches
2. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches
6. 1977-1978: 85.1 inches
7. 1992-1993: 83.9 inches
8. 2010-2011: 81.0 inches
A future with more snowstorms, especially in the Northeast.
Climate change is happening. It's a scientific fact. Snow lovers (like me) should rejoice. Climate change is good because snow is fun. Stop fighting climate change. Get outside in winter and enjoy the snow.
Not a denier. Not a skeptic. I am a climate change fan !
GO CLIMATE CHANGE !
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States
"These comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms".
2
When your descendants have to abandon large portions of Boston due to rising seas, you might be gone, but they will be a bit upset. Most of the problems with climate change are going to occur past 2050 or so--most of the changes will not be good.
1
The poster should be aware that the beneficial effects of climate change are likely to be short-lived. We are on a path of accelerated warming which will not warm a few degrees and stay still. The warming will continue through this century into the next. Unless we stop what we are doing, it will continue warming to the point where there will be few habitable regions on the planet for humans. At that point, technology will not save us.
1
I would not get my hopes up, Republicans also proposed the blue print for Obamacare.
1
George Shultz, one of the signatories, was for a long time president and director of the Bechtel Group, which is making its money from building renewables
http://www.bechtel.com/expertise/power/renewable/
Under the current administration, the money for that will dry up.
http://www.bechtel.com/expertise/power/renewable/
Under the current administration, the money for that will dry up.
Let me understand this...
The government taxes my ultility or gas company...
The aforementioned pass along the tax, in higher prices, to the consumer...
The consumer gets a check from the government to cover the cost of the price increase...
So, you tell me, what is incentive for either the business or consumer to reduce their use of carbon, because I do not see any "incentive" here.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a government bureaucrat who now has the "incentive" to keep his/her job in managing this boondoogle of a program that will really do nothing to reduce carbon emissons.
The government taxes my ultility or gas company...
The aforementioned pass along the tax, in higher prices, to the consumer...
The consumer gets a check from the government to cover the cost of the price increase...
So, you tell me, what is incentive for either the business or consumer to reduce their use of carbon, because I do not see any "incentive" here.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a government bureaucrat who now has the "incentive" to keep his/her job in managing this boondoogle of a program that will really do nothing to reduce carbon emissons.
1
Lovely editorial, thank you.
I fault it on one small score. It should have mentioned that the proposal comes from to two very famous, conservative Republican economists. "Martin S. Feldstein was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan and N. Gregory Mankiw was the chairman under President George W. Bush."
To add my own fuel to the fire, not only is their proposal brilliant and desperately needed, but it has been endorsed, decades ago, by leaders of the fight against climate change, the former NASA scientist James Hanson, environmentalist and politician Al Gore, writer and activist Bill McKibben.
Hopefully, we won't have to wait for Florida and NYC to go underwater, before we take action to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
I fault it on one small score. It should have mentioned that the proposal comes from to two very famous, conservative Republican economists. "Martin S. Feldstein was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan and N. Gregory Mankiw was the chairman under President George W. Bush."
To add my own fuel to the fire, not only is their proposal brilliant and desperately needed, but it has been endorsed, decades ago, by leaders of the fight against climate change, the former NASA scientist James Hanson, environmentalist and politician Al Gore, writer and activist Bill McKibben.
Hopefully, we won't have to wait for Florida and NYC to go underwater, before we take action to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
5
We are all frogs in that pot of water coming to a boil. Then we will be all dead.
Maybe Ethiopia and Bangladesh will be first, but sooner or later the golden shoes of the Trump Tower will be paddling.
What will Himself do then - climb to the 52nd floor because the elevators have stalled.
Then we may see the grotesque shadow of a Vietnamese style helicopter rescue from the roof.
But where will he fly to for safety, the Canadian Rockies maybe. He can't arrive by road - we will have built a wall by then and made the Americans pay for it.
Poor frog; he should never have been allowed to grow from a tadpole.
Well, actually, he never did.
Maybe Ethiopia and Bangladesh will be first, but sooner or later the golden shoes of the Trump Tower will be paddling.
What will Himself do then - climb to the 52nd floor because the elevators have stalled.
Then we may see the grotesque shadow of a Vietnamese style helicopter rescue from the roof.
But where will he fly to for safety, the Canadian Rockies maybe. He can't arrive by road - we will have built a wall by then and made the Americans pay for it.
Poor frog; he should never have been allowed to grow from a tadpole.
Well, actually, he never did.
4
ANY policy that would have a beneficial effect for most people and the world is a rare thing for Republicans.
1
Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. ? Aren't they what the current 'leadership' calls RINOs? Belief in climate change and tax increases will at best be ignored in the din and clamor of Kellyanne's terrorist attacks and Mike Flynn's high crimes and misdemeanors.
3
Baker was chief of staff under Ronald Regan
Schultz was secretary of state for Regan
Paulson was secretary of the treasury HW Bush
That sort tells you everything you need to know about the current leadership.
Schultz was secretary of state for Regan
Paulson was secretary of the treasury HW Bush
That sort tells you everything you need to know about the current leadership.
Massive amounts of snowfall in New England. Lake Oroville in California
ready to overflow and flood hundreds of homes. All sorts of continuing
climate disasters. We need to act now on climate change or soon it will
be too late. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to do the
right thing.
ready to overflow and flood hundreds of homes. All sorts of continuing
climate disasters. We need to act now on climate change or soon it will
be too late. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us to do the
right thing.
13
It's probably too late for a carbon tax, which in any case merely passes the cost to consumers, since mass transit has been ignored by both major parties for decades. We now appear headed for extinction, and the person most responsible for this monstrous crime has become our Secretary of State.
8
Higher prices at the pump would mean more people taking mass transit.
1
It's not too late for a carbon tax. Why would you say that? And you then say "passes cost on to consumers" when the article clearly followed with "The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start."
To try pinning all the blame on exactly one head of one fossil fuel company is not reality-based griping, either. Tillerson never pulled a gun on anyone and said "buy gasoline!"
People in many states today can choose the provider of their electricity, so can select to buy from a provider based on renewables. That allows individuals to stop buying the fossil-based energy, and provides market incentives to expand renewable supplies.
To try pinning all the blame on exactly one head of one fossil fuel company is not reality-based griping, either. Tillerson never pulled a gun on anyone and said "buy gasoline!"
People in many states today can choose the provider of their electricity, so can select to buy from a provider based on renewables. That allows individuals to stop buying the fossil-based energy, and provides market incentives to expand renewable supplies.
2
Good thoughts from the 'elder statesmen,' but while we are at it, let's put a carbon tax on the hot CO2 coming out of the 'junior nut-jobs' in Congress that claim to be conservatives, yet deny the science that may conserve the earth every chance they get.
8
Perhaps Ivanka will whisper in her daddy's ear to help out with this "call." At some point, wasn't she going to make Climate Change her signature project? Oh, wait, that was before she was relegated to Child Care.
I am virtually without faith in anything anymore - and down to believing half of what I see, a quarter of what I read, a tenth of what I hear. And if it is "good news" ... well, I now dismiss that entirely because I can no longer bear the good news tease and the ultimate letdown.
I am virtually without faith in anything anymore - and down to believing half of what I see, a quarter of what I read, a tenth of what I hear. And if it is "good news" ... well, I now dismiss that entirely because I can no longer bear the good news tease and the ultimate letdown.
3
I have seen this rather surprising proposal from Henry Paulson in the past, and it is to be commended, especially coming from where it does at this point. On the other hand, like every other fundamentalism, free-market" fundamentalism is based on an ideology, and ideologies tend to perpetuate themselves by ignoring deductive reasoning and the rules of evidence. The idea that the market will somehow inevitably achieve the best results with energy, is a bit like relying on the invisible hand of God to direct the traffic in a crowded city. The biosphere and the resources in it are finite. We have to cut consumption, reduce waste, and make the long transition to a solar economy. A carbon tax is a step, but it is just one small step in the many steps we have ahead of us.
3
It's good to see the old Republican guard come to terms with objective reality.
The real question is whether any Republicans currently in office, and terrified of their ultra-right wing's base reactions, can accept objective reality
The real question is whether any Republicans currently in office, and terrified of their ultra-right wing's base reactions, can accept objective reality
9
No Republican will even consider taxing carbon unless it has the provision: "oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices." Then the rebate program - to keep the tax from being totally regressive - will create a new, big bureaucracy where? In the IRS, the perennially underfunded, understaffed bureau the rightists hate? A new operation? Maybe all the people fired from the EPA can get hired - part time, of course - for the rebate gig.
Common sense, except to Republicans, says kill the complex rebate scheme. Make the suppliers, Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas pay the tax! Don't let them pass it along to the rest of us. Only then will they throw their immense power into the job-creating field of renewable energy and energy storage. Oh, and cut the subsidies to those profitable powerhouses, for Heaven's sake!
Common sense, except to Republicans, says kill the complex rebate scheme. Make the suppliers, Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas pay the tax! Don't let them pass it along to the rest of us. Only then will they throw their immense power into the job-creating field of renewable energy and energy storage. Oh, and cut the subsidies to those profitable powerhouses, for Heaven's sake!
8
The carbon tax only makes sense if it is passed on to retail process. That is how the market mechanism works. The price goes up, so you buy Lee's has (and consider moving to an electric car).
If the retail price doesn't reflect the tax, demand will not go down. The point of the rebate is to make sure that people are not hurt by the higher prices.
Subtracting 2,000 from every citizens tax bill is not complicated. (We should be giving am equal share of the growth in the money supply to each citizen also, instead of giving all of that money to global banks every year, also.)
If the retail price doesn't reflect the tax, demand will not go down. The point of the rebate is to make sure that people are not hurt by the higher prices.
Subtracting 2,000 from every citizens tax bill is not complicated. (We should be giving am equal share of the growth in the money supply to each citizen also, instead of giving all of that money to global banks every year, also.)
It is one thing, and much easier, to compose high minded
but completely reasonable essays about the institutional, national, and international need to address, and attempt by all means necessary, to attenuate the effects of human induced climate change. However, the
public reading this publication does not, for the most part, need to be convinced of this. Those who do need the attention are those basket cases of
carbon based energy industry gofers who are also, most unfortunately,
elected representatives of states where such industry is such a large
component of the economy. It is these people who have to be
convinced of the need to act decisively since they are, at present,
functioning as the principal sources of inertia.
Their constituents will not do this since they perceive their economic
well being as tied to the industries in question. So these industry lackeys
feel no obvious electoral pressure to do anything than what they've
been doing for many years in order to continue being elected again and again.
This is where the talents of people of the caliber of Baker and Schultz
can be put to great use. They have the gravitas and ability to initiate
a series of off the record and back door negotiations with those in
Congress who could disentangle this human induced knot of
pathetic inaction. They need to bring all their energies and connections
and attention to this very important challenge, and as quickly
as humanly possible.
but completely reasonable essays about the institutional, national, and international need to address, and attempt by all means necessary, to attenuate the effects of human induced climate change. However, the
public reading this publication does not, for the most part, need to be convinced of this. Those who do need the attention are those basket cases of
carbon based energy industry gofers who are also, most unfortunately,
elected representatives of states where such industry is such a large
component of the economy. It is these people who have to be
convinced of the need to act decisively since they are, at present,
functioning as the principal sources of inertia.
Their constituents will not do this since they perceive their economic
well being as tied to the industries in question. So these industry lackeys
feel no obvious electoral pressure to do anything than what they've
been doing for many years in order to continue being elected again and again.
This is where the talents of people of the caliber of Baker and Schultz
can be put to great use. They have the gravitas and ability to initiate
a series of off the record and back door negotiations with those in
Congress who could disentangle this human induced knot of
pathetic inaction. They need to bring all their energies and connections
and attention to this very important challenge, and as quickly
as humanly possible.
3
What's that noise? I think it is Hell freezing over.
Let's hope this is a trend that will soak into other areas of Republican policy, like gun control, making it easier to vote, a single payer health care system. Be still my beating heart.
Let's hope this is a trend that will soak into other areas of Republican policy, like gun control, making it easier to vote, a single payer health care system. Be still my beating heart.
7
Don't believe them until an actual bill is read and analyzed.
The Republican elders are part of the Establishment, and no matter how their ideas make sense, the wave of anti intellectualism affecting the base of the Republican Party is so strong that their ideas will be rejected.
Very sad for our country!
Very sad for our country!
11
The GOP play book can be succinctly summarized: "Burn as much carbon based fuel as possible. It always stimulates the economy in the short run."
And as our newly minted Secretary of State once intimated: It does not matter where we get oil as long as we get it.
In the long run, it wallows in inefficiency. A vehicle that has double the mileage is twice as efficient. Economies that embrace that efficiency will do twice as much with the same resource.
The basic physical chemistry of carbon based fuel combustion entails the production of carbon dioxide, water-vapor and heat (stoichiometry and enthalpy). Careful measurement of the heat of combustion show that gasoline internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of about 25%. Only 25% of the energy goes to moving the vehicle and it cargo; the remaining 75% is vented to the atmosphere. Readers can search for "thermal efficiency" for more details.
That unused 75% is still a form of energy that will melt/evaporate water and warm air masses that will subsequently rise. Restated, our atmosphere has been absorbing wasted, uncontrolled energy over the last several centuries.
It took the biomass of chlorophyll containing organisms eons to produce carbon based fossil fuels. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising cannot not be spun into any other alternative truth. The planet is consuming fossil fuel faster than it is being made.
And as our newly minted Secretary of State once intimated: It does not matter where we get oil as long as we get it.
In the long run, it wallows in inefficiency. A vehicle that has double the mileage is twice as efficient. Economies that embrace that efficiency will do twice as much with the same resource.
The basic physical chemistry of carbon based fuel combustion entails the production of carbon dioxide, water-vapor and heat (stoichiometry and enthalpy). Careful measurement of the heat of combustion show that gasoline internal combustion engines have a thermal efficiency of about 25%. Only 25% of the energy goes to moving the vehicle and it cargo; the remaining 75% is vented to the atmosphere. Readers can search for "thermal efficiency" for more details.
That unused 75% is still a form of energy that will melt/evaporate water and warm air masses that will subsequently rise. Restated, our atmosphere has been absorbing wasted, uncontrolled energy over the last several centuries.
It took the biomass of chlorophyll containing organisms eons to produce carbon based fossil fuels. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising cannot not be spun into any other alternative truth. The planet is consuming fossil fuel faster than it is being made.
19
The GOP play book can be succinctly summarized: "Burn as much carbon based fuel as possible. It makes us so fabulously wealthy that we'll be able to escape the effects of climate change."
Let's face it. The GOP and its owners don't care about the economy except as it produces major profits for them and sucks the money out of the hands of everyone else. They don't really care if billions of people die as a result of climate change. Superstorms, flooding, starvation, riots, civil wars over resources, desertification of farm land, untreated epidemics of new diseases - it's all good. They are looking for a way to get rid of excess population, and the results of climate change will do that for them. The only aspect of this that shocks most Americans is that the GOP is more than willing to take this approach with our own citizens. After all, now that they have seized all branches of government, they won't need voters anymore.
Let's face it. The GOP and its owners don't care about the economy except as it produces major profits for them and sucks the money out of the hands of everyone else. They don't really care if billions of people die as a result of climate change. Superstorms, flooding, starvation, riots, civil wars over resources, desertification of farm land, untreated epidemics of new diseases - it's all good. They are looking for a way to get rid of excess population, and the results of climate change will do that for them. The only aspect of this that shocks most Americans is that the GOP is more than willing to take this approach with our own citizens. After all, now that they have seized all branches of government, they won't need voters anymore.
No criticism on your statement, but the 25% is - thankfully - a value from the past; 1970's and before. Modern gasoline engines reach between 35 and 40%. Toyota even claims an efficiency in excess of 40% for the combustion engine of it's latest Prius.
True, now try that very cogent and reality-based explanation on one of the large number of non-college educated Americans that put Trump into office.
You are likely aware also that electric vehicles are three times as efficient: in the 60% range. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml
You are likely aware also that electric vehicles are three times as efficient: in the 60% range. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml
1
1. I'm making my own statement by driving an electric car and charging it with solar panels on my garage. Ditto for house and family of four. Take that, GOP, Putin and Wahabbist Saudis!
2. Together, we can emulate the German energiegewende (energy change) where citizens drove their municipalities to adopt renewable energy sources. This drove down the demand for coal fired power plants just enough that bankers pulled the plug on any new coal fired plants.
3. We can do the same here.
2. Together, we can emulate the German energiegewende (energy change) where citizens drove their municipalities to adopt renewable energy sources. This drove down the demand for coal fired power plants just enough that bankers pulled the plug on any new coal fired plants.
3. We can do the same here.
11
Do we really believe that the American people would get money back to off set carbon taxes on companies? Will this be the next progressive money grab where they decide 'who' gets 'what.' While this editorial, like all, attacks 'Republicans' I find it curious.
"The last serious effort to impose a national price on carbon came in 2009 with cap-and-trade legislation by Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, both then Democratic House members. The bill passed the House, but never received a vote in the Senate. Since then, Republican control of one or both houses of Congress has thwarted ambitious climate legislation."
So, help me understand how in 2009 this never received a vote in the Dem controlled Senate (actually, Reid's senate as he controlled all for 2 years). Is it possible that both parties refuse to take the time to propose simple, clear legislation that takes small steps in the right direction without unintended consequences? Are we regulated not by Congress or Science, but staffers and lobbyists that actually right thousands of pages of nonsense that no one reads?
Politicians have too much power, too few ethics rules, and no accountability for their actions. Wonder if the NYTimes will ever see it that way.
"The last serious effort to impose a national price on carbon came in 2009 with cap-and-trade legislation by Edward Markey and Henry Waxman, both then Democratic House members. The bill passed the House, but never received a vote in the Senate. Since then, Republican control of one or both houses of Congress has thwarted ambitious climate legislation."
So, help me understand how in 2009 this never received a vote in the Dem controlled Senate (actually, Reid's senate as he controlled all for 2 years). Is it possible that both parties refuse to take the time to propose simple, clear legislation that takes small steps in the right direction without unintended consequences? Are we regulated not by Congress or Science, but staffers and lobbyists that actually right thousands of pages of nonsense that no one reads?
Politicians have too much power, too few ethics rules, and no accountability for their actions. Wonder if the NYTimes will ever see it that way.
2
Filibuster.
IIRC, the Dems didn't have a filibuster proof majority...
I'm happy to see some Republican support for reducing carbon emissions, but I would have been a lot happier to see it during the Obama administration, when it would have been well received and might have had some effect. Trump's cabinet nominations for Secretary of State, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and EPA Administrator make clear this administration's support for a return to fossil fuels, so I see little opportunity for progress on climate issues at this time. However, there's no wrong time for the right ideas, and I commend these Republicans for putting aside the party line and thinking for themselves on this most important issue.
2
That proposal is the best news of 2017. (That's not a high bar, but it's really good news.)
It's not perfect but it's serious progress. Earth cannot afford to delay.
The key is in marketing. I remember the furor over mandatory seat belts in cars. They'll raise prices! We can't afford it! But "seat belts save lives," and the trivial cost (if there was any at all), worked.
Market it the right way. If you say it's a "new tax" that ends up putting money in my pocket (and saves the world, including my neighborhood), please, give me more of those taxes.
It's not perfect but it's serious progress. Earth cannot afford to delay.
The key is in marketing. I remember the furor over mandatory seat belts in cars. They'll raise prices! We can't afford it! But "seat belts save lives," and the trivial cost (if there was any at all), worked.
Market it the right way. If you say it's a "new tax" that ends up putting money in my pocket (and saves the world, including my neighborhood), please, give me more of those taxes.
4
Instead of focusing on the "carbon tax," focus on the "clean energy rebate."
Lamentably, I prognosticate DOA. Here's to hoping it picks up steam.
1
The International community should treat the US as a rogue nation if Trump pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and slap a carbon tax on every import from the US to compensate for the mitigation and resilience they will have to build in as a result of a nation that is responsible for 25% of the carbon emissions, despite having only 5% of the population. Money is the only thing this guy occupying the Oval Office understands. The small Pacific island nations that are being rendered uninhabitable or suffering massive typhoons should sue in World Court for crimes against their humanity. Because we who inhabit the cities, towns and villages that will suffer the public health and infrastructure harms brought on by climate catastrophes are essentially powerless because of a complicit Congress under the thumb of Fossil Fuel Empire, we will need the larger global community to save us.
9
Global corporations move their factories to countries without carbon regulations so they can pollute more. Making them pay extra for that pollution would both reduce pollution and reduce their incentive to leave the US.
The industrialized nations that caused this problem should be helping dropping countries that did not, but that is not a reason to avoid a carbon tax.
The industrialized nations that caused this problem should be helping dropping countries that did not, but that is not a reason to avoid a carbon tax.
Glenmr fairly notes:
"If people get back more money than they put in, where is the incentive to reduce energy use or put in high priced renewable sources of energy [?]"
Though the editorial does say there would be an "incentive" to use less energy, it doesn't really explain that incentive in detail. Not clear how energy usage would be monitored, for example, so that "reducers" could be rewarded -- might that monitoring require more intrusion than people would accept, and effectively deny the poorest people any reward because it would be difficult, even impossible, to monitor their usage?
But this is a short editorial, after all. It doesn't purport to be a detailed description of the carbon-tax plan. It does sound like the proponents have given considerable thought to creating an "incentive," even if the details are not (and, realistically, cannot be) laid out here.
"If people get back more money than they put in, where is the incentive to reduce energy use or put in high priced renewable sources of energy [?]"
Though the editorial does say there would be an "incentive" to use less energy, it doesn't really explain that incentive in detail. Not clear how energy usage would be monitored, for example, so that "reducers" could be rewarded -- might that monitoring require more intrusion than people would accept, and effectively deny the poorest people any reward because it would be difficult, even impossible, to monitor their usage?
But this is a short editorial, after all. It doesn't purport to be a detailed description of the carbon-tax plan. It does sound like the proponents have given considerable thought to creating an "incentive," even if the details are not (and, realistically, cannot be) laid out here.
1
You get the same rebate no matter how much energy you use, so those that use the least energy would be left with most of their rebate.
It is the higher retail price of the fuel that lowers demand. Since the rebate is not affected by use, it does not change demand.
It is the higher retail price of the fuel that lowers demand. Since the rebate is not affected by use, it does not change demand.
1
MyThree - one example of the actions that a carbon tax might produce here. Taxing CO2 emissions would result in reduction of sales of fossil fuels over time.
A recent federal auction of rights for exploring and developing wind power for a parcel off the coast of New York went through dozens of rounds of bidding, with the winning bid was for over $42 million.
Winning bidder? Norway's Statoil.
An oil company wants to make money, bidding for wind rights near a huge electricity market fits that goal. So, if our own oil companies, who show great willingness to make money, realize they can use their expertise in offshore platform development and operations in a slightly different way, then we get oil companies reducing their own dependence on fossil fuels for profits.
A recent federal auction of rights for exploring and developing wind power for a parcel off the coast of New York went through dozens of rounds of bidding, with the winning bid was for over $42 million.
Winning bidder? Norway's Statoil.
An oil company wants to make money, bidding for wind rights near a huge electricity market fits that goal. So, if our own oil companies, who show great willingness to make money, realize they can use their expertise in offshore platform development and operations in a slightly different way, then we get oil companies reducing their own dependence on fossil fuels for profits.
1
I've read through the comments and have to laugh because few have a clue.
So let's assume that Liberals, Democrats and Republicans get together and actually try to do something about "Climate Change" would that change anything?
If we could magically reduce our energy needs by 85% and reduce our carbon footprint, would our species future look better?
Could we create jobs, reduce pollution, and improve people's standard of living?
Could "Wind and Solar" prevent the worst from coming?
Could voting in a super-majority Democrat controlled Congress, with a Democrat as President, stop climate change?
Could reducing the worlds CO2 output and energy consumption to 1965, 1964, or even 1960 levels - stop climate change?
The sad reality is: NOPE!
It won't change a thing!
So let's assume that Liberals, Democrats and Republicans get together and actually try to do something about "Climate Change" would that change anything?
If we could magically reduce our energy needs by 85% and reduce our carbon footprint, would our species future look better?
Could we create jobs, reduce pollution, and improve people's standard of living?
Could "Wind and Solar" prevent the worst from coming?
Could voting in a super-majority Democrat controlled Congress, with a Democrat as President, stop climate change?
Could reducing the worlds CO2 output and energy consumption to 1965, 1964, or even 1960 levels - stop climate change?
The sad reality is: NOPE!
It won't change a thing!
2
Well I'm no fan of Democrats, because the policies they actually vote for are similar to Republican policies,
But drastic reductions in CO2 and cheap renewable energy would do a lot.
But drastic reductions in CO2 and cheap renewable energy would do a lot.
1
The Sceptic,
That's sneaky but you're right. (I had to think about what you were saying!)
Reducing CO2 to 1960 levels worldwide won't have any affect at all on climate change and the reasons are simple. In 1960, the world population was just over 3 billion people and CO2 was at 316.19 ppm and rising.
Drastic CO2 reductions won't help. Clean renewable energy sources won't help. The world population has more than doubled and is now at 7.3 Billion. The CO2 levels are now at 406.07 ppm and rising!
In 13 years, world population will be at 8.5 Billion.
Because CO2 is accelerating at 2.11 ppm now, by 2030 it will be over 433 ppm. That's just in 13 years.
Reducing CO2 output to 1960 levels will have no affect whatsoever!
That's sneaky but you're right. (I had to think about what you were saying!)
Reducing CO2 to 1960 levels worldwide won't have any affect at all on climate change and the reasons are simple. In 1960, the world population was just over 3 billion people and CO2 was at 316.19 ppm and rising.
Drastic CO2 reductions won't help. Clean renewable energy sources won't help. The world population has more than doubled and is now at 7.3 Billion. The CO2 levels are now at 406.07 ppm and rising!
In 13 years, world population will be at 8.5 Billion.
Because CO2 is accelerating at 2.11 ppm now, by 2030 it will be over 433 ppm. That's just in 13 years.
Reducing CO2 output to 1960 levels will have no affect whatsoever!
Once upon a time a philosopher, I think it was Aristoteles, expressed his doubts in a matter: - But is it necessarily so.
Now solar scientists say that it looks like the sun's activity with it's spots is decreasing. If so, we shall face another Ice Age appearing.
Now solar scientists say that it looks like the sun's activity with it's spots is decreasing. If so, we shall face another Ice Age appearing.
No surprise that Repubs would eventually embrace ideas guaranteed to lead to a police state. The only surprise is the welfare state component they added. But then you have to buy off the proles to isolate the intelligentsia. That's right in the script.
1
Do you have any ideas for reducing carbon emissions that don't automatically lead to a police state? Those might be useful.
Easy. Close carbon-emitting power stations and build nuclear power stations. Kick carbon-recovery scam tech to the curb. Go with renewables but recognize they will never be more than a fraction of what you need.
"A carbon tax in this form is not incentive enough for the type of changes needed to slowly reduce the reliance on fossil fuels."
Not overnight, correct. But what if this carbon tax had been put in place, say, 15 years ago? Might we be using less oil today?
In other words, should we do nothing at all to solve our problems unless we can solve those problems overnight? Or might gradual solutions instead have some merit -- a gradually rising carbon tax, for example?
Not overnight, correct. But what if this carbon tax had been put in place, say, 15 years ago? Might we be using less oil today?
In other words, should we do nothing at all to solve our problems unless we can solve those problems overnight? Or might gradual solutions instead have some merit -- a gradually rising carbon tax, for example?
3
An important proposal by wise people. Clearly it will not happen fast. However, new science has opened new technologies that can produce cheap green power 24/7 and replace fossil fuels. A few bold individuals can move these breakthrough systems into the market much more quickly than actions required by the government. See aesopinstitute.org for more information.
Climate change now requires revolution from below. If Arctic News is correct that human life can end on earth by 2026 without an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use within 5 years, it is absurd to fail to use every means to attack the problem.
During WW2 a 4 engine bomber rolled off an assembly line every hour. radically new energy breakthrough systems are very much less complex. The private sector can have a huge impact. Innovation is taking place at small firms across the planet. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. What is needed is to speed the process fast enough to matter.
Wake up folks! The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
Climate change now requires revolution from below. If Arctic News is correct that human life can end on earth by 2026 without an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use within 5 years, it is absurd to fail to use every means to attack the problem.
During WW2 a 4 engine bomber rolled off an assembly line every hour. radically new energy breakthrough systems are very much less complex. The private sector can have a huge impact. Innovation is taking place at small firms across the planet. Mass production of the best systems will inevitably follow. What is needed is to speed the process fast enough to matter.
Wake up folks! The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
3
If you are unfamiliar with Goldes and his "Aesop institute" read here:
https://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/mark-goldes/
https://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/mark-goldes/
3
You've been advertising promises for years, yet they never materialize. Come back when you've produced the wonder-engines and let us know.
And you refer to a 2012 blog post from "Arctic News" by some retired petroleum engineer as if it's real? Please, spare us the scare tactics.
No, get back to us when one of your dream machines is still there when you wake up.
And you refer to a 2012 blog post from "Arctic News" by some retired petroleum engineer as if it's real? Please, spare us the scare tactics.
No, get back to us when one of your dream machines is still there when you wake up.
1
Still trying to violate the laws of physics. To date---with a 13.7 billion year head start, it has not worked for anyone, anywhere at anytime.
2
Kinda difficult to try to solve a problem that supposedly doesn't exist.
5
I can’t conceive of James Baker or George Schultz concerned about global warming, which stands in the way of Fossil Profits. No matter how they twist & turn, in the end they stand to make profits, which has been the driving force behind everything they do, regardless of the effect it has on our environment.The answer to Carbon is not a Tax on Carbon emissions but doing away with carbon emissions.
3
I expect that we will do away with carbon emissions right after we adopt the French system of healthcare.
So, Ultra, what's your plan to do away with carbon emissions that doesn't involve raising the cost of energy based on carbon emissions?
You say you can't conceive of Baker or Schultz presenting this idea. Yet they did, so time to revise your conception.
Carbon tax is a good plan, and if it comes from conservatives and helps some other conservatives get behind taking action, it's a great plan.
You say you can't conceive of Baker or Schultz presenting this idea. Yet they did, so time to revise your conception.
Carbon tax is a good plan, and if it comes from conservatives and helps some other conservatives get behind taking action, it's a great plan.
1
The rebate subsidizes the customers for most of the costs of the carbon taxes. The customers who are able to satisfy their energy needs without fossil fuels will do much better than those who continue to use fossil fuel based systems, but practically, switching away from fossil fuel systems for most people will not be easy nor cheap, so it likely will extend the wide spread use of fossil fuel systems.
1
Ultimately the hydrocarbon energy sources in the earth will be depleted. We need to develop non-hydrocarbon energy sources to take over, or when the hydrocarbon sources do run out (they will get too expensive first), we could see the end of modern society as we know it.
1
Right. And if we go to renewables, we can bring the price of energy toward zero, which would be good for the economy, as would the new infrastructure construction that would make it possible.
A carbon tax sounds like a good idea at first, but how do we prevent such a tax from being horribly regressive? How do we keep it from taking a larger percentage of income from our poor and middle classes than it does from our wealthy?
Poor people drive 20 year-old cars running on five of eight cylinders because they can't afford better.
Poor people drive 20 year-old cars running on five of eight cylinders because they can't afford better.
1
You keep it from being regressive by giving everyone an equal share of the proceeds, as the plan, tentatively, stipulates. Rich people use far more energy than poor people, so they would pay more of the tax.
1
Part of the carbon tax idea is to assist low and middle income people in the purchase of more energy efficient goods. Hopefully it would be enough of an assist to allow replacement of that 20 year old car with perhaps a 3 year old 4 cylinder that gets 3X the MPG.
1
One way to keep the tax from becoming regressive would be to provide lower-income families with a dividend, as suggested in the article.
Anyway, if you think that a carbon tax would be regressive, how about the effects of climate change?
Anyway, if you think that a carbon tax would be regressive, how about the effects of climate change?
The Climate Leadership Council should be placed on a strict regime of garlic; to see if that relives their dementia. Before, long before, any of their advice is heeded on climate taxation.
1
This is one problem with vilification and righteous anger (as Charles Blow is promoting today). If a worthwhile opportunity happens to arise, like here, we are is no position to encourage our opponents to support it.
3
The Republicans will like it better if we're against it anyway.
The tax code is a powerful tool to encourage positive behavior while discouraging negative. And this idea, while not new, is the best one overall by far. The complicated part outside of selling it would be administering the border adjustments. The U.S. could take the leadership role worldwide. It is commendable that the people behind it are sponsoring the idea.
6
Three GOP old-timers sitting 'round the potbelly stove yapping do not constitute a "Republican call to action." I realize we are grasping at straws here, but is this story anything more than thinly-premised wishful thinking?
Come talk to us when people in the Trump administration, or people who, you know, hold a seat in our Congress start talking this way.
Come talk to us when people in the Trump administration, or people who, you know, hold a seat in our Congress start talking this way.
I still don't understand why that 2009 cap-and-trade program never passed - it was functionally identical to the program successfully used in the early 1990s to reduce and ultimately prevent acid rain. That program was effective (and cost-effective), and had significant Republican support.
Republicans don't change except to become more bull headed. If Democrats or environmentalists said there was no such thing as climate change they would disagree. They stick their heads out the window and say it feels OK to me even if it felt terrible. Scientists explore facts with much effort, but it seems republicans will only come along with an eraser and create their 'alternate facts'. And when you point this out to them they only glory in your discomfort. The entire world could fall around their heads and it would be OK for them if their so called 'honor' is preserved.
Like it but only the Cool Companies(a quick CEO-or 6th grade- read by Joseph Romm), who profoundly get that conservation and retrofitting actually help the bottom line(another book of his in the Columbia Business School Library and on Amazon, is Lean, Clean Management) will obey the Clean Water or Clean Air Acts voluntarily. Do you know how long it took the Us to get this clean through protests and legal actions, from the 1960's? Romm was writing about climate change in the 1980's when Al Gore knew. Companies need boundaries. Please.
Genuine free market Conservatives all agree: "Negative externalities must be internalized." Otherwise, they point out, you have "market failure." Period. End of discussion.
And the quickest, fairest, most efficient method of insuring those externalities are internalized is to impose a tax. All true free market Conservatives agree on this point.
Although Republicans have adopted the label for themselves, they are NOT pro-free-market: they are pro-market-failure and pro-corporate-subsidy. No surprise there. Corporation funded think tanks have been peddling this brand of "free-market-Conservatism" for years. Republicans are only too happy to pass the disinformation along to their suggestible, gullible flock and to collect the generous campaign contributions that accrue as a result.
And the quickest, fairest, most efficient method of insuring those externalities are internalized is to impose a tax. All true free market Conservatives agree on this point.
Although Republicans have adopted the label for themselves, they are NOT pro-free-market: they are pro-market-failure and pro-corporate-subsidy. No surprise there. Corporation funded think tanks have been peddling this brand of "free-market-Conservatism" for years. Republicans are only too happy to pass the disinformation along to their suggestible, gullible flock and to collect the generous campaign contributions that accrue as a result.
2
Temperature forecast for tomorrow in Anchorage is 41F. Keep talking.
1
There is a clear and immediate need to shift away from fossil fuels. When California needed to conserve 25% of water, they ordered that everyone conserve 25% of water. During the recession, when the states needed to cut their budgets by 10% or so, they cut their budgets by 10% or so. If Trump decides to stop Syrian immigration, he sets a date and stops it after that.
Republicans view taxes as the most acceptable form of regulation. And it appears that they are fine with passing the burden of the tax from one interest to another a half dozen times. Even a merry go round tax is better than simply ordering what needs to be accomplished. There is a certain appeal to a simple order, though.
Republicans view taxes as the most acceptable form of regulation. And it appears that they are fine with passing the burden of the tax from one interest to another a half dozen times. Even a merry go round tax is better than simply ordering what needs to be accomplished. There is a certain appeal to a simple order, though.
British Columbia has shown that a "revenue-neutral" carbon tax, like the one described in this article, works. It has reduced gasoline consumption in the province by 17% over the last five years. Simple, and effective.
Promoted by climatologist James Hansen for over a decade, B.C.'s tax suffers only from complexity. Anything less than a full rebate to the public (the revenue-neutral part) rouses suspicions of corruption on behalf of special interests, and rightly so. In Hansen's version, which he calls "fee-and-dividend", only basic administration costs of the program are deducted, with the remainder being returned to the public in the form of monthly checks.
It has dim prospects in the U.S. Why? Hundreds of $billions in annual revenue from fossil fuel interests, that's why. When we're being paid to destroy the earth's climate, it's a non-starter.
Promoted by climatologist James Hansen for over a decade, B.C.'s tax suffers only from complexity. Anything less than a full rebate to the public (the revenue-neutral part) rouses suspicions of corruption on behalf of special interests, and rightly so. In Hansen's version, which he calls "fee-and-dividend", only basic administration costs of the program are deducted, with the remainder being returned to the public in the form of monthly checks.
It has dim prospects in the U.S. Why? Hundreds of $billions in annual revenue from fossil fuel interests, that's why. When we're being paid to destroy the earth's climate, it's a non-starter.
2
There is now a bipartisan "Climate Solutions Caucus" in the US House: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/
Perhaps if each of us took time to contact the reps. in this caucus, as well as reps. in our own states, and ask that they consider the carbon tax proposal, they might feel emboldened to discuss the proposal and even endorse it. Politicians respond to political will.
Perhaps if each of us took time to contact the reps. in this caucus, as well as reps. in our own states, and ask that they consider the carbon tax proposal, they might feel emboldened to discuss the proposal and even endorse it. Politicians respond to political will.
5
While anything is an improvement in the face of outright climate change denial, upon reading I saw this plan more as a last ditch effort perpetuate the status quo than a meaningful plan to make needed changes.
Encouraging? Maybe. Disappointing? For sure.
Absent is any mention whatsoever of a national effort to develop renewable energy, key to both our national and global interests going forward. Rather than use any revenue generated as an investment in addressing the underlying problem, it is instead to be distributed as a theoretical and relatively insignificant tax rebate/cut.
Encouraging? Maybe. Disappointing? For sure.
Absent is any mention whatsoever of a national effort to develop renewable energy, key to both our national and global interests going forward. Rather than use any revenue generated as an investment in addressing the underlying problem, it is instead to be distributed as a theoretical and relatively insignificant tax rebate/cut.
By raising the retail price of fossil fuels it would encourage more consumers to switch to renewable energy, which is already becoming competitive with fossil fuels.
of course is better than nothing, which is itself more than the Republicans have offered so far, but it's time to stop the delusion that climate change can be meaningfully addressed by half measures or tweaks to the status quo. Because this that is all that is offered in this "plan", at the end of the day it is net unhelpful.
Republicans in Congress need to listen to their elders in this case. It's one thing to say that 78% of registered voters support taxing emissions. That support is, for many of us, an urgent cry for help to save our planet for our children, grandchildren and all the inhabitants needed to keep our ecosystems functioning. The military sees the urgent need for this as water becomes scarcer. people living at sea level are displaced, ocean acidification continues, and more land is converted to desert.
In how many parts of the United States, just today, is the weather unseasonably warm unseasonably wet, unseasonably cold, or otherwise abnormal?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Scientists say we need to act now to avert a disaster. As Trump reverses Obama's efforts, Perry takes the helm at the Energy Department and Pruitt looks to be confirmed at the EPA, the Earth's future look ever more precarious.
In how many parts of the United States, just today, is the weather unseasonably warm unseasonably wet, unseasonably cold, or otherwise abnormal?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Scientists say we need to act now to avert a disaster. As Trump reverses Obama's efforts, Perry takes the helm at the Energy Department and Pruitt looks to be confirmed at the EPA, the Earth's future look ever more precarious.
2
We just had this on the ballot last November in Washington state and only a very few Republicans showed up.
1
Oh gee.. SOME rational minds in the GOP "came up" with the idea of a carbon tax to actually do something about our killing our planet. They must have grandchildren or maybe are up for re-election in 2018?. Where were their voices when Obama was presenting the idea? While I applaud their efforts, their "come-to-Jesus" moment is not likely to go anywhere, with McConnell flexing his muscle in the Senate, Ryan having his Ayn Rand dreams and who-knows-what-is-going-on in the White House. The Cabinet and advisors to this president are heavy on the side of super-capitalism, especially when it makes their pockets heavier. I WISH this would happen, but don't see it going anywhere.
1
I told a friend of mine, a very right wing Republican, that when he finally agrees that a good portion of our climate change is man-made that he should come to the cemetery where I will be buried and tell me that he has seen the light.
1
I was encouraged at first to hear that there are people on the right willing to entertain the idea of higher taxes to off-set the cost-externalizing behavior of our biggest carbon polluters. Sadly, my optimism evaporated when this "Leadership" council's gambit revealed itself: "And after a carbon tax is put in place, the council says, the government should eliminate most of those [regulations], since they won’t be needed."
So the play is this: implement a carbon tax and then roll back all of the other important regulations because "the problem is already being addressed." Tax rates, after all, are much more manipulable, and are more easily changed through legislation. Regulations on the other hand are much harder to roll back because of robust legal protections under the Administrative Procedures Act. Why not avoid that business altogether? Better yet, sweep in non-carbon-related regulations when you roll everything back in favor of a tax, and you will have some very pleased chemical and oil companies contributing to your campaign fund.
What's more, rather than earmark the tax revenue for clean-up grants and incentives, give it back to the people via a tax dividend. That way demand is buoyed, nobody actually cuts their consumption, and everybody can feel better. Bread and circus, after all.
While any signal that movers/shakers on the right are open to a carbon tax is encouraging, we need remain awake to the possibility this just another gambit to benefit polluters.
So the play is this: implement a carbon tax and then roll back all of the other important regulations because "the problem is already being addressed." Tax rates, after all, are much more manipulable, and are more easily changed through legislation. Regulations on the other hand are much harder to roll back because of robust legal protections under the Administrative Procedures Act. Why not avoid that business altogether? Better yet, sweep in non-carbon-related regulations when you roll everything back in favor of a tax, and you will have some very pleased chemical and oil companies contributing to your campaign fund.
What's more, rather than earmark the tax revenue for clean-up grants and incentives, give it back to the people via a tax dividend. That way demand is buoyed, nobody actually cuts their consumption, and everybody can feel better. Bread and circus, after all.
While any signal that movers/shakers on the right are open to a carbon tax is encouraging, we need remain awake to the possibility this just another gambit to benefit polluters.
I agree that this thing is likely a scam. The could cut all of the regulations, and then when pollution goes up, blame it on the tax, and end it.
I disagree that the rebate would increase demand as much as the tax would lower it though. The tax increases with consumption the rebate does not. Also energy is only a fraction of what people spend their income on, so it would be only a fraction of what they spend the rebate on.
I disagree that the rebate would increase demand as much as the tax would lower it though. The tax increases with consumption the rebate does not. Also energy is only a fraction of what people spend their income on, so it would be only a fraction of what they spend the rebate on.
The new GOP is not your father's GOP. I cannot help but think of a teenagers rebelling against their parents. The new gang doesn't believe in science, hate taxes and thinks the old guard are apologists, too quick to compromise their GOP values. The new guard would call it a tax, curbing growth and employment.
The only things that could save us are:
1). The rich and major corporations to start putting their money behind candidates that are willing to address global warming (this won't happen).
2). A major environmental disaster hits the red states, forcing them to recognize global warming. Keep in mind, an event in a blue state wouldn't matter; we already believe in science and pay the bills (attention Red States, us liberals pay more in taxes than what we get back (i.e., we subsidize your ignorance)). Surely the red states would think it an act of god, against our liberal values (i.e., science).
3). The GOP has a miraculous awakening and starts to understand fact-based data and hence, science. Right.
Otherwise, get that New Zealand Passport before the Kiwis wake up and realize we are as terrible as we know we are.
The only things that could save us are:
1). The rich and major corporations to start putting their money behind candidates that are willing to address global warming (this won't happen).
2). A major environmental disaster hits the red states, forcing them to recognize global warming. Keep in mind, an event in a blue state wouldn't matter; we already believe in science and pay the bills (attention Red States, us liberals pay more in taxes than what we get back (i.e., we subsidize your ignorance)). Surely the red states would think it an act of god, against our liberal values (i.e., science).
3). The GOP has a miraculous awakening and starts to understand fact-based data and hence, science. Right.
Otherwise, get that New Zealand Passport before the Kiwis wake up and realize we are as terrible as we know we are.
1
To quote Dante, abandon all hope. The idea of a carbon tax would be a good one and I truly thank those Republican statesmen who are proposing it. However, the GOP in Congress see their job as so narrowly geared towards their own best interests, meaning reelection, that they would never consider a new "tax".
In God's name, don't any of them have children they care about more than their cushy seat in Congress? Don't they give even a damn about what they are wrecking on our planet? Oh, yes, that's right, the woman who believes that Christ rode dinosaurs has just stepped into the Department of Education. She is their creature, and they are hers. Abandon hope.
In God's name, don't any of them have children they care about more than their cushy seat in Congress? Don't they give even a damn about what they are wrecking on our planet? Oh, yes, that's right, the woman who believes that Christ rode dinosaurs has just stepped into the Department of Education. She is their creature, and they are hers. Abandon hope.
2
There are fewer "climate-change deniers" out there than is usually claimed.
The problem lies in the next step: Refusing to bear the cost of doing something about climate change.
The usual "plan" is to insist that the "corporations" or the "oil companies" -- or some other bete noire du jour -- bear 100% of the cost. For example, if OilCo pays $10 billion for some oil producing property that's worth only $1 billion if oil can't legally be extracted, that's said to be OilCo's problem. After all, OilCo is not only an "oil company;" it's also a "corporation." Why, therefore, shouldn't OilCo bear all of that $9 billion cost? Why should the rest of us have to pay higher prices for gasoline or electricity?
But it's the "rest of us" who will have decided that OilCo shouldn't extract oil, and so the "rest of us" should bear at least some of the cost of that decision.
A carbon tax would help to accomplish that, and fairly reflect society's decision to use less oil -- IF it's phased in.
If OilCo knows a property will be less profitable in 15 years because of a steadily rising carbon tax, OilCo may not pay $10 billion of it. Maybe it will pay only $8 billion. And 5 years down the road, maybe OilCo would pay only $4 billion. The owners/sellers of the property would bear some of the cost of OUR decision to use less oil (lower land prices); OilCo would bear some of the cost (lower profits) and "the rest of us" would bear some of it (higher prices).
Gradual is good; sudden is bad.
The problem lies in the next step: Refusing to bear the cost of doing something about climate change.
The usual "plan" is to insist that the "corporations" or the "oil companies" -- or some other bete noire du jour -- bear 100% of the cost. For example, if OilCo pays $10 billion for some oil producing property that's worth only $1 billion if oil can't legally be extracted, that's said to be OilCo's problem. After all, OilCo is not only an "oil company;" it's also a "corporation." Why, therefore, shouldn't OilCo bear all of that $9 billion cost? Why should the rest of us have to pay higher prices for gasoline or electricity?
But it's the "rest of us" who will have decided that OilCo shouldn't extract oil, and so the "rest of us" should bear at least some of the cost of that decision.
A carbon tax would help to accomplish that, and fairly reflect society's decision to use less oil -- IF it's phased in.
If OilCo knows a property will be less profitable in 15 years because of a steadily rising carbon tax, OilCo may not pay $10 billion of it. Maybe it will pay only $8 billion. And 5 years down the road, maybe OilCo would pay only $4 billion. The owners/sellers of the property would bear some of the cost of OUR decision to use less oil (lower land prices); OilCo would bear some of the cost (lower profits) and "the rest of us" would bear some of it (higher prices).
Gradual is good; sudden is bad.
2
So far "Oilco" has been dumping its costs on to the rest of society for decades. The pollution that it dumps into the air is a cost borne by everyone. The wars for oil that we keep fighting for their benefit are paid for by tax payers, the soldiers, and the innocent bystanders.
A carbon tax is supposed to make the market price equal the actual costs. The fair way to divide the money is equally to every citizen.
A carbon tax is supposed to make the market price equal the actual costs. The fair way to divide the money is equally to every citizen.
The simple issue is leadership and what comprises it. Fundamental is the ability to recognize facts. True leadership is, unequivocally, a fact-based enterprise. Does the Trump administration recognize facts, or does it merely cherry pick those it favors while disavowing those it doesn't?
1
The old-timer Republicans are today to the left of the current Democratic Party.
2
Nonsense.
These self serving rightist will lose nothing claiming they are now on board with man made climate change.
It's not as if the koch owned petrochemical gop is going to listen to these washed up has-beens.
It's like Bernie's campaign promises of free college for all.
Nothing would ever come of it even if Berne won so he loses no political capital making such impossibly silly promises to his childish independent base.
Same here.
These self serving rightist will lose nothing claiming they are now on board with man made climate change.
It's not as if the koch owned petrochemical gop is going to listen to these washed up has-beens.
It's like Bernie's campaign promises of free college for all.
Nothing would ever come of it even if Berne won so he loses no political capital making such impossibly silly promises to his childish independent base.
Same here.
The so-called president has stated that clean air and water are nice, but he doesn't know if we can afford it.
He really said that.
The Grifters On Parade will protect their poisonous products at all cost. Our health, our children's health, and so on, mean nothing to these craven fools. The "Party of Life" is really the party of death by pollution, poison, prisons, guns and greed.
He really said that.
The Grifters On Parade will protect their poisonous products at all cost. Our health, our children's health, and so on, mean nothing to these craven fools. The "Party of Life" is really the party of death by pollution, poison, prisons, guns and greed.
1
Cap and trade, straight carbon taxation -- it doesn't matter. Sure, bring it on, do your best and good luck with all of the gaming of the system that does and will take place. But this action is woefully short of what is needed to turn things around for our planet and our children (and speaking of children, we should be having one at the most, if not zero). When emissions increases due to economic growth and all of its attendant consumption throughput can not be overtaken by efficiencies and increasing green energy use, it is game over. That is where we are, because to date, no combination of the above has given us a net reduction. Not even close. Either we get a conversation going to challenge how we measure our well-being (hint: it's not GDP), or we are toast. Sad! Unfair!
1
Our approach to climate change is inadequate because it focuses only on emissions from fossil fuels.
The first law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Leave it in the ground!
The first law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Leave it in the ground!
It's weird that Obama was touting how low gas prices were when he left office at the same time saying we need to do something to curb carbon emissions.
There is only one way to curb behaviors - "hit 'em in the pocket book"
Add a $1 federal tax on every gallon of gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, etc. If people want to actually curb emissions, they'll have to pay for it - EVERYONE will have to pay for it: not just the rich, not just the poor - if you use energy, you pay. Until that happens, talk is cheap.
There is only one way to curb behaviors - "hit 'em in the pocket book"
Add a $1 federal tax on every gallon of gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, etc. If people want to actually curb emissions, they'll have to pay for it - EVERYONE will have to pay for it: not just the rich, not just the poor - if you use energy, you pay. Until that happens, talk is cheap.
2
This is basic, simple economics. If we tax carbon usage and emissions, consumer usage should drop, and industry will have every incentive to reduce emissions. As noted, finely crafted regulations (which can be gamed and litigated) will not be necessary. This sort of proposal has long been identified with the work of Professor William Nordhaus of Yale who is very, very, much a Democrat. As I recall his estimates (which are based on careful reviews of the effects of climate change, and estimates of how emissions would change in result to a tax) the "optimal" tax would be in the range proposed. The pleas to go "immediately" to zero emissions, etc., are based on, frankly, emotion--they boil down to calls to impoverish ourselves to benefit our descendants. That sounds good, moral, etc, but since our descendants will have the benefit of greater technical know-how (and should be wealthier than us), how much belt-tightening should we do? Yes, there are unknowns, and it's worth trying to insure against worst-case scenarios which would inflict greater costs on the future (Nicholas Stern has argued with Nordhaus on such lines), but these are points that can be sensibly debated, rather than going into the swamp of impuning the possible motives of those who have proposed it. We have much too much of that.
2
What do you think a carbon tax will do? Ignorant Americans will still drive bloated SUV, live in McMansions that they can ill afford and create waste thru consumer spending that is deplorable. They will ask for solutions to these issues as long as it's not in there communities and just push it along or towards communities that do not matter. What's a tax going to do?
I don't know why liberals have such a love affair with carbon tax proposals. They're advocated by the same economists and other savants who brought you financal industry deregulation, and they have the same blind faith in the "invisible hand" of the market -- which always seems to be dealing off the bottom of the deck in practice. A major problem is that the operation of such taxes are in fact invisible. Why not target the polluting sources directly as we do now? Why beat around the bush? Who's fooling whom?
1
If 78% of registered voters support taxing or regulating emissions and want the government to do something about it, then how did we end up with the government we have? Answer: the elected officials do not care what voters say they want. Their experience tells them that they can be elected, over and over again, by following what their big donors want. It's two different things.
78% of registered voters support taxing or regulating emissions - as long as its not actually them being taxed.
2
Keep in mind now, that Republicans flagellated President Obama and the Democrats for years about several different carbon tax, making all kinds of hare-brained claims about how bad it was and how this was an Obama/Commie/Democrat plot to shut down American Industry by stealing all their profits. Keep also in the front of your memory that the "carbon-tax" and several similar proposals for dealing with carbon pollution were Republican notions and proposals for decades - I'm virtually certain the carbon-tax notion first arose from proposals of the Nixon Administration. But they are Republicans with convenient memories and, as usual, they take themselves waaaay too seriously because they have no sense of the ironic whatsoever.
As a Republican for many years whose attitude toward Trump and associates approaches detest and loathing, reading about this very sensible market based proposal to address carbon pollution was a welcome experience. It reminds me that Republicans like Baker, Schultz, and Henry Paulson still exist. They have not , like many of the more astute Congressional Republicans, coped by simply selling their souls to the Devil.
1
The various carbon-reduction plans miss one important detail. In Germany, the people voted overwhelmingly to use the prices of the previously subsidized fossil fuel industry, by shifting revenue from taxes on oil, gas and coal to subsidize renewable energy.
Once renewable got a tax-boost, they developed the critical mass to level the playing field. And of course, with renewables, there is no fear of another geopolitical Energy Embargo.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Once renewable got a tax-boost, they developed the critical mass to level the playing field. And of course, with renewables, there is no fear of another geopolitical Energy Embargo.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The Republican party has changed since Baker's day. I doubt he still has much influence.
Do not trust any Republican no matter how they may appeal to be sane. When in doubt kick the Republican out. Go with the real deal, a New Deal Democrat like Bernie Sanders who actually wanted to make things better for the working class folks who have been mistreated under Republican rules since the Reagan administration's practice of Voodoo Economics.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
This is a lot better than nothing, but if working people get their carbon taxes refunded, how does that motivate them to reduce consumption of fossil fuels?
1
Because their cost of using fossil fuels will increase. They can use their refunds to buy more fuel efficient cars or insulate their homes or get solar panels.
1
People who understand the numbers of the carbon fee and dividend will see the advantages of changing their behaviors and making their families better off. The dividend is not specific to that family's consumption - every family gets the same check - so the incentive is in place to look for ways to improve the family finances.
1
Two ways: first, the refund check is not dependent on how much a family reduces its carbon footprint, but the more they do, the more that refund check represents profit. Second, much of the change will happen out of their hands. Utilities will have a much bigger incentive to switch to renewables, so they will. That, in turn will lead to other consumer incentives like switching over to electric vehicles.
Meanwhile, the quarterly checks will help keep the policy popular and on people's minds.
This isn't all that needs to be done to get to where the world needs to go, but it is a big, bold, and safe step to take. Studies on an almost identical plan show over 20 years both a 50+% reduction in emissions and an increase in jobs by 2-3 million.
Meanwhile, the quarterly checks will help keep the policy popular and on people's minds.
This isn't all that needs to be done to get to where the world needs to go, but it is a big, bold, and safe step to take. Studies on an almost identical plan show over 20 years both a 50+% reduction in emissions and an increase in jobs by 2-3 million.
3
The GOP has set themselves up as the party of know nothing about anything but we don't like it anyway. Rather than coming up with constructive alternatives to fossil fuel they listen to that industry's lies about climate change. Instead of being true conservatives and helping to preserve clean air and water for all they prefer to allow industries to pollute our environment while they live in their DC bubble or wealthy gated neighborhoods that are unaffected by chemical pollution of the water supply. Fracking is nothing to them but a way to get cheap gas. The real problem with the GOP is that most of them don't have to live with what they legislate or fulminate against or are for. And if the law is inconvenient for them they can go abroad to escape it or pay someone lots of money to "make it so".
The best example of all of this is their interesting in eviscerating the ACA. They didn't once make any helpful suggestions about it. They voted to repeal it whenever they could but didn't try to fix it. They didn't want to work on upgrading our infrastructure. They haven't cared about improving life for any American unless said American is a rich donor or an industry. My guess is that unless there is a disaster on their doorsteps nothing will be done. I hope that they are proud of the wreckage they've caused.
The best example of all of this is their interesting in eviscerating the ACA. They didn't once make any helpful suggestions about it. They voted to repeal it whenever they could but didn't try to fix it. They didn't want to work on upgrading our infrastructure. They haven't cared about improving life for any American unless said American is a rich donor or an industry. My guess is that unless there is a disaster on their doorsteps nothing will be done. I hope that they are proud of the wreckage they've caused.
18
A carbon tax in the US would have no significant effect on the climate of the planet, which is a global issue. I might even increase carbon emissions, depending on where the money goes. 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 per capita increases in energy efficiency nor any financial schemes related to carbon will even dent the effects of so many people who aspire to a carbon-intensive lifestyle. Humans have chosen quantity over quality, with the inevitable results of environmental toxicity including genetic and birth defects, disease, warfare, and massive social upheaval.
6
In addition to the above, if Earth's climate is shifting, is that not in part attributable to the chairs in the earth's poles? There is little/nothing that can be done to stop that.
There is value in keeping our effect on climate and environment as small as possible, but there are forces we cannot control that are also in play.
There is value in keeping our effect on climate and environment as small as possible, but there are forces we cannot control that are also in play.
1
The US is the largest economy in the world, so any change in our carbon pricing will effect all of our trading partners in addition to every family and business within our borders. Imports will be taxed according to their carbon footprint and foreign manufacturers will adjust their processes so as not to be at a disadvantage compared to US based competitors. According to a study done by Citizens Climate Lobby, we can expect to realize a reduction in carbon emissions by 90% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Why on earth the GOP would want to dismantle the higher fuel standards is beyond me. It certainly benefits the consumer...oh wait...their REAL constituents the Oil and Gas producers have reduced demand, as a result lower prices, i.e. less profit at the people's expense.
The carbon tax is a great idea...don't know if it can possibly fly with the current administration's embrace of all things fossil fuel...and the apparent interest in anarchy and chaos for all things government, but maybe in the future when reason and intelligence takes control of the White House and Congress again this idea will be revisited, and we can hope that the planet has not already put itself on the self destruct path.
The carbon tax is a great idea...don't know if it can possibly fly with the current administration's embrace of all things fossil fuel...and the apparent interest in anarchy and chaos for all things government, but maybe in the future when reason and intelligence takes control of the White House and Congress again this idea will be revisited, and we can hope that the planet has not already put itself on the self destruct path.
10
"in the future when reason and intelligence takes control of the White House and Congress again"
Never assume for there is no guarantee at this point that there will even be a White House and Congress for reason and intelligence to occupy. The clear mission of the Republicans is to shrink the Federal Government and drown it in the bath tub.
Once they succeed then the states can rule themselves and do whatever their constituents demand like... who knows... bring back slavery, disenfranchise women, burn all the fuel until the entire world resembles Beijing? And then watch the mayhem before the final end of over population?
Never assume for there is no guarantee at this point that there will even be a White House and Congress for reason and intelligence to occupy. The clear mission of the Republicans is to shrink the Federal Government and drown it in the bath tub.
Once they succeed then the states can rule themselves and do whatever their constituents demand like... who knows... bring back slavery, disenfranchise women, burn all the fuel until the entire world resembles Beijing? And then watch the mayhem before the final end of over population?
Good idea! Said no Republican politician now in office ever....
14
This is a great idea that's been around awhile. I don't think it'll go anywhere with this government, which is salivating over the lifting of Russian sanctions. The payday that follows for Exxon, Rosneft, and the Trump family can only be sustained if that Siberian oil is worth something. Likewise Koch Industries Alberta oil sands holdings. A carbon tax would directly punish that value; we should already know that any Republican who voted for it would get a Koch-funded primary challenger in his next election. On this Earth, there is only one thing bigger than 'Big Fossils'. That's Earth itself. The planet is going to have to push the issue, until action is unavoidable. I think that is still a decade away or more.
7
Rex T. was on record as CEO of XOM as in favor of a carbon tax.
A carbon tax in this form is not incentive enough for the type of changes needed to slowly reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. If people get back more money than they put in, where is the incentive to reduce energy use or put in high priced renewable sources of energy.
A comprehensive energy plan implemented over a five to 10 decade period is needed to solve both the climate related issues associated with fossil fuels and the fact that fossil fuels will essentially run out too soon. Energy fees would need to be slowly implemented with as equitable plan as possible. (it would not be fair to overly penalize users and industries that require more energy to produce their products--products we all rely on.) The fees collected should be directed at industries to install reduced carbon energy sources and higher efficiencies for the products using fossil fuels. It would be complicated and difficult.
Nuclear would be necessary as it is the only source of base load power which has needed energy density.
It is highly doubtful anything sufficiently comprehensive will be accomplished....with 85% of energy coming from a diminishing basket. Fossil fuels are cheap, energy dense and easy to transport. There is nothing on the horizon that will have that capability with low cost and ease of distribution--and that is not going to change. (Market forces do not create energy)
By the way...Climate *Leadership* Council...hilarious Republicans.
A comprehensive energy plan implemented over a five to 10 decade period is needed to solve both the climate related issues associated with fossil fuels and the fact that fossil fuels will essentially run out too soon. Energy fees would need to be slowly implemented with as equitable plan as possible. (it would not be fair to overly penalize users and industries that require more energy to produce their products--products we all rely on.) The fees collected should be directed at industries to install reduced carbon energy sources and higher efficiencies for the products using fossil fuels. It would be complicated and difficult.
Nuclear would be necessary as it is the only source of base load power which has needed energy density.
It is highly doubtful anything sufficiently comprehensive will be accomplished....with 85% of energy coming from a diminishing basket. Fossil fuels are cheap, energy dense and easy to transport. There is nothing on the horizon that will have that capability with low cost and ease of distribution--and that is not going to change. (Market forces do not create energy)
By the way...Climate *Leadership* Council...hilarious Republicans.
1
Optimistic at best. How about a "denial tax"? Every time an administration official refers to climate change as a hoax, a 0.1% tax be levied on the cabinet's net worth? Would raise billions in no time!
27
Good for James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. But it would have been nice if they had been promoting serious action back *when they were actually in power* -- and when the climate change data was already clear.
Until people actually in power are willing to risk political capital for what they know is the common good, we'll go nowhere.
Until people actually in power are willing to risk political capital for what they know is the common good, we'll go nowhere.
14
This Editorial is like trying to cast a net into the dead sea hoping to scoop up some life-form. "A Rare Republican Call..." indeed- but without life sustaining Oxygen.
3
Has it occurred to anyone that these worthies are all "old style Republicans" completely out of the new mainstream of their party and that they are so far removed from the current center of power that they carry absolutely no weight in the contemporary political environment ?
It is not as though the new administration was seeking information or advice on an energy policy or climate change (as Dr. Krugman points out elsewhere in this issue, Ignorance Is Strength) : it has clearly demonstrated that it wants to increase this country's dependence on oil, gas and coal, as long as these pollutants are home grown and as long as they are cheaper in the short term - and no one cares about the long term .
They might have had a chance of being heard outside of the New York Times editorial page if they had been able to find one Republican in Congress willing to take up the cause of clean energy and climate action ...particularly if that cause implies anything looking like a tax .
It is not as though the new administration was seeking information or advice on an energy policy or climate change (as Dr. Krugman points out elsewhere in this issue, Ignorance Is Strength) : it has clearly demonstrated that it wants to increase this country's dependence on oil, gas and coal, as long as these pollutants are home grown and as long as they are cheaper in the short term - and no one cares about the long term .
They might have had a chance of being heard outside of the New York Times editorial page if they had been able to find one Republican in Congress willing to take up the cause of clean energy and climate action ...particularly if that cause implies anything looking like a tax .
10
I agree. These "old style Republicans" are not cut from the alt-right, alt-fact cloth that the no-nothings incompetents in the white house fancy. Meanwhile the GOP congress is as pliant as a toddler. Climate measures will only be seriously addressed when the country is retaken. So make noise, organize, donate, and be relentless!
Since you reside in Thailand, you may not know that 10 (so far) Republican members of the House have teamed with 10 Democratic members in a Climate Caucus. They are collaborating with Citizens' Climate Lobby, an international organization which is working toward "Carbon Fee and Dividend". We do not call it a "Tax" because that is not the correct frame–taxes are a turn-off to Republicans and many voters. In its present form, our proposal starts with a fee of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted by burning the fossil fuel. That comes to $45 per ton of coal, since one ton of coal emits about 3 tons of CO2. In the second and subsequent years, the fee becomes $10 per ton of CO2. All the revenue, 100%, is returned to households. Any other use of the revenue, even though it have merit, will be too controversial to inspire broad agreement. Enormous savings would accrue as electric power producers were forced to convert to solar and wind (and any other non-fossil source that may eventually be developed).
It's a start?!?! Cap and trade was a Republican idea until Democrats got behind it. Obamacare was a Republican idea until Obama got behind it.
Dems will end up supporting this and taking the fall as usual.
Dems will end up supporting this and taking the fall as usual.
74
Note the photograph. The photograph is undoubtedly real, but the coloration is probably fake and misleading. Both the sepia tone and dark black smoke are most likely Photoshop, and designed to consciously or subliminally suggest exaggerated pollution to the reader.
Not responsible photojournalism, even on the editorial page, in my opinion.
Not responsible photojournalism, even on the editorial page, in my opinion.
The whole picture has been "developed" (think old darkroom) toward the sepia end of the spectrum for effect.
If this were the worst offense we'd been subjected to in "fake news" lately I'd be so, so very happy.
And, as you point out, this is the editorial page.
If this were the worst offense we'd been subjected to in "fake news" lately I'd be so, so very happy.
And, as you point out, this is the editorial page.
1
Sit back and enjoy the end of mankind, because our so called leaders are simply power hungry animals. They are incapable of rational thought.
2
With the Elders' recalcitrant sons, Mitch and Paul, and their wacko cousin Donald, such proposals will never see the light of day.
4
With the current executive branch, this plan is going nowhere. It is, however, a cruel reminder that senior Republican party members only become reasonable and make decisions based on evidence when they NO LONGER seek re-elections.
2
We put big oil in charge of our government again. We will have to wait four more years to fix our climate.
1
Where were these Republican elders when they were in office on climate change? Does intelligence and courage happen to Republicans once out of office and elderly, if at all?
2
While Republicans in Congress have been in climate denial, many of their supporters running major US corporations have been devising strategies for their companies to financially deal with upcoming effects of climate change. For example, if you are in the insurance business, there is no room for denial fantasies if you want to keep your business viable.
So I think you have one current of realistic assessment going on at the private level, while on the public level -- in political talk, on FOX news, etc -- you have a different narrative that has seemed to work its magic for some time. But this situation is not sustainable-- eventually real world reality will hit us, and while the insurance companies that planned for this will be ok, all the 'little people' who were depending on their gov't representatives to look after their best interests will be in trouble.
So I think you have one current of realistic assessment going on at the private level, while on the public level -- in political talk, on FOX news, etc -- you have a different narrative that has seemed to work its magic for some time. But this situation is not sustainable-- eventually real world reality will hit us, and while the insurance companies that planned for this will be ok, all the 'little people' who were depending on their gov't representatives to look after their best interests will be in trouble.
1
A "Republican Elder" is not a Koch. One of these categories matters, one does not. Guess which?
Yet I am optimistic. Natural gas has largely displaced coal because natural gas is cheaper. We are reaching the point where solar and wind are becoming cheaper than natural gas, and the intense development going on in the field of battery storage is solving the intermittent supply issue. Southern California Edison has just installed battery storage plants to replace a natural gas "peaker" plants not because SCE cares about the planet, but because battery storage is cheaper.
Something like half--half!--the chemistry and chemical engineering PhD's on the planet are working on battery storage. Far more American jobs are solar related than coal related. Battery electric vehicles will be cheaper, not as cheap, cheaper, than gasoline powered by the early 2020's. This is one area where we can be a bit optimistic.
The elephant in the room that continues to be ignored is human overpopulation. 70% of global wild species will be gone by 2020, displaced, destroyed, or eaten by humans. That's three years from now.
Yet I am optimistic. Natural gas has largely displaced coal because natural gas is cheaper. We are reaching the point where solar and wind are becoming cheaper than natural gas, and the intense development going on in the field of battery storage is solving the intermittent supply issue. Southern California Edison has just installed battery storage plants to replace a natural gas "peaker" plants not because SCE cares about the planet, but because battery storage is cheaper.
Something like half--half!--the chemistry and chemical engineering PhD's on the planet are working on battery storage. Far more American jobs are solar related than coal related. Battery electric vehicles will be cheaper, not as cheap, cheaper, than gasoline powered by the early 2020's. This is one area where we can be a bit optimistic.
The elephant in the room that continues to be ignored is human overpopulation. 70% of global wild species will be gone by 2020, displaced, destroyed, or eaten by humans. That's three years from now.
3
Non-starter. They'd have to acknowledge the existence of climate change before seeking solutions. The 21st century still awaits Republican participation.
3
I'm sorry, but the idea that today's republican party would do this is absurd. The elder statesmen behind this haven't been relevant in republican politics for quite some time, and certainly won't sway a significant number of current elected republicans.
1
At this point, we're already past the tipping point and reducing carbon emissions will not be enough to stop global warming. To do that, we need to remove carbon that's already in the atmosphere. There is a golden opportunity for some nation to take the lead in developing technologies to remove the pollution that's already there. Unfortunately given the political climate we have, that nation will not be the USA. I'm waiting for a President who will make regaining America's former lead in science the cornerstone of his or her policies. I will probably die before that happens, and future generations will be poorer as a result.
4
Yet; President Trump has slithered in Carl Ichan for Regulatory 'advise'. Before writing this editorial- it would have been helpful if the board had read its colleague's current "small placement" front-page piece on Carl Ichan. Rather than being called what he is- a Corporate Raider/Corporate- Board Blackmailer, the piece sanitizes him by referring to him as :
" An activist investor and outsider for most of his career, Mr. Icahn staked his career on attacking the chieftains of intransigent companies and regulators."
Surely the piece: "Democrats Wary of Icahn Self-Dealing as Trump Regulatory Adviser
By ALEXANDRA STEVENSON and JONATHAN WEISMAN" (2-13-2017 NYT) and the Editorial should have referenced each other's information.
" An activist investor and outsider for most of his career, Mr. Icahn staked his career on attacking the chieftains of intransigent companies and regulators."
Surely the piece: "Democrats Wary of Icahn Self-Dealing as Trump Regulatory Adviser
By ALEXANDRA STEVENSON and JONATHAN WEISMAN" (2-13-2017 NYT) and the Editorial should have referenced each other's information.
1
This shouldn't be a partisan isssue--it is a human issue. How do the 78% of us who want to clean up pollution and leave a human-habitable planet for our grandchildren speak up in a way that our current government will hear us?
7
I support a carbon tax, but this is a non starter. Some Republicans did support such a tax 15 years ago. Now none do. These senior Republicans are considered party dinosaurs and have zero influence.
5
Carbon tax is the easiest, most sensible way to push everyone in the country towards greater environmental responsibility.
5
The carbon tax sans regulations proposal put forward by the Republican elders though a welcome step yet falls short of the goal that requires the action toward meeting the climate change challenge. Again, given the defiant mood of the Trump administration, is it necessary that the suggested carbon tax proposal would even receive the attention from the Trump attention?
2
FTA:
"Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes."
Unless I am missing something, this would seem to be a DIS-incentive to reduce energy use. It seems like the more I use, the bigger my rebate check at the end of the year.
"Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes."
Unless I am missing something, this would seem to be a DIS-incentive to reduce energy use. It seems like the more I use, the bigger my rebate check at the end of the year.
1
Not at all. The rebate would be a fixed amount per household, independent of the amount of energy used.
1
Rebates are per-capita. So you will get the same regardless of your own energy usage. But prices will go up, so your biggest lever for overall savings is reducing your own usage by driving less or in a more efficient car and conservation -- exactly the steps we need to reduce overall usage. Since the carbon fee per ton gradually increases over time (and thus the rebated dividend) the price signal gets stronger.
2
I think you are missing something. Most low-income earners have smaller carbon foot-prints than higher income folks (think, larger houses requiring more energy to regulate temperatures, bigger cars, more airplane trips). Those using more carbon-based fuels will pay more, whereas all will get an equal dividend (thus the incentive to use less). As well, transitioning to clean energy will entail some costs and disruption: Best not to saddle those least able to afford it disproportionately. A somewhat better version of the basic fee-dividend idea can be found by checking out Citizen's Climate Lobby, but this 'conservative' solution is a huge step in the right direction.
1
This is an excellent plan and should be enacted. There is still time to save the East Antarctic ice sheet from collapse, so we still have a chance to save many of our coastal cities and major agricultural areas.
1
If the poles are shifting the ice caps will follow.
1
In the past couple of weeks the NYT essays have included the Kilauea volcano eruption and the fault lines that circle the planet. Authors have addressed the natural phenomena of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
*So, folks, do you think carbon taxes will fix that?
*So, folks, do you think carbon taxes will fix that?
2
When you take carbon out of the ground (coal, oil, gas) that has been sequestered there for millions of years and burn it, you necessarily add CO2 to the atmosphere changing an equilibrium that has existed for millions of years. That there are natural sources that add CO2 to the environment from time to time is not something new. Those natural process have been going on for very very long time, and are therefore a part of the previously established state of equilibrium. It is the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that changes the equilibrium that is the problem.
1
Burning fossil fuels produces 100 times as much CO2 as all the volcanoes on Earth. So, yes, a refundable carbon FEE (not a tax) will fix the CO2 problem.
The Earth is aprox 4.5 billion years old. Industrial man is aprox 150 years old yet your statement " you necessarily add CO2 to the atmosphere changing an equilibrium that has existed for millions of years" tells me that Earth finished creating itself millions of years ago. How do we know that Earth is done creating itself? Ice ages happened hundreds of times over and over with the last one being only 12k years old, way before modern man. Even England was connected by land to continental Europe as recently as 6500 BC. If Earth truly reached an equilibrium then what are the "Norm" temperatures associated with millions of years of equilibrium?
Hallelujah! It's a START.
3
Exactly! Most of the commenters have elected to whine. No solution in that. And no solution without the R's involvement. Thank you Mr Baker et. al.
The Republican predicate is evolving --- faced with irrefutable evidence of climate change, the elders belatedly propose action.
It seems better than outright denial. But the real action is taking place behind the scenes on the economic policy front with the roll out of policies that will accelerate the concentration of wealth at the top. This will provide the lucky few with whatever insulation is needed from the catastrophic events likely to come. The rest of us? Tough luck.
It seems better than outright denial. But the real action is taking place behind the scenes on the economic policy front with the roll out of policies that will accelerate the concentration of wealth at the top. This will provide the lucky few with whatever insulation is needed from the catastrophic events likely to come. The rest of us? Tough luck.
These Republican elders should not stop at Climate Action.
They need to stop Mr Trump in his tracks before the train derails and makes a huge crash. Its their obligation, duty to the nation and a patriotic thing do.
Take a clue from Mr Trump. Stop being politically correct and respect the office of Presidency when the man himself does not respect that office. Time to call out the obvious for the sake of the Nation. The Nation will ever be grateful to you.
They need to stop Mr Trump in his tracks before the train derails and makes a huge crash. Its their obligation, duty to the nation and a patriotic thing do.
Take a clue from Mr Trump. Stop being politically correct and respect the office of Presidency when the man himself does not respect that office. Time to call out the obvious for the sake of the Nation. The Nation will ever be grateful to you.
Time to bring my 1978 Oldsmobile diesel out of the garage. The car runs sooty and you don't want to start the thing late at night. The backfire will wake up every dog on the block. However, I get 30 mpg without buying a new car. That beats the 20-something on my 2004 unleaded. I'll take the savings along with the dividend and stick it in the bank. I don't need to worry about passing inspection either. The cars is so old I receive a grandfather pass.
See my point? Good first step Republicans but you need to try a little harder.
See my point? Good first step Republicans but you need to try a little harder.
If the regulations -- such as the Clean Power Plan -- will not be needed when the carbon tax is in place, because everyone will be conforming to them anyway, then they will also not be a burden on industry. So why not leave them in place? I smell a rat.
Sadly, the old trope that a current congress can't tie the hands of a future congress is in play. While I actually embrace this idea - I'm obviously leery of the siren call a new revenue stream will provide to the spendthrifts of both parties. If there were a way to ensure that these monies were paid to the people in perpetuity, then (even as a Libertarian) I'd be for it. Till I'm shown the proper mechanism for this, I cannot support any new revenues for an irresponsible Congress.
1
There's a reason Social Security is called the "third rail" of politics. Constituents across the political spectrum don't take kindly to politicians who cut or eliminate payments they receive. It would be very difficult politically for a future Congress to vote to take away a $500 per quarter check (for example) all Americans are receiving, this is one reason why the dividend should be an actual check (rather than, for example, a tax credit).
If the plan can be formulated in a manner to increase income inequality, this might be something all Republicans could unite in supporting.
1
This is nonsense- Nothing we do now will mitigate anything down the road. The damage is here and at this point irreversible. It's not just carbon emissions- it's mass deforestation and the pollution in our seas as well. Having American citizens "pay" to fix something which can't be fixed? This is another ponzi scam for the corporations. The fact that James Baker is pushing this means he's trying to clear his guilty conscience- in fact all of those geezers are..
"The damage is here and at this point irreversible."....Is this a personal opinion or something you can support by presenting factual evidence?
Yet over 95% of climate scientists and economists are convinced that a strong steadily rising fee on carbon, levied at the source, is the fastest best way to bring carbon pollution down below 1990 level. Let's try it. Fast!
They dont get a pass. It's been 37 years since Baker was part of the "Reagan revolution" which took down the solar panels on the white house and passed a tax cut which tranwferred trillions to the rich for their pleasure. Why did it take so long for Mrt. Baker to see what was going on. Must be pure stupidity. Like McNamaraThe Best and The Brightest got it wrong again. NOw is the time for Mr. Baker and his rich freinds to divest themselves of their own pelf and do the right thing. Put on some sackcloth and get to work.
Let's pretend that climate change is not a thing - steps such as these should be taken to reduce air pollution, acid rain, the presence of toxins in our drinking water, lakes, and streams. Is it not enough to know that the fish we extract from our rivers are so full of mercury and other toxins that they are not safe for predators higher up on the food chain? Increased rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses are on the rise. People in America do not have access to safe drinking water. It's time to focus on tangible, knowable, concrete aspects of our highly noxious and poisonous way of doing business as if it were the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Then we, perhaps, can stop quibbling about whether or not climate change is "real."
5
WSJ has been denying climate change for years. Be interesting what they say. Not holding my breath given the many Murdoch/Trump connections....
1
Aren't these "elders" part of the same republican party who could have put forth the same proposal when they were in power, but didn't, about thirty years ago?
95
But, in fairness, they are also the party that established the EPA under the presidency of Richard Nixon.
The ironies abound, don't they?
The ironies abound, don't they?
1
But it was the "old GOP" who, under Nixon, established the EPA, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. They used to be responsible and even legislate. Sadly, it has been bred out of their DNA.
KB:They are older now and have wizened up, so they have earned the honorific "elders." Besides, everyone gets a chance at self-redemption. I say let's go further and even confer on each one of them the title "elder statesman" if that helps build a healthy bipartisan consensus on the issue.
Nevermind the content of the proposal. Praise should be heaped on this Republican climate faction for even acknowledging that there's a climate problem, and dare I say, showing some responsibility. Look who's a big boy now. you are Republicans!
The tribal elders are wise...will the chief take their recommendations or will he continue to believe this is a Chinese creation?
2
Democrats won't go along with this plan because it puts power in the hands of individual consumers rather than government regulators. It also destroys their ability to reward crony capitalists in the solar and wind industries.
On the other hand, by making the costs of addressing climate change explicit it will increase resistance to taking real action, so this proposal may be DOA.
On the other hand, by making the costs of addressing climate change explicit it will increase resistance to taking real action, so this proposal may be DOA.
Sorry but you forget one thing: these guys are sane. Not so with the current collaborators.
1
Well, it is good to read that not all Republicans are ignorami in at least some of the science. But, as for the carbon tax, I am one of those who consider all the taxes immoral and confiscatory, except for the direct tax on earned income.
1
I expect vigorous arguments about how much regulations should be part of a national strategy to deal with climate change, but this proposal is the first coherent idea I've seen in years to come out of the conservative establishment. Okay, so there will be Republicans who will dismiss the whole thing, but having this on the table is a major accomplishment and, I hope, will herald serious debate. There's no climate change denial here, so both major parties could work with this. It's a practical, innovative, and imperfect start. Now let's see discussion that leads to fast action.
3
"Their dismissal of the council’s proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country."
In other words, this is just BAU for the Republicans.
It's interesting that the GOP Elders don't say that this plan is actually an economic stimulus proposal. Of course, given today's supply side mania in the GOP, doing so would be fatal to any chances of this proposal being accepted by the rank and file Republicans in Congress. But that is what it is. And good for that. The only result of the standard Republican trickle down tomfoolery is that the wealthy get to further disenfranchise the lower classes and make inequality even worse.
In other words, this is just BAU for the Republicans.
It's interesting that the GOP Elders don't say that this plan is actually an economic stimulus proposal. Of course, given today's supply side mania in the GOP, doing so would be fatal to any chances of this proposal being accepted by the rank and file Republicans in Congress. But that is what it is. And good for that. The only result of the standard Republican trickle down tomfoolery is that the wealthy get to further disenfranchise the lower classes and make inequality even worse.
2
Remember Paul Ryan's comment to Judy Woodruff, that taxes were his passion. Now here is a tax that both conservative and liberals could get behind. But, in reality, Ryan's passion is for only those taxes that make his rich donors richer and the middle class poorer.
1
The Editorial Board appears to be focusing on the tiny patch of sunlit white clouds in their picture. But the black smoke will prevail.
The Editorial Board's Freudian slip was to include "Rare Republican" in the title of their article and then point out that Baker, Schultz and Paulson are those Republicans. They are rare indeed.
The Editorial Board might have asked Mitch McConnell whether he will allow a vote in the Senate on a carbon tax. In 2009 a carbon tax bill passed the House but was not allowed to be brought up for a vote in the Senate. The last time McConnell stated a definitive position on a carbon tax his spokesman put out the following: “Leader McConnell opposes a national energy tax.”
As recently as this past June " the GOP-lead House voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution opposing carbon taxes, which Republican leaders have said would be "detrimental to the United States economy" and lead to skyrocketing costs for food, gasoline and heating oil." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/the-associated-press-carbon-tax-push-from...
So, it appears unlikely that "rare" Republicans who are clearly out of power are going to convince the current crop, who I hesitate to call Republicans, to pass a carbon tax when all they want to do is cut regulations that promote fuel efficiency and drill-baby-drill
The Editorial Board's Freudian slip was to include "Rare Republican" in the title of their article and then point out that Baker, Schultz and Paulson are those Republicans. They are rare indeed.
The Editorial Board might have asked Mitch McConnell whether he will allow a vote in the Senate on a carbon tax. In 2009 a carbon tax bill passed the House but was not allowed to be brought up for a vote in the Senate. The last time McConnell stated a definitive position on a carbon tax his spokesman put out the following: “Leader McConnell opposes a national energy tax.”
As recently as this past June " the GOP-lead House voted overwhelmingly in support of a resolution opposing carbon taxes, which Republican leaders have said would be "detrimental to the United States economy" and lead to skyrocketing costs for food, gasoline and heating oil." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/the-associated-press-carbon-tax-push-from...
So, it appears unlikely that "rare" Republicans who are clearly out of power are going to convince the current crop, who I hesitate to call Republicans, to pass a carbon tax when all they want to do is cut regulations that promote fuel efficiency and drill-baby-drill
2
Remember everyone, it is not Mother Earth that needs saving, it is her ability to care for human life that is. We have no where else to go, so we should be good to her, and take care of her.
1
Climate Change is debatable. Conservation is not. We need to conserve our resources. Every knows that.
"Climate Change is debatable"....No it is not, but at least you are half right.
Climate change is NOT debatable.
Climate change is fact just like Evolution.
Climate change is fact just like Evolution.
1
A carbon tax to address something as far ranging and controversial as "climate change" is a non starter. It needlessly imposes an additional economic burden that will distort our economy. Let no onebe folled this is a tax. There will be significant costs in imposing and administering it. Politicians will likely see it as another opportunity to collect additional revenue and will inevitably start to siphon part of that money for other uses. A carbon tax or any other government machination or regulation is not warranted for a phenomena that is more political in nature than anything else. Once there is scientific proof that climate change is being affected by man and once there is concrete plans that have been scientifically proven to reduce or revers the trend we can then start to address it. If it is a problem at all.
1
And so the denial continues. You might try studying the facts yourself rather than parroting the misinformed. For a treasure trove of facts, studies and data, try this website. https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
The physics, chemistry and biology science behind climate change on Earth is beyond social "sciences",economics, politics, history and law. None of these fields are sciences. There are way too many variables and unknowns to utilize any controls to craft repeatable results. We have only one planet with a dynamic interconnected atmosphere, tectonic plates, land masses, oceans, lakes and rivers.
Even though America has 5% of humans and 25% of nominal world GDP and a military- industrial complex that is the size of the next eight nations combined Planet Earth does not revolve around America.
Even though America has 5% of humans and 25% of nominal world GDP and a military- industrial complex that is the size of the next eight nations combined Planet Earth does not revolve around America.
1
This proposal may open a few eyes, but it will go nowhere with the crackpots and lunatics currently firmly in control of the GOTP. "Elder statesmen" is a euphemism for those who have been abandoned and kicked to the curb by the Flat Earth Society on the hard, far right, and their rabid supporters likely never heard of Baker, Schultz, Paulson, et al, nor would they comprehend this carbon tax proposal. A party so thoroughly owned by fossil fuel plutocrats, whose greed will destroy the entire planet in record time, has no room for even nominally thoughtful, sentient nods to the scientific reality that our planet is warming at alarming rates, that the seas are rising and will swallow large portions of the world, that animals, birds and marine life are dying because of our reckless, willful denial of our desecration. I find it disturbing, as well, that the NYT refers dismissively to "environmentalists," as if we are the problem, rather than the ideologues, greedy fossil fuel executives, and ignoramuses on the right. Thank god for environmentalists - we are the only ones who continue to demand action and keep these issues front and center. There is more than one "Doomsday Clock," and this one may reach midnight even faster than the other. 2/13, 8:49 AM
4
The planet will recover..it's been here alot longer and has been through worse...our species, and many others, may not.
1
When I read about the Republican carbon tax plan last week I got excited. I emailed my close hiking buddies of 40 yrs, from conservative to progressive, thinking they would share my excitement. I indicated that
“the devil is in the details and they will be parts I will need to hold my nose to such as repeal of the Clean Power Plan but considering the bleak environmental progress I'm expecting in the next 4 yrs I could go along w a carbon tax that is 100% rebated to the people in lieu of stronger regulation”
But that excitement wasn’t there. I expect anything that includes the word ‘tax’ is anathema to some but was surprised of their concern of a tax for 1 purpose diverted elsewhere eg gas taxes. So even though there’re strongly environmental they don’t believe that 100% of the tax will go back to the people. Another buddy, who works in the industry, felt renewable energy has come so far and so close to being competitive you just need to subsidize it some more to let market forces take over and gave an example of Electricity cost $15 per KW h when it was first installed and to $0.15 now. I wouldn’t mind part of a carbon tax to be used to develop/ subsidize other renewable technologies the sense I get from others is you really need to make it sacrosanct that any carbon taxes collected, 100% of it would need to go back to the American people. I truly hope they can get something done. As one commentator said last week it could be Trump’s “Nixon in China” moment.
“the devil is in the details and they will be parts I will need to hold my nose to such as repeal of the Clean Power Plan but considering the bleak environmental progress I'm expecting in the next 4 yrs I could go along w a carbon tax that is 100% rebated to the people in lieu of stronger regulation”
But that excitement wasn’t there. I expect anything that includes the word ‘tax’ is anathema to some but was surprised of their concern of a tax for 1 purpose diverted elsewhere eg gas taxes. So even though there’re strongly environmental they don’t believe that 100% of the tax will go back to the people. Another buddy, who works in the industry, felt renewable energy has come so far and so close to being competitive you just need to subsidize it some more to let market forces take over and gave an example of Electricity cost $15 per KW h when it was first installed and to $0.15 now. I wouldn’t mind part of a carbon tax to be used to develop/ subsidize other renewable technologies the sense I get from others is you really need to make it sacrosanct that any carbon taxes collected, 100% of it would need to go back to the American people. I truly hope they can get something done. As one commentator said last week it could be Trump’s “Nixon in China” moment.
40
Your renewable energy industry buddy should realize that this is more likely to be adopted solution than subsidies. It provides a direct incentive to switch to renewable energy sources.
2
Your buddy that works in the industry doesn't understand "market forces" if he thinks that subsidizing any particular product can result in anything but a distortion. This proposal is very very simple:
1. Right now, when you burn fossil fuels, you are not paying for what you get. You are dumping a harmful chemical into the common air, and doing it for FREE.
2. The proposal will fix this market distortion by requiring that those that are getting something for nothing (free chemical disposal), now have to pay.
THAT'S IT. That's the whole plan. The rest is details.
Yeah, we should make sure the dividends are not put into some slush to be inevitably tapped. But it's not complicated to have an audit that takes x dollars, divides by number of tax payers, and cuts checks. Only willful dishonesty would corrupt that. Ok, maybe he has a point.
1. Right now, when you burn fossil fuels, you are not paying for what you get. You are dumping a harmful chemical into the common air, and doing it for FREE.
2. The proposal will fix this market distortion by requiring that those that are getting something for nothing (free chemical disposal), now have to pay.
THAT'S IT. That's the whole plan. The rest is details.
Yeah, we should make sure the dividends are not put into some slush to be inevitably tapped. But it's not complicated to have an audit that takes x dollars, divides by number of tax payers, and cuts checks. Only willful dishonesty would corrupt that. Ok, maybe he has a point.
1
Significant numbers of Republicans have abandoned climate change denial in favor of simply ignoring the problem. That is a change that Democrats have been slow to acknowledge, preferring to label Republicans as stupid rather than as ignorant. Moreover, there is evidence that the ignorance has a shrewd political purpose -- states that pass on most of their emissions are virtually all Republican. Those states where pollution is greater than emissions are mostly all Democrat.
Once again, it appears to me that Republicans, who are constantly labelled as stupid by Democrats, appear to be more shrewd politically.
Once again, it appears to me that Republicans, who are constantly labelled as stupid by Democrats, appear to be more shrewd politically.
14
The kind of shrewd politics practiced by Republicans will make most of us poorer, subject to more violence, less free and ultimately dead. I wish they had less shrewd and more fear of planetary death by inaction.
1
Shrewd? More like taking advantage of the downside of their leadership. Those Republican-led states you mention have lower pollution don't have it because of inaction, they have it because their economies aren't as vibrant as in Democrat-led states. Pretty easy not to pollute much if your state is down economically.
1
That sounds like you're saying that, once again, Republicans are putting politics first.
If Republicans really wanted a carbon tax, they could have got it under Obama. The only argument for cap and trade is that it will make money for Wall Street, and therefore might get Republican support. And Obama's regulations were put in place only because Congress wouldn't do anything, and the rest of the world expected America to do something.
I suppose it's tempting to try to make a person do something good by flattering him or her. Congratulating Republicans on discovering climate change and congratulating them on coming up with an idea to combat it might seem like a good plan. But in this case, the tactic is too transparently manipulative. It'll just make them dig in more.
I suppose it's tempting to try to make a person do something good by flattering him or her. Congratulating Republicans on discovering climate change and congratulating them on coming up with an idea to combat it might seem like a good plan. But in this case, the tactic is too transparently manipulative. It'll just make them dig in more.
27
First of all, let’s get some things straight. These Republican big wigs are not the “Climate Leadership Council,” a man named Ted Halstead heads this organization. These Republicans, with others, authored a policy paper, and now appear to have “taken over.” While it’s nice to have some big names on board, they are not the organization. Go to the website for more information, and take the time to read Mr. Halstead’s November 16, 2015 article for The Atlantic where he asks why the Republicans aren’t offering a market-based solution to climate change. Answer: politics.
Secondly, this “carbon fee and dividend” concept is not new. It’s been around for twenty years, and during the Obama Administration the idea was kicked around by Democrats but predictably got no bipartisan backing and went nowhere. Again, politics.
So yes, I’m all for, well, something from Republicans now, but let’s not usurp the mantel of climate change advocacy. Let’s not be hypocrites. You’ve got your Republican president; welcome to the party at long last. I hope it’s not too late.
Secondly, this “carbon fee and dividend” concept is not new. It’s been around for twenty years, and during the Obama Administration the idea was kicked around by Democrats but predictably got no bipartisan backing and went nowhere. Again, politics.
So yes, I’m all for, well, something from Republicans now, but let’s not usurp the mantel of climate change advocacy. Let’s not be hypocrites. You’ve got your Republican president; welcome to the party at long last. I hope it’s not too late.
67
The Republicans can only "take the cue" if the Kochs tell them they won't object. They are afraid of being pushed off the gravy train by being primaried at the next election. No secret there.
Too little, too late. Humans had their time, it's rapidly ending. Soon we will have ten plus billion greedy, hungry humans demanding more and more from our planet. There isn't one piece of good news about our ecosystems, everything is stressed or collapsing. Species extinctions are accelerating, our oceans dying, and these old farts want to start a Ponzi scheme? The sad thing is we have the brain power to live sustainably for thousands of years, but our brains are not just dominated by reason. We have a primitive side to our intellect, breed more, consume more, fear more, and kill more. On the plus side we had spring like temps in Michigan this January and the robins never fly south.
1
You left out the fact that the proposal gives carbon polluters immunity from lawsuits, a glaring omission.
2
The key words here are "elder statesmen." These people are not running for election, and therefore not accountable to Republican primary voters, donors, or talk radio blowhards. Their influence is minimal, but their action gives a cover of respectability to their party, which wants to drill more oil and strip more coal, with few environmental safeguards. The old guard's "solution" relies on market manipulation and tax gimmickry. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to call out the Republican officeholders, and advocate for repeal of fossil fuel subsidies, and incentives (subsidies) for alternative energy development.
3
What is puzzling over this issue is the contrast between reality and the expectation of outcomes. For most Americans, the cost of energy is what it is. In many areas there is in reality one Company that provides electricity to customers. Customers may chose who they pay for that energy but does not mean greener energy is diverted to their home. Products and appliances we use in our homes are much more efficient but there is also the caveat that as technology comes to more and more devices, they may in fact use more energy. Energy efficiency can be a relative term. Even though we have a multitude of gasoline retailers and refiners , in reality the price consumers pay at the pump and and its relation to the stock market is legal price fixing. Automobiles are much more efficient than the past but prices have been ahead of inflation. As people feel more confident in their economic future, they buy bigger less efficient vehicles. The victims of marketing, incentives, temporary low fuel prices. As the building of automobiles are more automated using robotics, there is less cost in production, this should in fact help lower prices. We must update our Power Grid, the inefficiencies are staggering. Moving to alternative fuels and batteries for automobiles. A move that oil lobbyists have kept at a minimum. A charging infrastructure for these vehicles . Solar panels , hydropower and wind power should be aggressively moved to the center of our National Energy plan.
2
The Koch brothers fund many Republican office holders. They will not allow these politicians, bought and paid for fair and square, to betray them.
2
It's a necessary step if we are going to combat global warming. Everyone studying the issue understands why. It's not right wing, left wing, or political at all; just a necessity if we want to survive as a species.
6
My head is spinning. Republicans, have been spouting the lie that global warming doesn't exist (like lies about health care) for so long, it's become comical. Now Reagan Republicans have seen the light? Why am I dubious? Last legislative session in New Mexico, that's right New Mexico with over 310 sunny days a year, the bipartisan bill to continue the residential solar rebate was vetoed by our crazy Republican Governor Martinez, two weeks after she received a $20,000 check from the Koch Brothers. Give me a break. These "elder" Republicans aside, their party will continue, through ALEC and the Koch Brothers to destroy alternative energy funding at the state and federal level, because with Trump we now have an oligarchy running the country. Enjoy breathing for now.
3
A classic Times photo. Steam coming from a power plant, photographed with a lens and exposure to make it appear to be soot.
1
Clearly from the comments there is a misunderstanding of the carbon tax. Just because it's is passed unto consumers doesn’t mean production won’t be affected. As consumers turn to other energy sources, production will diminish and yes, the oil companies, the big polluters, will necessarily suffer. It’s really brave of Baker and friends to champion this because the idea of a dividend-to-all is anathema to a core value of many Republicans of never offering anyone a hand up. But politics aside, the idea deserves consideration. I like it because it’s consumer-driven, avoids the bureaucratic boondoggles of cap and trade, goes directly to the source of production, and gives us a chance to apply the brakes in a fundamentally equitable and precise way. Before you condemn it, at least learn what it is. Google carbon tax. See https://www.carbontax.org/whats-a-carbon-tax/.
4
RE: "The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start."
So those favoring this proposal say, "Wait, you'll get an annual 'dividend'"?
In the meantime those struggling to make ends meet have to pay more. Possibly meaning more payday loans for some, missing payments on other loans, making life more difficult, and for all buying less of other things.
If the "money raised would be returned" is it really just a shell game with companies/government getting your money to use until the 'dividend' payment check?
So those favoring this proposal say, "Wait, you'll get an annual 'dividend'"?
In the meantime those struggling to make ends meet have to pay more. Possibly meaning more payday loans for some, missing payments on other loans, making life more difficult, and for all buying less of other things.
If the "money raised would be returned" is it really just a shell game with companies/government getting your money to use until the 'dividend' payment check?
1
We can do without Republicans who want to raise out taxes. Trump had these guys in mind when he said "drain the swamp."
1
Just say "NO!" to any stupid carbon tax!
2
I whole-heartedly support the so-called elder statesmen of the GOP and their carbon tax and dividend as a feasible solution to the indiscriminant CO2 pollution put out by fossil-fuel usage. Rather than look askance at this, I suggest everyone concerned about this issue should see this proposal as a solid starting point for our nation to address climate change issues and their underlying cause. Could it be "better"? - certainly so in some opinions. AND this is the first serious GOP proposal to address CO2 poluttion.
4
The so called Republicans....I guess Editors ...you me those who say they
have traditional Republican values....small government and fiscally sound
economic policies....i.e. do not spend tax dollars which you do not have...
balance the budget....well...I think you are speaking of real Republicans like
the Libertarians ....like Bill Weld....aren't you.
Let us speak out about Republicans who ARE and WERE Republicans...not
the so called lemmings bought by their financiers via Citizens United.
The call to climate change....by those in Congress...well ...World Opinion
is changing their tune...not the media nor Democrats...yes.....those who
are not even in the USA....our critics who we do business with...the global
leaders...not the rest of us who will never be LEMMINGS...
have traditional Republican values....small government and fiscally sound
economic policies....i.e. do not spend tax dollars which you do not have...
balance the budget....well...I think you are speaking of real Republicans like
the Libertarians ....like Bill Weld....aren't you.
Let us speak out about Republicans who ARE and WERE Republicans...not
the so called lemmings bought by their financiers via Citizens United.
The call to climate change....by those in Congress...well ...World Opinion
is changing their tune...not the media nor Democrats...yes.....those who
are not even in the USA....our critics who we do business with...the global
leaders...not the rest of us who will never be LEMMINGS...
We are running out of time to fix this problem. As this editorial notes, 78% of registered voters support taxing or regulating emissions. Voters get it. Now the House and Senate have to get in sync with their constituents and vote a plan into place that truly will reduce our emissions, protect lower income households, protect U.S. businesses and incentivize other countries. This plan's price does not seem to be high enough, but it's a start -- better than the current scenario where the shift to renewables is happening but too slowly to prevent the worst impact.
2
If 99% of registered voters supported taxing emissions it would not matter to the republicans in congress. They only care what the 1% bribe them to care about.
2
Forget Paulson and Shultz, but Trump, if only he was smart enough, would stop listening to the irresponsible ideologues so busily torpedoing his presidency and whistle James Baker III, probably the finest president-talker of the past fifty years, on board to right his already foundering ship of state.
2
As usual, I read the comments first, my bad. I am not even going to read the editorial!
I will just wait for a sTRUMPY Tweet.
I will just wait for a sTRUMPY Tweet.
While it's a good thing to be addressing the carbon tax issue and take it seriously, I'm not going to hold my breath for those "rebates." Sounds too good to be true... just like most financial scams.
"Most lower-income and middle-class families would get back more than they pay in taxes."
" This would give them an incentive to reduce consumption or switch to renewable sources of energy."
For the middle class, the tax is actually a subsidy, which creates an incentive to be wasteful!!!
" This would give them an incentive to reduce consumption or switch to renewable sources of energy."
For the middle class, the tax is actually a subsidy, which creates an incentive to be wasteful!!!
The proposal has merit, although migration from carbon-based fuels to alternatives of currently vetted technology is not a viable solution nor an environmentally sound one. The cost of production of alternative fuels and their environmental footprint in the form of toxic batteries and the mining of toxic elements to produce them lie in wait. We are merely solving one issue while creating a new one disguised in the politics of the moment.
Unfettered science may pave the way forward, but political solutions are certain to provide merely fool’s gold for the masses leading to ephemeral misguided hope on the way to extinction. Meanwhile, it’s time to Twitter.
Unfettered science may pave the way forward, but political solutions are certain to provide merely fool’s gold for the masses leading to ephemeral misguided hope on the way to extinction. Meanwhile, it’s time to Twitter.
1
"Climate Leadership Council" huh? That's a bit rich, coming as it does two decades after scientists first proposed a carbon tax, and from a group of "senior statesmen" of a climate-change-denying party and that includes a member of Reagan's cabinet. Wasn't it Reagan who took down the solar panels Carter installed on the White House?? Seem to remember something like that. I'd like to say better late than never, but the hypocrisy is just too thick. Sorry, but I'm tired of all the playing nice with extremists. Time to start calling it all out, and loudly, in my opinion.
4
"The money raised would be returned to Americans through dividend checks; a family of four would get about $2,000 a year to start."
That is the problem. It is a year long loan that those with less can't afford to make.
Many with low income don't file, are not required to file. They would not get their money back.
Many who do get their refunds intercepted for a wide variety of reasons. This becomes a collection action for abusive lenders with small claims judgments, back taxes, and the like.
Tax refunds don't help those who suffer most from the higher costs. This works for those who have money and pay for tax advice.
That is the problem. It is a year long loan that those with less can't afford to make.
Many with low income don't file, are not required to file. They would not get their money back.
Many who do get their refunds intercepted for a wide variety of reasons. This becomes a collection action for abusive lenders with small claims judgments, back taxes, and the like.
Tax refunds don't help those who suffer most from the higher costs. This works for those who have money and pay for tax advice.
5
The proposal says nothing about "tax" refunds. It says "dividends" paid to American families. It means every American family, regardless of whether they make enough to pay taxes. It is the most sensible proposal anyone has come up with, because it is market-based. If Democrats could get on board with it, instead of thinking the government should collect the fee and decide how the money should be spent, we could go a long way toward addressing climate change.
1
One major problem is calling this measure a "tax," which will lose it a lot of support on the right. It would have better chances were it called a "carbon fee." Or something like that, but not a "tax."
14
Maybe call it a "mandate"?
A tax is a tax - no matter how you want to dress it up. The foolishness of carbon taxes cannot be sensibly explained to anyone - even the scientists debate and argue the merits of carbon taxes.
There is no time to waste. Humanity is on the precipice. The events in the Arctic over the last few months are terrifying. What is going on there? The extreme heat and storms are decimating the ice. Will the Arctic be completely ice free in the next few years? Quite possibly, and without a frozen Arctic, we are in grave danger.
We need a carbon tax, and we need solar, wind and other green energy built on a massive scale in the next decade (JOBS!), and combined with new batteries (MORE JOBS!) homes and businesses can become truly energy independent. We must work WITH Mother Nature, not against her, because in the end, she will get her revenge.
Will this congress do it? Will this so-called president do it? I would not bet on it.
We need a carbon tax, and we need solar, wind and other green energy built on a massive scale in the next decade (JOBS!), and combined with new batteries (MORE JOBS!) homes and businesses can become truly energy independent. We must work WITH Mother Nature, not against her, because in the end, she will get her revenge.
Will this congress do it? Will this so-called president do it? I would not bet on it.
10
The proposal of the Republican elders is unacceptable to the Republican Congress.
The Republican Congress lives in the twitter world of fake news, drill baby drill , mythical clean coal and climate change denial. They will never go for something as sensible, and market based, as a carbon tax.
The Republican Congress lives in the twitter world of fake news, drill baby drill , mythical clean coal and climate change denial. They will never go for something as sensible, and market based, as a carbon tax.
7
mrc-06405--Sure seems like they will do nothing, due to their stubborn beliefs based on no evidence. Too busy with the nonsense going on in the white house, while dangerous secret activity takes place behind the scenes. They even try to convince people that most scientists don't believe in climate change.
1
Yes! The planet and businesses need to transition to a green-energy economy to survive and thrive. And we will need a WIN-WIN solution that we can get through our politics. This Fee & Dividend plan would drive investment and transition to renewables 2X as fast as regulation. Versions of this solution have been favored by economists and scientists from all sides of the political spectrum because these fair market-based approaches reduce GHG emissions faster than any other means. The Climate Leadership Council plan has much to recommend it, and time is very short. http://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/
2
All that's needed now is for @realPresidentObama :-( to get on-board to send the GOP elders scurrying back into their foxholes of delusion. Come to think of it, this isn't even necessary. If anyone curries less favor with the mindlessly angry clown cavalcade now in charge than Obama, it would be the venerable grandees of the fading Republican establishment.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
OMG - we do not need more of Obama: He lost, remember - or was that HRC?
I think it was we who lost.
1
Energy is already taxed to the max. Schultz and Baker rely on the precautionary principle for their main argument, ignoring the fact that trillions have already been spent on a problem that has not been quantified or determined to be imminent or even deleterious.
They also claim such a tax would be good for the economy, a dubious assertion at best. Piling taxes upon taxes generally benefits the government while inhibiting people's ability to make ends meet. In California, people pay up to 70 cents a gallon for gasoline, which means every time a consumer puts 20 gallons in their vehicle they pay $14 in various taxes to various levels of government.
Global Warming, while not a hoax, is certainly being used to bleed money from not only every nation's economy, but also from efforts to alleviate human backwardness and suffering around the world. Estimates of climate sensitivity to forcings have been coming down in recent years and the pause in the rise in temperatures in the past two decades has made many of the climate models that were predicting rapid and destructive warming look ineffective.
The world's economy has been in a swoon for a decade now. Imposing more taxes on it, and especially in the most vibrant part of it, the United States, would be a mistake.
They also claim such a tax would be good for the economy, a dubious assertion at best. Piling taxes upon taxes generally benefits the government while inhibiting people's ability to make ends meet. In California, people pay up to 70 cents a gallon for gasoline, which means every time a consumer puts 20 gallons in their vehicle they pay $14 in various taxes to various levels of government.
Global Warming, while not a hoax, is certainly being used to bleed money from not only every nation's economy, but also from efforts to alleviate human backwardness and suffering around the world. Estimates of climate sensitivity to forcings have been coming down in recent years and the pause in the rise in temperatures in the past two decades has made many of the climate models that were predicting rapid and destructive warming look ineffective.
The world's economy has been in a swoon for a decade now. Imposing more taxes on it, and especially in the most vibrant part of it, the United States, would be a mistake.
4
The taxes on gasoline at the moment are still lower than pretty much anywhere else in the world. It's the idea that this proposed "tax" would hurt the economy is unsupported and unquantified, unlike the climate change problem, which most certainly is.
I want clean air, clean water and uncontaminated food and I'm willing to pay higher taxes and higher prices to get more protection. Pollution has been linked to cancer, dementia, emphysema, bronchitis and heart disease. The seas have risen, the air is warming, glaciers are melting, drought is increasing and we always hear the same thing from the fossil fuel industry lobbyists.
1
Taxed to the max, you say. Unquantified, you say. Both are incorrect.
I'm sure you'd agree the price of a thing compensates the seller, and that any voluntary trade benefits both parties. Those propositions do not hold In the case of fossil fuels and the environment.
The oil industry is subsidized in myriad ways, from tax write-offs to underpriced leases on public land, to the use of military force to defend its access to oil fields. The federal gas tax doesn't begin to offset those subsidies.
The ecological damage of fossil fuels has been quantified. We sometimes forgets global warming is not the whole story: other pollutants are more harmful and have not been eliminated by current regulations and technology. If they had been, the air in Los Angeles and New York would be pristine.
A carbon tax has a simple, equitable rationale: to impose on users the ecological cost of burning the fuel. That cost is real, and is borne by the public. To not pay that cost is to steal from the public treasury. Ecological embezzlement, we might say.
I'm sure you'd agree the price of a thing compensates the seller, and that any voluntary trade benefits both parties. Those propositions do not hold In the case of fossil fuels and the environment.
The oil industry is subsidized in myriad ways, from tax write-offs to underpriced leases on public land, to the use of military force to defend its access to oil fields. The federal gas tax doesn't begin to offset those subsidies.
The ecological damage of fossil fuels has been quantified. We sometimes forgets global warming is not the whole story: other pollutants are more harmful and have not been eliminated by current regulations and technology. If they had been, the air in Los Angeles and New York would be pristine.
A carbon tax has a simple, equitable rationale: to impose on users the ecological cost of burning the fuel. That cost is real, and is borne by the public. To not pay that cost is to steal from the public treasury. Ecological embezzlement, we might say.
It is still so mind-boggling that America has elected a President who continues to make a mockery of the vast majority of scientists. The USA always took such pride - and placed such a premium - on technology and scientific advances. So what happened?
I'll tell you what happened... Big Oil recognized a serious threat to their bottom line in the nascent climate change issue and suddenly there was a sustained campaign of misinformation and lies to discredit the loudest voices, which just happened to be led by Democrats like Al Gore. That dovetailed nicely into the fact that Big Oil is one of the Republican parties biggest donors and suddenly Republicans closed ranks on the issue.
Big oil has shown that it is more than capable of lying through its teeth to preserve its massive profits. We now know that Exxon was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change - decades ago! Their efforts to preserve their privileges have not been dialed back one notch. It is high time Americans ensured that super-wealthy carbon corporations pay for the TRUE COST of their products.
The thing is, this is NOT a political issue, it is a human one! I sincerely hope this initiative has success, it doesn't really matter where the call comes from, (although a bi-partisan effort would be most welcome and effective). The bottom line is that this is an incredibly important step to take (among others) to fight the imminent threat of climate change and it needs to happen NOW.
I'll tell you what happened... Big Oil recognized a serious threat to their bottom line in the nascent climate change issue and suddenly there was a sustained campaign of misinformation and lies to discredit the loudest voices, which just happened to be led by Democrats like Al Gore. That dovetailed nicely into the fact that Big Oil is one of the Republican parties biggest donors and suddenly Republicans closed ranks on the issue.
Big oil has shown that it is more than capable of lying through its teeth to preserve its massive profits. We now know that Exxon was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change - decades ago! Their efforts to preserve their privileges have not been dialed back one notch. It is high time Americans ensured that super-wealthy carbon corporations pay for the TRUE COST of their products.
The thing is, this is NOT a political issue, it is a human one! I sincerely hope this initiative has success, it doesn't really matter where the call comes from, (although a bi-partisan effort would be most welcome and effective). The bottom line is that this is an incredibly important step to take (among others) to fight the imminent threat of climate change and it needs to happen NOW.
10
Why, if the Republicans' "dismissal of the council's proposal is myopic and puts their party out of step with the country," and "78% of registered voters support taxing emissions, regulating them or doing both," are both houses under their control?
Why? Because "carbon tax" is, to the Tea Party and to a yuge majority of Trump supporters, esoteric gobbledy-gook. Now things like gun control they understand. It's the control part they want no part of. So, carbon control? Same thing. Carbon good. Control bad. Why is carbon good? Don't know, just is. Now with abortion control, the equation is reversed. Abortion bad, control good. Why is abortion bad? Dumb question, just is.
It is this binary view of the world --good/bad, black/white...on every issue, piddling or existential-- the Republican Party has peddled for so many decades and that the religious fundamentalists embrace so whole-heartedly. If they don't understand it, it's bad, evil even. Even, and especially, when it's in their best interests.
Go figure.
Why? Because "carbon tax" is, to the Tea Party and to a yuge majority of Trump supporters, esoteric gobbledy-gook. Now things like gun control they understand. It's the control part they want no part of. So, carbon control? Same thing. Carbon good. Control bad. Why is carbon good? Don't know, just is. Now with abortion control, the equation is reversed. Abortion bad, control good. Why is abortion bad? Dumb question, just is.
It is this binary view of the world --good/bad, black/white...on every issue, piddling or existential-- the Republican Party has peddled for so many decades and that the religious fundamentalists embrace so whole-heartedly. If they don't understand it, it's bad, evil even. Even, and especially, when it's in their best interests.
Go figure.
2
One problem facing proposals like this one is that while 78% of voters say they will support taxing emissions when election day comes it will be whittled down to about 20% after the petroleum industry runs its scare tactic ads. Unless voters are serious and enthusiastic about such a proposal its all a waste.
Most voters support some sort of gun control but the other side can elect a president with the minority who only vote on that issue.
Until the environment is issue number 1 politicians will not take the risk.
Most voters support some sort of gun control but the other side can elect a president with the minority who only vote on that issue.
Until the environment is issue number 1 politicians will not take the risk.
3
What a lot of liberals don’t understand is that the recent election outcome represented as much a repudiation of my own traditional Republican politics as it did theirs. Well, perhaps it was a bit MORE a repudiation of theirs than mine, but it was close. BOTH establishments failed America by the lights of enough Americans to elect Donald Trump and retain an undivided Republican Congress basically because he calls himself a “Republican” (which he is not).
Those who roll with blows often survive sucker-punches, enough to regain their legs and throw decisive COUNTER-punches. Those who don’t … often collapse with broken jaws.
The Republicans offering this “carbon tax” brainstorm ARE the Republican establishment, and they’re going nowhere with their proposal. Here’s what’s going to happen: Fox is going to get economists to project the real-world impact to prices of gas at the pump and electricity and gas to heat the home, and the people, who will be shouldering such new and massively regressive taxes, will make it clear to Congress that they’ll have nothing to do with them. The proposal will garner a lot of attention from the liberal press as a welcome “rare” call to action by Republicans, and it will simply … fade away with no further effect. And Trump, key to so much, will sense the mood of the people and drop any support for the measure like third-period French.
A carbon-tax assumes that our only salvation is consuming LESS, DOING less ... more expensively. Think again.
Those who roll with blows often survive sucker-punches, enough to regain their legs and throw decisive COUNTER-punches. Those who don’t … often collapse with broken jaws.
The Republicans offering this “carbon tax” brainstorm ARE the Republican establishment, and they’re going nowhere with their proposal. Here’s what’s going to happen: Fox is going to get economists to project the real-world impact to prices of gas at the pump and electricity and gas to heat the home, and the people, who will be shouldering such new and massively regressive taxes, will make it clear to Congress that they’ll have nothing to do with them. The proposal will garner a lot of attention from the liberal press as a welcome “rare” call to action by Republicans, and it will simply … fade away with no further effect. And Trump, key to so much, will sense the mood of the people and drop any support for the measure like third-period French.
A carbon-tax assumes that our only salvation is consuming LESS, DOING less ... more expensively. Think again.
19
You are forgetting about the divided check, which effectively makes this "tax" zero-net for the government and the average american. In other words, all the money collected by the carbon tax would be divided up equally among tax-payers and refunded. That *by definition* means that the average american would be out ZERO DOLLARS at the end of the year. All this tax would do is cause people to change their behavior to avoid activities and products that use more fossil fuels that other comparable ones.
In a free market, you should PAY for what you GET. Right now, people can dump carbon into the common air for free. That is antithetical to a free market. PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.
In a free market, you should PAY for what you GET. Right now, people can dump carbon into the common air for free. That is antithetical to a free market. PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.
Richard: Good points about how this will play out on the likes of Fox. But a carbox-tax does not necessarily imply less consumption, rather it implies the same consumption with less carbon footprint by shifting to renewables.
1
I've been thinking, Richard. I've been thinking a lot.
People are concerned with their quality of life, concerned about the quality of life their children will have.
Money plays a part, but it's role pales in comparison with the strong human bonds we've all grown up with.
If the acquisition of money involves cutting those bonds, we will certainly learn to do with less money. Continuing to excrete toxins into our children's world in pursuit of money is one helluva way to cut those bonds, and the more we know about the effects of those toxins, the more glaringly obvious our decisions become.
If we don't move towards a better, cleaner way of getting things done, we will die alone.
People are concerned with their quality of life, concerned about the quality of life their children will have.
Money plays a part, but it's role pales in comparison with the strong human bonds we've all grown up with.
If the acquisition of money involves cutting those bonds, we will certainly learn to do with less money. Continuing to excrete toxins into our children's world in pursuit of money is one helluva way to cut those bonds, and the more we know about the effects of those toxins, the more glaringly obvious our decisions become.
If we don't move towards a better, cleaner way of getting things done, we will die alone.
This is more of the ingeniousness of the climate saboteurs. The Editorial Board by now should know better. This piece heaps glowing praise on the latest Republican front group plotting to co-opt efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The benignly named, “Climate Leadership Council” is made up of Republican elder statesmen who worked to defeat attempts to limit greenhouse gases while they were in power. Now that it’s probably too little too late, they’ve started talking about a carbon tax. But the Times editorial reveals what the Climate Leadership Council really has up their sleeve; once the magical and mysterious market takes over, they claim, we won’t need all those pesky government regulations anymore.
37
That's true, and why would we? I'm a WAY left liberal green party voter. But common sense tells me that if we require people to pay for the cost of carbon, the market pricing of goods and services that use fossil fuels will cause the average buyer to avoid those that use more, and consume more of those that use less. Producers will be rewarded with creating new products that use less fossil fuels because those products will have a competitive advantage vs those that use more fossil fuels. Which is exactly the objective, no?
1
Evidently you haven't talked to an economist about the power of a tax in reducing emissions.There is widespread support for a carbon tax among economists. If you'd actually read the plan you'd see the dividend, about $2000 per year for a family of four, protects the poor, who use much less fossil fuel than the wealthy.
Do you seriously think we can prevent climate change without support from independents and Republicans? We need a durable solution that doesn't depend on which party controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
Do you seriously think we can prevent climate change without support from independents and Republicans? We need a durable solution that doesn't depend on which party controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
3
I have no objection to the carbon tax. I do object to the notion that tax policy alone will be sufficient. I suspect they want to pass the carbon tax and gut regulations all at once. I hear an echo of the bait and switch of "repeal and replace".
This is a good proposal for both Republicans and Democrats. A carbon tax is the most effective way to provide an incentive for all individuals and organizations to change, in big and small ways, to economize their release of carbon. It would be less costly than all of the complex regulations that would aim for the same purpose. And the dividend would make it equitable - lower incomes people would not bear the cost - in fact they would tend to be net beneficiaries, and anyone that shifted the fastest to low-carbon could also be a net beneficiary. Individuals would put further pressure on their local governments and utility companies to reduce carbon emissions, knowing that these investments would have an offset by putting more money in their pocket.
7
Well said, Mr Bill. And said positively. This is the best solution offered. I am thrilled it came from the Republican side as we won't solve this problem with out them.
As to "fact-deniers", this capability appears to be spread equally between the R's and the D's. In Oregon, the D's - including our Governor and the Speaker of the House - are in denial regarding the ruinous underfunding/over promising of Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System. They just pretend it's not their. Another inconvenient truth.
As to "fact-deniers", this capability appears to be spread equally between the R's and the D's. In Oregon, the D's - including our Governor and the Speaker of the House - are in denial regarding the ruinous underfunding/over promising of Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System. They just pretend it's not their. Another inconvenient truth.
How come no one ever mentions nuclear energy when discussing this issue? Seems like that would be a super simple answer to this issue.
14
Neclear energy is part of the solution we need to implement to address CO2 and the resulting climate change. And we need to re-energize the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository site that was been studied for decades before Harry Reid stopped it based on purely local partisan concerns. From a science perspective, unless and until we address nuclear fuel disposal, nuclear energy is limited as a national energy source. But the sun only shines part of the day folks.
Nuclear energy is NOT SIMPLEn any way, shape or form!!
WK
WK
What issue are you talking about? Fossil fuels are used for a lot more than base-load electric supply, which is what nuclear is best for. This proposal is close to a perfect solution to the actual problem: currently, people that use fossil fuels are not paying the full cost of using them. They are dumping carbon in the "common " environment for free. This proposal puts a price on that activity, which will allow consumers to make informed choices based on actual costs. And the dividend at the end of the year insures that the average american isn't spending any extra money.
Nuclear may end up being a big part of our future, but the market can make the choice a lot better than you can. If it turns out that nuclear is cheaper to deliver than solar, we can do that, if not, something else.
Nuclear may end up being a big part of our future, but the market can make the choice a lot better than you can. If it turns out that nuclear is cheaper to deliver than solar, we can do that, if not, something else.
The NY Times reported that James Baker was meeting last week with VP Pence and Kushner in the White House to discuss this plan. Any news on how the meeting went?
7
Easy - they told Baker, "don't let the door hit you in the a.. as you go out.
1
According to a NYT article of December 28, now-Secretary Tillerson announced Exxon's support for a carbon tax to address climate change. There may be different views within the administration that are cause for cautious optimism.
11
Sharon
On the other hand, if Exxon is backing this plan (I'm skeptical), what they actually see is a government-sanctioned excuse to increase prices markedly.
History suggests that when it comes tine for them to toss those extra billions on the 'save the environment' pile, there will be many unfathomable turns between the endorsement and the action, all of them supported by the Republicans.
On the other hand, if Exxon is backing this plan (I'm skeptical), what they actually see is a government-sanctioned excuse to increase prices markedly.
History suggests that when it comes tine for them to toss those extra billions on the 'save the environment' pile, there will be many unfathomable turns between the endorsement and the action, all of them supported by the Republicans.
It's unlikely Republicans will adopt any solution to a problem they don't acknowledge exists.
They can't acknowledge climate change, because doing so would mean about half of all known fossil fuel reserves, still in rock formations, must be left in the ground. These reserves belong to their owners, uh, er... donors, who don't relish the idea of abandoning their massive wealth.
Expect things to get worse before we address them.
They can't acknowledge climate change, because doing so would mean about half of all known fossil fuel reserves, still in rock formations, must be left in the ground. These reserves belong to their owners, uh, er... donors, who don't relish the idea of abandoning their massive wealth.
Expect things to get worse before we address them.
12
I fear the only way forward is to find a way for Wall Street to equate greenbacks to going green. Perhaps the divestment of some financial institutions from coal and fewer still oil is a tip of the iceberg?
3
The problem is global. It needs to be solved globally. For producers of oil, gas and coal a national tax (Negative Externality Tax – let’s call it NET) needs to be levied at the point of extraction; defined as that point where the product enters the national and/or international market. It will therefore become integral to the pricing of all domestic goods and services in the country and the export pricing of goods and services. The tax rate established for each country will serve to bring domestic and/or international price up to an internationally agreed carbon equivalent figure. That figure would be increased year by year based on the internationally agreed world-wide 15 year carbon reduction formula.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
4
Excellent, Dave.
A plan for another forty years of fruitless talk, political struggle, Republicans complaining that "If China isn't gonna do it we're not either" and in the end, if by some miracle the thing is brought to fruition, another chance for America to be the one 'exceptional' nation on the globe to stomp its foot and say "You can't make us do this, and we're not gonna. 'Cause we're exceptional. And big."
A plan for another forty years of fruitless talk, political struggle, Republicans complaining that "If China isn't gonna do it we're not either" and in the end, if by some miracle the thing is brought to fruition, another chance for America to be the one 'exceptional' nation on the globe to stomp its foot and say "You can't make us do this, and we're not gonna. 'Cause we're exceptional. And big."
Sure, but America is a big market, and if we are applying what is effectively our own local NET to both goods produced here and abroad, you're going in the right direction. Yeah, ideally the point of extraction would be the easiest place to apply the tax, but this is at least 75% of the correct solution.
1
The climate change hoax, properly labeled by mr. Trump, is only supported by left wing scientists with their fake flawed computer model projections. It must not ever effect policy. Climate change does not feed families or buy clothing or pay the mortgage. The Climate change hoax was on the ballot. America voted. Trump won. It is time to drill baby drill.
4
You need to change the channel...or is Fox News the only television permitted out on the island?
2
Katherine Hayhoe (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow) is a climate scientist, but not "left wing". This is viable solution to climate change that should be embraced by the left and the right, science we are all paying the human and economic costs of doing nothing.
1
Either you do not believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or you do not believe that you should pay for what you get. Ignorant or immoral, what choice.
1
Climate change is the new religion. Some will follow like a moth to the flame. Yet others did not drink the Kool Aid.
4
No one asks that climate change be accepted on faith. That alone gives lie to your claim.
If you fancy yourself too smart to be taken in, I suggest you challenge yourself more directly. Try watching An Inconvenient Truth and maybe reading a book on the science of it. Try understanding why people who've studied the problem are convinced not by their peers , but by the evidence.
Maybe you'll see through the sham and will expose its fraudulent mistaken basis. Or maybe they'll convince you. Either way, it's not a matter of faith, but of reality.
If you fancy yourself too smart to be taken in, I suggest you challenge yourself more directly. Try watching An Inconvenient Truth and maybe reading a book on the science of it. Try understanding why people who've studied the problem are convinced not by their peers , but by the evidence.
Maybe you'll see through the sham and will expose its fraudulent mistaken basis. Or maybe they'll convince you. Either way, it's not a matter of faith, but of reality.
"Climate change is the new religion."....Religion is something you believe without requiring proof. Science is based on provable facts. Climate change is science based, no matter how much you personally want to believe something else.
Republicans may be willfully blind to the effects of climate change already upon us; and it won't take much effort to see they are held 'hostage' by the coal/gas/oil industry not to see what's going on (more intense and frequent droughts and floodings, and the steady warming of our planet). Political prostitutes in congress are responsible for not taking measures to safe Earth from our irresponsible destruction of the environment, all for the money flowing to them...so they can keep warming a useless seat for needed action. I guess Baker and Co. are not subject to being cowed by industry.
6
I commend the GOP elders of the Climate Leadership Council for acknowledging that there are issues with our over-reliance on fossil fuels and for proposing an idea to address this issue. Whether that proposal is good or not should be debated on a variety of levels. I hope our current Congress and administration take this seriously and opens this debate.
My real problem is reading some of the comments here where the Climate Leadership Council (and others) are denigrated as "elites". If you want a snapshot of elites, just look at the Trump administration. His cabinet choices combine to be one of the wealthiest cabinets ever. And as for our president? Now there's a man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The swamp is swampier than ever.
My real problem is reading some of the comments here where the Climate Leadership Council (and others) are denigrated as "elites". If you want a snapshot of elites, just look at the Trump administration. His cabinet choices combine to be one of the wealthiest cabinets ever. And as for our president? Now there's a man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The swamp is swampier than ever.
15
Society periodically goes off on a tangent. the over-population and world-wide starvation claims of the 1970s are one example. Electricity too cheap to meter is another. People made a lot of money selling books and getting elected with both. -- Now, there is warming, but the cause just as mysterious now the warming that 13,000 years ago melted the mile thick ice sheets that covered half the planet. I could be a believer on man causing the current warming, if the scientists could explain that warming. Until then, we simply are guessing.
2
Chemistry tells us that greenhouse gases absorb radiation between 5-50 mm, which is the same wavelength of heat radiation reflected by the earth from the sun. These greenhouse gases then emit the radiation absorbed in a random direction. This results in a percentage of heat radiation, which would normally leave the atmosphere, instead returning to earth. In this way, the clear correlation between increasing levels of greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is not spurious.
1
Try reading - it helps clarify things. Really.
2
Sure, its POSSIBLE, that fossil fuels do not cause global warming. But smarter people than you (are there any? surely not!) are pretty sure it does.
This proposal simply attaches a price to something that maybe is harmless but probably isn't, and is currently FREE. If you believe in free markets, you know that in order for them to deliver goods and services most efficiently, individuals must pay for what they get.
Worst case: burning fossil fuels doesn't cause global warming. In that case we've adjusted the market to avoid products that dump a harmless chemical in the air. Not great, but not a disaster. The best part of this proposal is that it requires very little regulation and infrastructure, so it's simple and low-cost to reverse if it turns out to be not worthwhile.
This proposal simply attaches a price to something that maybe is harmless but probably isn't, and is currently FREE. If you believe in free markets, you know that in order for them to deliver goods and services most efficiently, individuals must pay for what they get.
Worst case: burning fossil fuels doesn't cause global warming. In that case we've adjusted the market to avoid products that dump a harmless chemical in the air. Not great, but not a disaster. The best part of this proposal is that it requires very little regulation and infrastructure, so it's simple and low-cost to reverse if it turns out to be not worthwhile.
1
American business runs on short term three month cycles. Make the stock price in the next quarter so that the automated trade programs don't tank your stock and think about the quarter after that three months from now.
No American business is interested in what happens in the next century. They will burn that bridge when they get to it.
So government action is the only way we are likely to address climate change. Compelling action reduces the power of the market for automated trading, forces actions that only improve the long term.
If the plan is less than ideal, but better than the status quo, we should be endorsing it. And we should continue to look at ways to make alternative energy and alternative energy technology an American asset. Whey would we want to cede future energy sources to nations like China?
The GOP is short sighted. But they have been trained by their contributors to be so. We need to get out of that mindset or we will sink (further.)
No American business is interested in what happens in the next century. They will burn that bridge when they get to it.
So government action is the only way we are likely to address climate change. Compelling action reduces the power of the market for automated trading, forces actions that only improve the long term.
If the plan is less than ideal, but better than the status quo, we should be endorsing it. And we should continue to look at ways to make alternative energy and alternative energy technology an American asset. Whey would we want to cede future energy sources to nations like China?
The GOP is short sighted. But they have been trained by their contributors to be so. We need to get out of that mindset or we will sink (further.)
8
OK. Once again.
Put your car on it's end and drive straight up at 60 mph.
How long before you leave the atmosphere? Don't cheat, guess.
A week? Days?
One hour. The atmosphere that protects us is 60 miles deep, one hour by car.
If the earth was the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be the depth of a film of plastic wrap tight around it.
A little over 200 years ago - a tiny wink in geologic times, every drop of fossil fuel was underground.
In that time, all the old factories and cars with fumes spewing, and all the billions of new cars, you see the photos of acres of head and tail lights in every city around the world every hour of every day somewhere, and the airplanes, and big agriculture and electric generation to light the world and coal and gas burning has gone up into that 60 mile atmosphere and stayed there.
Like a blanket laid softly over the surface of the earth, keeping us warm inside - lethally warm. How do you think such a successful species, unknown in the history of the earth, would NOT change the climate with it's intelligent activity?
The burden is on deniers to explain that.
Put your car on it's end and drive straight up at 60 mph.
How long before you leave the atmosphere? Don't cheat, guess.
A week? Days?
One hour. The atmosphere that protects us is 60 miles deep, one hour by car.
If the earth was the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be the depth of a film of plastic wrap tight around it.
A little over 200 years ago - a tiny wink in geologic times, every drop of fossil fuel was underground.
In that time, all the old factories and cars with fumes spewing, and all the billions of new cars, you see the photos of acres of head and tail lights in every city around the world every hour of every day somewhere, and the airplanes, and big agriculture and electric generation to light the world and coal and gas burning has gone up into that 60 mile atmosphere and stayed there.
Like a blanket laid softly over the surface of the earth, keeping us warm inside - lethally warm. How do you think such a successful species, unknown in the history of the earth, would NOT change the climate with it's intelligent activity?
The burden is on deniers to explain that.
87
Well done, Nancy...now, please take this to your congressman/woman, and tell them it needs to, and will, arrive on the desks of the 534 other members of congress EVERY DAY, and won't stop until these fools DO something.
Good luck with this. The age of ignorance and stupidity is running rampant.
Sorry but it isn't.
The deniers are like trump himself; petulant, ignorant and arrogant.
We have to stop arguing with these nincompoops and simply ask them what they would accept as proof that the planet is warming.
They don't accept themometer readings.
They don't accept before and after pictures of vanishing mountain top glaciers.
They don't believe evidence that Deleware sized pieces of the ice cap is breaking away.
No proof will change a backward mind.
Instead just ask them what they would accept as proof.
They of course won't answer because when children are cornered they just pout but if we keep hammering away at their illformed minds and keep embarrassing them publicly they will eventually acquiesce.
Let's just hope there's a planet left by then.
The deniers are like trump himself; petulant, ignorant and arrogant.
We have to stop arguing with these nincompoops and simply ask them what they would accept as proof that the planet is warming.
They don't accept themometer readings.
They don't accept before and after pictures of vanishing mountain top glaciers.
They don't believe evidence that Deleware sized pieces of the ice cap is breaking away.
No proof will change a backward mind.
Instead just ask them what they would accept as proof.
They of course won't answer because when children are cornered they just pout but if we keep hammering away at their illformed minds and keep embarrassing them publicly they will eventually acquiesce.
Let's just hope there's a planet left by then.
1
You describe this Carbon tax as "Market Friendly". It is as "Market Friendly" as the President's Import Tax, i.e. the purveyors of the Carbon Product have little or no impact and the consumer pays the bill at all levels. But the big Devil is in the argument that once the Carbon Tax is in place all other climate change regulations can be scrapped.
The only myopia I can detect is in the eyes of the writer of this editorial.
The only myopia I can detect is in the eyes of the writer of this editorial.
2
But. But. Why would you need other regulations? Isn't the point of the regulations to get people to use less of goods and services that use fossil fuels inefficiently? That's exactly what this proposal does, but more efficiently. People will pay for what they dump. Thus, they will dump less, or the market will punish them because their products and services will cost more than comparables that dump less.
I'm just unclear on why we NEED regulation if the problem is solved another way. I vote green party, convince me you are right.
I'm just unclear on why we NEED regulation if the problem is solved another way. I vote green party, convince me you are right.
BEATHE EASIER With a carbon tax? That may be a move in the right direction. There is, however, still a need to continue the national discussion about energy efficiency. Why? Because that is one of the "low lying fruits" that can produce very significant results in decreasing carbon emissions. For example, government subsidies for LED light bulbs as well as high tech insulating windows, sealing buildings to keep the heat in and insulation in the attic will yield tremendous decreases in carbon emission. While the off-the-shelf technologies are being put in place, there can be ongoing progress for building sustainable power generators, solar and wind, as well as storage and smart grids across the nation. Germany has set a goal of ending carbon emissions and is 85% of the way there. It is not very warm, sunny or windy overall. But they manage to develop sustainable energy along with the strongest economy of any nation in the EU. If the Germans can do it, so can we here in the US!
6
How about some really, really basic energy-saving strategies? My house, built more than a hundred years ago, is oriented to capture maximum sunlight in every room, with a large maple on the southwest side to block summer heat. Meanwhile, just down the street, a developer is building sixteen houses on eight acres--and every one of them has its living room on the north side, unprotected from north winds, while a big garage blocks the southern exposure. It would have cost nothing to flip the blueprints. Can we write some common sense into the building codes?
1
But what is the POINT of subsidies if there is a carbon tax? Once we get people to pay to dump carbon, the more-efficient/less-carbon-dumping products will have a natural market advantage. There will be no more need to artificially boost them. Let consumers make informed choices. I mean, I personally agree that solar appears to be the best technology, but why lock in on one thing. That's the advantage of a free market (assuming people pay for what they get, which is what this proposal aims to achieve).
1
Point well taken -- it would be so refreshing if the GOP and the Trump administration would do something responsible and intelligent to address climate change -- or any of the other major problems this nation is facing.
Unfortunately all the evidence is to the contrary, see also Krugman's insightful article today.
Unfortunately all the evidence is to the contrary, see also Krugman's insightful article today.
3
Hahaha. Good luck boys.
The question as always is, where is the money to push this idea?
The Kochs have spent billions to build a wall of deniers in Congress and state houses to stop this sort of idea.
They'll both be long dead before the bill comes due for the rest of us, but the idiocy they've been teaching the politicians and public will last on until the skies are choked and there are palm trees in Quebec.
The question as always is, where is the money to push this idea?
The Kochs have spent billions to build a wall of deniers in Congress and state houses to stop this sort of idea.
They'll both be long dead before the bill comes due for the rest of us, but the idiocy they've been teaching the politicians and public will last on until the skies are choked and there are palm trees in Quebec.
2
The one good thing is that they very people who deny global climate change the most are the most vulnerable to the worst global climate change has to offer.
Their ignorance today will subject their kids and grandkids to unberable tornado filled summers, hurricane ladened autumn floods, endless droughts and choking fossil fuel polluted air.
Their progeny will despise the very memory of the koch owned gop.
Small consolation since the cost will be Earth herself.
Their ignorance today will subject their kids and grandkids to unberable tornado filled summers, hurricane ladened autumn floods, endless droughts and choking fossil fuel polluted air.
Their progeny will despise the very memory of the koch owned gop.
Small consolation since the cost will be Earth herself.
1
The great part of this proposal is the compromise. It would be nice to get rid of all emissions, but that simply attacks the part of the country who depend on those jobs. The Left and the Right need to learn that we cannot have zero sum solutions. But, if we compromise, we might get a little bit done. This is kindergarten stuff, but many legislators have forgotten their lessons from when they were five.
2
Thanks for making me chuckle. This ridiculously complicated plan will go nowhere and do nothing to stop climate change. The smart money is buying beachfront property on the arctic circle - the next Miami.
2
Please explain how this is "complicated." Are you serious that you can't follow this? Pay a small tax at time of purchase. At the end of the year they divide up all the money collected and refund it equally to tax payers. I'm not sure where the complication is. Please explain.
Sounds like Obamacare for the planet. Let's not make that mistake twice. Mother Earth needs-and demands- universal, single-payer care: renewables.
65
Sigh ... another well-meaning economic ignoramus. A tax like this is the most effective way to encourage the rapid growth of renewables. And it might even have a chance to happen.
12
The Climate Leadership Council proposal is already 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 for them.
Seriously how do you think working class families would react to this sentence:"Their proposal would tax carbon emissions at $40 a ton to start and would be paid by oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices."Higher gas and electricity prices???you really think Democrats are going to get behind this??? with mid-term elections coming up???This idea would never even get through a Congressional committee let alone being passed into law. You have to be an elder Republican statesman or an Ivy league educated intellectual not to see that.
This proposal is an overly complicated bureaucratic fantasy ...which makes me wonder if the authors are true conservatives. Why not let the free market solve the problem...Republicans still believe in that don't they? 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 but not surprising solution from alleged defenders of the free market.
Seriously how do you think working class families would react to this sentence:"Their proposal would tax carbon emissions at $40 a ton to start and would be paid by oil refineries and other fossil fuel companies that would pass costs on to consumers with higher gas and electricity prices."Higher gas and electricity prices???you really think Democrats are going to get behind this??? with mid-term elections coming up???This idea would never even get through a Congressional committee let alone being passed into law. You have to be an elder Republican statesman or an Ivy league educated intellectual not to see that.
This proposal is an overly complicated bureaucratic fantasy ...which makes me wonder if the authors are true conservatives. Why not let the free market solve the problem...Republicans still believe in that don't they? 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 but not surprising solution from alleged defenders of the free market.
6
A key part of this proposal and similar ones is that families would receive dividend payments from the carbon tax to compensate for their increased costs. It is a good start as a revenue neutral way to reduce carbon emissions.
15
Your proposal to somehow fiddle with corporate taxes and "spur investment and innovation" would inevitably lead to more bureaucracy. The carbon tax much less so. And I guess you didn't read the part of the proposal that would return a (large) flat amount to each family. This would end up being an economic windfall for urban poor people and a large net tax on the rich. Your proposal is exactly the sort of confused anti-free-market approach that is DOA.
5
That's one of the many, many flaws in the system....the dividend payments will never equal the cost of the carbon tax....working class families will see their standard of living go down...there will be mass outrage....there are better ideas out there.
1
That conservatives or Republicans like a carbon tax is just icing on the cake. Most environmentalists understand that a carbon tax is the best option at this point, as it will be some time before clean energy replaces the cancer of hydrocarbons or we can reduce human numbers to a sustainable level for all species, including our own. Now, if we can just get the grown-ups, both conservatives and liberals, understanding the threat to half the species on this planet, which has much more to do with habitat loss than climate change--- we can all move forward. populationmatters.org and 350.org
31
The picture of those belching smokestacks leads to a short note about how truly ridiculous American coal-fired electricity is. Every time I write such I have in mind Somerset MA next to Braga Bridge, giant coal burner that with its extra towers looks like a hybrid nuclear power plant.
All that coal had to be dug up, "wrecking" the land and maybe the health of the miners. Then it had to be transported. Then burned pumping max CO2 per unit heat into the air.
There has long been an alternative: solid waste, do not have to mine it, do not have to put it in a landfill unless you can think of nothing better, and the incineration of the waste left after recycling releases far less CO2 per unit heat than burning coal does. Solid waste is a renewable energy resource.
So the carbon tax to be paid by a "Somerset" solid waste incinerator plant might be half of that paid by Somerset coal forever plant. Fall River would have to give up having solid waste landfills, and I know that would be hard.
Funny isn't it, world class NYT never even mentions this possibility.
That's all, have a coal-fired day.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
All that coal had to be dug up, "wrecking" the land and maybe the health of the miners. Then it had to be transported. Then burned pumping max CO2 per unit heat into the air.
There has long been an alternative: solid waste, do not have to mine it, do not have to put it in a landfill unless you can think of nothing better, and the incineration of the waste left after recycling releases far less CO2 per unit heat than burning coal does. Solid waste is a renewable energy resource.
So the carbon tax to be paid by a "Somerset" solid waste incinerator plant might be half of that paid by Somerset coal forever plant. Fall River would have to give up having solid waste landfills, and I know that would be hard.
Funny isn't it, world class NYT never even mentions this possibility.
That's all, have a coal-fired day.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
24
Keeping the air and water clean and clear of pollutants, carcinogens, toxins, pathogenic molds and microbes should be a bipartisan responsibility. This rare Republican call to climate action should not be a once off action.
14
Spend 30 seconds with google, you will find an endless list of articles such as the following.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
"...As much as $500 million to install 80 pumps and raise roads and seawalls across the city..."
This is real money being spent by real people to address a very real climate change problem.
It truly takes an idiot to deny climate science. The science is settled, the casual chains are well studied, well known, evidence based,
=== Humans cause climate change. ===
There was virtually no debating climate change in the presidentiol election cycle. Not even Florida's own JEB or Rubio would debate the looming disaster in Florida. Can you believe it?
Pruitt is the head of EPA, can anything be so wrong?
So pardon me if I don't think the republicans have any 'real' plan. There are two properties of any plan by these people to address any serious problem:
1) has a great sounding title
2) in one way or another, the rubes get fleeced
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/a...
"...As much as $500 million to install 80 pumps and raise roads and seawalls across the city..."
This is real money being spent by real people to address a very real climate change problem.
It truly takes an idiot to deny climate science. The science is settled, the casual chains are well studied, well known, evidence based,
=== Humans cause climate change. ===
There was virtually no debating climate change in the presidentiol election cycle. Not even Florida's own JEB or Rubio would debate the looming disaster in Florida. Can you believe it?
Pruitt is the head of EPA, can anything be so wrong?
So pardon me if I don't think the republicans have any 'real' plan. There are two properties of any plan by these people to address any serious problem:
1) has a great sounding title
2) in one way or another, the rubes get fleeced
5
Another "rare" opportunity is the chance that this offers for bipartisan cooperation on something that really matters. Such a bill, supported by both Republicans and Democrats, would be a healing balm to at least some of the division that rends our national politics. Although the bill may be slightly underwhelming in the actual effect it may have on climate, it is a start, and Republicans should embrace it with an eye not only towards the healing of our planet, but to the elections of 2018.
8
This is an elitist, out of touch idea that is exactly the kind of thinking that brought the Trump regime to power.
2
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”--Upton Sinclair. Members of Congress are beset by lobbyists from the carbon emitting industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the oil and gas industry spends more than $100 million every year to lobby members of Congress. The vast majority of that spending aimed at Republicans.
This idea has more than its complexity working against it.
This idea has more than its complexity working against it.
51
The entire CAGW hypotheses is apocryphal and unproven. It is the worst sort of scientism. Political leaders who impose or accept taxes or regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.
Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.
Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030--$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity's cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.
3
What you fail to recognize is the rate of change of carbon injected into the atmosphere. Using your figures, we are adding a net of 3% of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. At that rate, in 33 years, the total load doubles. That's the problem. In 100 years, it increases about 6 times. The natural mechanisms that convert CO2 into limestone cannot keep up. The result is that the temperature is rising.
Your claim of exothermic conversion is false in that it does not establish that the rate of CO2 conversion keeps in lock step with partial pressure. True, there is a relationship, but the rate of emissions overpowers it. If what you claim is true, then CO2 levels would not be increasing. They are increasing rapidly.
Your entire analysis is false and based on junk science.
CO2 content of only .00255% is small but that is irrelevant. Tiny amounts of CO2 have huge effects on climate. CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect and cause global warming.
Your claim of exothermic conversion is false in that it does not establish that the rate of CO2 conversion keeps in lock step with partial pressure. True, there is a relationship, but the rate of emissions overpowers it. If what you claim is true, then CO2 levels would not be increasing. They are increasing rapidly.
Your entire analysis is false and based on junk science.
CO2 content of only .00255% is small but that is irrelevant. Tiny amounts of CO2 have huge effects on climate. CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect and cause global warming.
5
Thanks for your baseless commentary, perfesser. Most, if not all of the facts and figures you've presented are false. Some, if they are true, are irrelevant.
It never ceases to amaze me when a scientific illiterate reads a few articles or opinions from non-scientific sources and then believes he/she knows more than those idiot scientists who have spent their lives studying what you seem to have picked up instinctively.
It never ceases to amaze me when a scientific illiterate reads a few articles or opinions from non-scientific sources and then believes he/she knows more than those idiot scientists who have spent their lives studying what you seem to have picked up instinctively.
3
Apocryphal? Why then, do the vast majority of world climate scientists disagree with your hypothesis, including the EPA? If the lithosphere is so hungry, why has there been a 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1950.
1
a large majority want it? your point is ... ?
"To avoid placing American industry at a disadvantage, imports from countries that do not impose a comparable tax would be subject to a per-ton tax on the carbon emitted in the production of their products, while exports to those nations would not be."
Really? Do existing trade agreements or the WTO actually allow such "tariffs"?
I certainly hope the answer is yes, as that opens the door for other countries to impose similar tariffs on US products and (yes) services. The US's three largest exports markets are Canada, China, Mexico. At least two. perhaps all three, of these would love to implement such a tariff.
Really? Do existing trade agreements or the WTO actually allow such "tariffs"?
I certainly hope the answer is yes, as that opens the door for other countries to impose similar tariffs on US products and (yes) services. The US's three largest exports markets are Canada, China, Mexico. At least two. perhaps all three, of these would love to implement such a tariff.
5
Yes. Such a tariff really is allowed under trade agreements. Yes, it would apply equally to all. If we already have our own internal carbon pricing scheme (paying the money back into our own economy while driving the transition to clean energy) we would not be subject to tariffs. If our trade partners adopted their own equivalent internal carbon pricing they would no longer be subject to our border tariff. In this way we can start a race to clean energy, instead of a race to the bottom, and do so while protecting individuals and businesses during the transition. Genius.
Will a carbon tax work? Not if it's not tried. And even then, I'm not sure. When Ireland debated this tax years ago, I asked if they were daft. But the enthusiasts were determined to “do their bit.” As if an Irish “bit” could make a difference while the US continued to consume a disproportionate share of world resources, China continued to burn more and more coal, and India… It seems there are trends in human history that are like the tide: they cannot be reversed except by an act of nature. Humanity, en masse, is incapable of doing the right thing. After all, a large swathe of them just elected Trump.
I've watched in horror as Americans have been force-fed the bitter grain of ignorance and bigotry. Science as a political weapon? Science is from the pit of hell? Unless it delivers a new smart phone or a new nav-sys for our cars; or new ways to kill the enemy?
Now, the public discourse is so polluted that not even the most conservative of the remnants of the GOP can get a hearing if the forces of evil declare them heretic. Meanwhile, Trump continues his campaign to get a wall in Ireland to keep the rising sea off his golf greens.
I've watched in horror as Americans have been force-fed the bitter grain of ignorance and bigotry. Science as a political weapon? Science is from the pit of hell? Unless it delivers a new smart phone or a new nav-sys for our cars; or new ways to kill the enemy?
Now, the public discourse is so polluted that not even the most conservative of the remnants of the GOP can get a hearing if the forces of evil declare them heretic. Meanwhile, Trump continues his campaign to get a wall in Ireland to keep the rising sea off his golf greens.
12
Maybe it's getting a little late to rely on a carbon taxing strategy to make the difference. Time in the fight against global warming is not on our side. Big though out investments are needed now to construct a coherent carbon free electric power infrastructure. Random uncoordinated reaction to the tax, driven by bottom line considerations, may not result in what the country needs.
Not much marching in the streets to protest the trillion dollar nuclear weapon system modernization proposed by Obama and embrace by Trump. Might it not be better to make such an investment to fight global warming, which is widely predicted to cause millions of deaths and widespread hardship and calamity, if not brought under control. The ability to do equal harm quicker and better in a few hours, at the whim of a gaggle of insane politicians and "leaders", should not be our next big investment.
Perhaps the carbon industries could be channeled into the water desalinization business. They've got lots of coastal plants and a great pipeline systems for distributing the product. Lot's of global warming water shortages predicted. What do I know?
Not much marching in the streets to protest the trillion dollar nuclear weapon system modernization proposed by Obama and embrace by Trump. Might it not be better to make such an investment to fight global warming, which is widely predicted to cause millions of deaths and widespread hardship and calamity, if not brought under control. The ability to do equal harm quicker and better in a few hours, at the whim of a gaggle of insane politicians and "leaders", should not be our next big investment.
Perhaps the carbon industries could be channeled into the water desalinization business. They've got lots of coastal plants and a great pipeline systems for distributing the product. Lot's of global warming water shortages predicted. What do I know?
2
Somebody would be smart to tell these guys to help form a new party.
There are people like me who will never, ever, ever vote Republican again. Not for mayor of our small town, not for president and not for anyone in between. Today's GOP is akin to an evil cult and you won't ever convince me otherwise.
Did I mention I used to be an independent?
I don't, for example, agree with much of Bernie's economic policies. I was not thrilled with President Obama's foreign policy. I hear these names and I feel nostalgic for the old GOP.
Truth is, I'd be prime for picking if a credible, well funded, socially progressive but economically central political party were to emerge...I might still stick with the Dems, whom I trust, but it would be nice to have an option for the crazies currently in charge, the GOP brand is ruined forever......the list of Senators who voted for DeVos confirmed that even McCainn, Rubio, Graham are morally corrupt.
There are people like me who will never, ever, ever vote Republican again. Not for mayor of our small town, not for president and not for anyone in between. Today's GOP is akin to an evil cult and you won't ever convince me otherwise.
Did I mention I used to be an independent?
I don't, for example, agree with much of Bernie's economic policies. I was not thrilled with President Obama's foreign policy. I hear these names and I feel nostalgic for the old GOP.
Truth is, I'd be prime for picking if a credible, well funded, socially progressive but economically central political party were to emerge...I might still stick with the Dems, whom I trust, but it would be nice to have an option for the crazies currently in charge, the GOP brand is ruined forever......the list of Senators who voted for DeVos confirmed that even McCainn, Rubio, Graham are morally corrupt.
92
Welcome to our brave new world.
Nice use of the light in the photo to make water vapor appear as soot. It is amazing how you can use shadows to deceive people. Very similar to how vapor from nuclear plants is used to imply pollution. Apparently to you every thing that comes out of a stack is poison. You just because these people have an "R" that is going to convince anyone? They are from from experts on the subject. Just more elites that were voted out as irrelevant!
3
Does anyone think that this administration with it's blatant support for carbon extraction industries will support a tax that will in the long run decrease consumption of carbon? Greater chance that Trump will release his income tax returns. Ask Al Gore how his visit with Donald went. Baker and Schultz will be used and abused.
4
So these Republicans state the obvious, and I guess we should applaud, but Baker served with an anti-environment president who gave the world James Watt, if you can stand to remember him.
Baker was also instrumental in installing Bush into the WH in 2000.
Schultz and Paulson were equally incompetent and partisan.
It wouldn't surprise me if these three have personal reasons to offer this proposal. What's their game?
Baker was also instrumental in installing Bush into the WH in 2000.
Schultz and Paulson were equally incompetent and partisan.
It wouldn't surprise me if these three have personal reasons to offer this proposal. What's their game?
1
Trump knows climate is a serious issue.
Why else did he build around his Scotland golf course but to protect it from rising water?
Why else did he build around his Scotland golf course but to protect it from rising water?
Trump will never go for any climate change plan -- unless and until Mar-a-Lago becomes an inaccessible island surrounded by the encroachment of the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Worth. Another collapse or two of the polar ice caps should do it.
129
Before he claimed to have given up his direct role in all his business operations, he was already trying to build a sea wall designed to protect his Irish golf course from “global warming and its effects.”
I had to rub my eyes to see if I was reading correctly that some Republicans believe climate change is real and want us to do something about it.
History will treat the Republican party very badly over their dismissal of climate change long after the issue has been settled scientifically.
It's an integrity issue. Because climate change will undoubtedly economically disadvantage all of us with future generations mostly affected, how do Republicans justify passing on a dirtier, hotter, poorer and probably more violent world to their children?
How do many Republican politicians sleep at night?
Asking Donald Trump and his new EPA chief to listen is probably pointless but this proposal shows that at least a few senior Republican officials are not anti-science, have not buried their heads in the sand, and are willing to take on the big oil and gas lobbies and the anti-regulation at all costs stance they've clung to for so many years. That's a good thing.
History will treat the Republican party very badly over their dismissal of climate change long after the issue has been settled scientifically.
It's an integrity issue. Because climate change will undoubtedly economically disadvantage all of us with future generations mostly affected, how do Republicans justify passing on a dirtier, hotter, poorer and probably more violent world to their children?
How do many Republican politicians sleep at night?
Asking Donald Trump and his new EPA chief to listen is probably pointless but this proposal shows that at least a few senior Republican officials are not anti-science, have not buried their heads in the sand, and are willing to take on the big oil and gas lobbies and the anti-regulation at all costs stance they've clung to for so many years. That's a good thing.
206
They don't sleep at night. That's how and why DT does his Tweeting at 3:00 AM.
The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32% within 25 years relative to 2005 levels. While that is commendable, the goal should be to eliminate CO2 emissions. Strong enough incentives could cause a greater reduction than 32%, perhaps even close to 100%.
1
Just to be clear- the science of climate change IS settled. There is widespread agreement among virtually all climate scientists- all supported by data. Deniers are paid by the oil industry to deny the science, but their arguments and data are routinely debunked.
There are still religious fundamentalists that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That doesn't mean the science is not settled on the age of the Earth.
There are still religious fundamentalists that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That doesn't mean the science is not settled on the age of the Earth.
2
Do I understand correctly that the tax is put on the emission, the cost is then passed on to consumers and it is up to them, then, to reduce consumption in order to reduce emission. In other words, the carbon producers, the corporations, would continue to produce harmful emission and it will be the responsibility of consumers to effect the repair the harm by reducing emission. In other words, let the corporations go their merry way and make the consumers solve the problem.
A perfect Republican solution.
A perfect Republican solution.
15
A solution, any solution, would be welcome. The government is going to do nothing until it's far too late.
1
Give me $170. a month to spend anyway I want. Make renewables cheaper than fossil fuel. You bet I'll buy clean energy. Hey, my wind electric is already cheaper than the dirty alternative, and I'm buying my gas from a co-op that recovers methane from landfills. I expect to have cash left over, and I intend to spend it in the shops down the street to support my local economy. Bring it on!
2
The fossil-fuel lobby will never let this through Congress. Their paychecks depend on carbon pollution. That being said, a carbon tax makes a lot of sense. We could replace our payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare) with a carbon tax. We would be taxing polluters, not workers, and that way we'd get less pollution and more jobs.
2
The GOP's attitude toward climate change is driven by the people who are changing the climate for their own personal gain.
Let's face it. If you're filthy rich and seventy years old, married to your third trophy wife, spending weekends at Mar-a-Lago and getting "the little people" to foot the bill, and you're supported by a bunch of people who are looking forward to the "End Times" so they can all be raptured, why would you give a darn about what happens a few decades from now?
We can't leave it up to them. It has to be up to us.
Let's face it. If you're filthy rich and seventy years old, married to your third trophy wife, spending weekends at Mar-a-Lago and getting "the little people" to foot the bill, and you're supported by a bunch of people who are looking forward to the "End Times" so they can all be raptured, why would you give a darn about what happens a few decades from now?
We can't leave it up to them. It has to be up to us.
176
And those billionaire buddies who are not actually waiting for the Rapture have bought remote lands with airstrips in New Zealand and other places they think will survive the Apocalypse. I assume they are all well above sea level.
Baker, Shultz and Paulson Jr. ah, those names are a sweet reminder of the long ago days when the Republican party was not entirely synonymous with lies and crazy.
I listened to an interview with Scott Pruitt on the BBC the other night, and his position on climate change was so arrogant and disturbingly twisted, I couldn't fall asleep for hours- something like "I believe human activity may play a role but that it is highly exaggerated by scientists who are responding to political pressure".
When asked, he didn't explain why conservative parties in most all other modern nations accept the premise of the dangerous human influence on climate without reservation- that the real debate is what is the best course of action everywhere else. Then he boasted that not a single Republican in congress supports a carbon tax.
Not a single Republican member of congress supports segregation now, but the core of their party- the solid red South, may never had accepted it were it not forced on them by the federal government.
I don't expect any help from the Republican party until the ocean is lapping on the doors of the Trump Plaza Hotel, and then they will blame the Democrats. Half the electorate will believe them.
I listened to an interview with Scott Pruitt on the BBC the other night, and his position on climate change was so arrogant and disturbingly twisted, I couldn't fall asleep for hours- something like "I believe human activity may play a role but that it is highly exaggerated by scientists who are responding to political pressure".
When asked, he didn't explain why conservative parties in most all other modern nations accept the premise of the dangerous human influence on climate without reservation- that the real debate is what is the best course of action everywhere else. Then he boasted that not a single Republican in congress supports a carbon tax.
Not a single Republican member of congress supports segregation now, but the core of their party- the solid red South, may never had accepted it were it not forced on them by the federal government.
I don't expect any help from the Republican party until the ocean is lapping on the doors of the Trump Plaza Hotel, and then they will blame the Democrats. Half the electorate will believe them.
395
Somebody would be smart to tell these guys to help form a new parry.
There are people like me who will never, ever, ever vote Republican again. Not for mayor of our small town, not for president and not for amyone in between. Tifays GOP is akin to an evil cult and you won't ever convince me otherwise.
Did I mention I used to be an independent?
I don't, for example, agree with much of Bernies economic policy. I was not thrilled with President Obama's foreign policy. I'd be prime for picking if a credible, well funded, socially progressive but economically central political party were to emerge...I might still stick with the Dems, whom I trust, but it would be nice to have an option for the crazies currently in charge, the GOP brand is ruined forever......the list of Senators who voted for DeVos confirmed that even McCainn, Rubio, Graham are morally corrupt.
There are people like me who will never, ever, ever vote Republican again. Not for mayor of our small town, not for president and not for amyone in between. Tifays GOP is akin to an evil cult and you won't ever convince me otherwise.
Did I mention I used to be an independent?
I don't, for example, agree with much of Bernies economic policy. I was not thrilled with President Obama's foreign policy. I'd be prime for picking if a credible, well funded, socially progressive but economically central political party were to emerge...I might still stick with the Dems, whom I trust, but it would be nice to have an option for the crazies currently in charge, the GOP brand is ruined forever......the list of Senators who voted for DeVos confirmed that even McCainn, Rubio, Graham are morally corrupt.
3
All reasons that Pruitt should not be confirmed. However, the opinions of the citizenry seem to be never heard. Unless they are billionaire contributors to the RNC.
1
I seem to remember the previous President proposing the same thing almost seven years ago and the bill was defeated by republicans.
I know I know ... the black Democrat proposed it, so it had to be defeated.
I know I know ... the black Democrat proposed it, so it had to be defeated.
249
How long can you hold your breath? Unless the minimum wage is raised closer to a living wage first, a large number of people who barely get by paycheck to paycheck will fall off the merry-go-round in a death spiral waiting for that dividend check. They simply have no disposable income to spare.
One way to get around this shortfall would be to give a portion of the dividend directly to the working public by raising the starting point for the employee portion of the payroll tax. A floor of $10,000 would NOT deduct the first $765 of the year, giving especially struggling workers a cushion to wait for the remainder of their dividend.
One way to get around this shortfall would be to give a portion of the dividend directly to the working public by raising the starting point for the employee portion of the payroll tax. A floor of $10,000 would NOT deduct the first $765 of the year, giving especially struggling workers a cushion to wait for the remainder of their dividend.
32
Another part of the problem is I don't see Republicans funding a vast increase in public transit. Without that option, this tax would fall heavily on the dwindling middle class, who often live in suburbia and commute long distances to their jobs. What is the alternative for folks who can't afford to buy a new hybrid car and whose jobs are not currently accessible via public transportation? How would they be compensated for plummeting home values this tax would place on commuters? Reducing emissions without putting the major burden on the bottom half of the income distribution requires an enormous expansion of public transportation. The Republican plan is a shell game shifting credits and spreading costs around, but not actually addressing the heart of the problem.
It its so sad that we need to come up with some cockamamie approach that includes taxing people and then returning the money to them later.
If we are concerned enough to discuss a carbon tax then why can't we just offer advice on energy saving methods and count on most people to consider them?
If we are concerned enough to discuss a carbon tax then why can't we just offer advice on energy saving methods and count on most people to consider them?
4
"count on most people..." Sounds like a plan. The invisible hand?
3
Believe it or not---no one wants big government, but it is a necessity to regulate greed and we can't "count on most people" to do the right thing. We have mandatory recycling because only 15% voluntarily recycled. I truly wish our species was self-motivated to do the right thing. Maybe in the distant past or future--but not now.
3
Because we can't count on everyone to even "consider" and then employ energy saving methods. Jeff Caspari says nothing about using wind and solar.
A carbon tax is a very good idea, because we need economic cues to nudge people to do the right thing.
In his seminal paper, "Tragedy of the Commons", Garret Hardin's showed that any commons, a natural resource shared by many individuals, each person will tend to overuse that resource. Today, our commons is a stable and livable climate. Unless each person must pay a price for destabilizing the climate, we and our progeny will share a climate that is unstable and hostile to human life.
A carbon tax is a very good idea, because we need economic cues to nudge people to do the right thing.
In his seminal paper, "Tragedy of the Commons", Garret Hardin's showed that any commons, a natural resource shared by many individuals, each person will tend to overuse that resource. Today, our commons is a stable and livable climate. Unless each person must pay a price for destabilizing the climate, we and our progeny will share a climate that is unstable and hostile to human life.
4
Yet another way for American politicians to steal money from Americans.
8
A childish response.
5
Much like yours.
1
One hopes that the Climate Leadership Council will join the Impeachment Leadership Council as the the Trump so-called Administration bungles and stumbles its way toward national and global destruction.
49
What is Mike Pence's attitude toward climate change? Is he endorsing carbon taxing?
This is a Trojan Horse, concocted by well known Republican proponents of discredited supply side nonsense to distract attention and obscure the real solutions which must be under serious discussion.
11
I'm a "staunch" progressive, but this has nothing to do with supply side. A carbon tax can reduce CO2 PPM immediately, and immediately is the priority.
2
Apparently Trump and Republican members of Congress do not inhabit the same planet the rest of inhabit. And are totally blind and deaf to the effects climate change is have. Is Trump's palace in Florida close to the coast? Is it flood proof? Hurricane proof?
The three elder statesmen will have no effect on Trump or the Republicans. Keep hoping
The three elder statesmen will have no effect on Trump or the Republicans. Keep hoping
5
Putting a price on carbon is one of the main policy directions in reducing the looming climate catastrophe. Making carbon pricing into a carbon tax rather than a Fee and Dividend is less desirable, because it better describes this Republican proposal.
However, I think that is advisable considering a wider use of the Fee and Dividend carbon-reduction methodology by using it as part of a global governance system where the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system is transformed by basing it on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. Bill McKibben wrote about this bold proposal 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, I think that is advisable considering a wider use of the Fee and Dividend carbon-reduction methodology by using it as part of a global governance system where the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system is transformed by basing it on the monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. Bill McKibben wrote about this bold proposal 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.”
8
There was never a vote in the Democrat controlled Senate in 2009 because the Democrats, under the leadership of Harry Reid, did not want to take responsibility for raising energy costs on Americans. There was no immigration reform passed for the same reason because Harry Reid did not want Democrats to be held responsible for passing legislation that was unpopular with the voters.
Because of the massive unpopularity of ObamaCare, they lost control of the House and their supermajority in the Senate. Did they make any effort to negotiate with the Republicans? No. So Obama acted illegally in 2012 to implement DACA in order to poison the well for immigration reform, and to improve his probability for re-election and to make the Republicans look bad in a last ditch effort to reclaim the congress.
After losing the Senate, Obama implemented the "Clean Power Plan" a partisan plan which is designed to raise energy costs in red states. No Democrat elected official will be held accountable, since it was created by unaccountable bureaucrats who fabricated it despite the fact that it violates the Clean Air Act.
Now they are rolling out old Republicans in their 70's, 80's, and 90's to tout a new tax for which the only thing that recommends it is that it is less hideous than the "Clean Power Plan" that does not even reduce CO2. Shultz, in particular, is no longer smart enough to recommend public policy, as evidenced by his association with the fraudulent Theranos organization.
Because of the massive unpopularity of ObamaCare, they lost control of the House and their supermajority in the Senate. Did they make any effort to negotiate with the Republicans? No. So Obama acted illegally in 2012 to implement DACA in order to poison the well for immigration reform, and to improve his probability for re-election and to make the Republicans look bad in a last ditch effort to reclaim the congress.
After losing the Senate, Obama implemented the "Clean Power Plan" a partisan plan which is designed to raise energy costs in red states. No Democrat elected official will be held accountable, since it was created by unaccountable bureaucrats who fabricated it despite the fact that it violates the Clean Air Act.
Now they are rolling out old Republicans in their 70's, 80's, and 90's to tout a new tax for which the only thing that recommends it is that it is less hideous than the "Clean Power Plan" that does not even reduce CO2. Shultz, in particular, is no longer smart enough to recommend public policy, as evidenced by his association with the fraudulent Theranos organization.
4
All of the obstruction from the Republican party for 8 years and you still think that things didn't get done because the Democrats didn't want anything done. Republicans said openly that they would support nothing in which President Obama and the Democrats were in favor and, unfortunately, they stuck to that to the detriment of the country, including the total dereliction of duty in approving Merrick Garland for the Supreme court.
Although it is frustrating to see Republicans proposing things that they would have never proposed even 6 months ago under a Democratic president, I am encouraged to see that there are at least a couple of Republicans who have pulled their heads out of the sand. The future of our country depends on people who look ahead, instead of back and I am terrified by the number of people being appointed to positions in the new administration that are living at least 50 years behind the times, who are totally clueless. Maybe, what will save the country is that most of these people have no experience and, we can only hope, will find it difficult to accomplish their reactionary agendas.
Although it is frustrating to see Republicans proposing things that they would have never proposed even 6 months ago under a Democratic president, I am encouraged to see that there are at least a couple of Republicans who have pulled their heads out of the sand. The future of our country depends on people who look ahead, instead of back and I am terrified by the number of people being appointed to positions in the new administration that are living at least 50 years behind the times, who are totally clueless. Maybe, what will save the country is that most of these people have no experience and, we can only hope, will find it difficult to accomplish their reactionary agendas.
3
Henry Kissinger was also involved with Theranos; the fact that the company didn't succeed is hardly proof that all those who backed it were suckers, fools, or senescent—just that they were wrong. The problem with what you've written, which is a lot, is that you criticize everything but offer nothing. The reason for this is given away when one reads what you wrote about NOAA: You deny the need for emissions reductions.
Dealing with the massive effects of climate change is going to be calamitous for the economy in the future. We should've long since been working harder to reduce carbon output. You don't like the policies that are necessary to address the problem (or deny the efficacy thereof), so you deny the problem exists in the first place.
The Editorial Board never met a regulation it didn't support. Pricing carbon will make many regulations totally unnecessary and, in combination with slight pushes and green investments, will help steer the economy toward a more sustainable future. We can do this without killing our economy. What we can't do is adopt your do-nothingism. This isn't the first time I've seen you commenting on climate change in such terms. What seems to be the problem?
Dealing with the massive effects of climate change is going to be calamitous for the economy in the future. We should've long since been working harder to reduce carbon output. You don't like the policies that are necessary to address the problem (or deny the efficacy thereof), so you deny the problem exists in the first place.
The Editorial Board never met a regulation it didn't support. Pricing carbon will make many regulations totally unnecessary and, in combination with slight pushes and green investments, will help steer the economy toward a more sustainable future. We can do this without killing our economy. What we can't do is adopt your do-nothingism. This isn't the first time I've seen you commenting on climate change in such terms. What seems to be the problem?
1
Let me understand this...energy companies will pay a tax but recover it by raising prices to the consumer. But the consumer will be paid a dividend check by the government to offset the inconvenience of higher prices. In fact the lower or middle class consumer will probably receive more than they pay in taxes. Wow! ...win-win on all fronts...except the pollution will continue because there is no pain on the production side, nor on the consumer side. Until the incentive to switch to renewable energy is attractive enough, the delusion of this scheme will continue.
134
Given that most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, nominally higher energy prices will almost certainly reduce consumption, because (a) demand for energy is inelastic, in the short run there are no substitutes, and so the only way to "save" money is to buy less (car pool, public transit, smaller car, good luck); and (b) an annual dividend payment is neither assured nor (more importantly) paid when the energy is purchased. So unless consumers are buying energy on credit and effectively deferring payment - unlikely - the "dividend," a return of the consumers' overpayments for energy, will be spent on something else. Like all taxes, a carbon tax will be a hardship on consumers, in this instance intentionally so. Wealthier Americans would be able to afford the tax or avoid it (buy a Tesla), but for the vast majority of Americans whose lifestyles require long drives in a gas-guzzling SUV, the "dividend" won't balance the weekly budget. But over time it would work its intended effect.
2
A cap and trade system is inherently a better idea as it incentivizes all carbon savings including afforestation, reforestation and avoided deforestation. Since 20% of emissions are from land use that can be altered, cap and trade has the added benefit of enhancing biological and social benefits sling with not having to tax and then later, try and fairly return the money to the average citizen.
Right. This is nothing more than a wealth redistribution plan. Liberals should love it.
1
I have been disappointed that this proposal from responsible Republicans (yes, there really are some responsible Republicans!) has not gained more traction in the "discussionsphere" already. A carbon tax is the best way to begin moving humans away from climate destruction. Is is not a panacea and is not the only action required, but it is a critical foundation to rebuilding a long term sustainable global climate.
9
While this 'move' toward climate action is refreshing, the rebates seem akin to vote buying. Granted, the consumers are saddled with the costs, but if messaged properly, who'd want to vote away their rebate checks? And in the end, who's making the sacrifice?
4
I really don't see how this motivates power companies or consumers to change their ways.
16
The Climate Leadership Council is welcome news indeed in this current political maelstrom. A carbon text is a policy that many climate scientist and most economist agree will work. It will force utilities to switch to using a larger percent of renewable energy. It will persuade consumers to be more conscious of their use and source of electricity.
Although not well publicized there is an increasing number of Republican legislatures who do support clean energy, renewable energy subsidies etc and have even stated we must move away from fossil fuel. More important over 60% of republican voters believe climate change is real and do want investment in renewables. See Conervative Energy Network. So the "leaders" in Washington are becoming dangerously out of touch with their base.
Although not well publicized there is an increasing number of Republican legislatures who do support clean energy, renewable energy subsidies etc and have even stated we must move away from fossil fuel. More important over 60% of republican voters believe climate change is real and do want investment in renewables. See Conervative Energy Network. So the "leaders" in Washington are becoming dangerously out of touch with their base.
2
Don't get your hopes up. These "elder statesmen" have zero influence in the Republican Party. According to several credible observers, roughly one third of Congressional members are climate change deniers - Republicans all. They will thwart any effort to impose a tax on carbon, cap-and-trade, or any other scheme clever minds can construct.
The solutions to climate change have been known for decades. The only way forward at the federal level is to elect members of Congress who give more credence to science than fund raising.
The solutions to climate change have been known for decades. The only way forward at the federal level is to elect members of Congress who give more credence to science than fund raising.
275
The GOP denies climate change even when the results (record breaking temperatures each year for the past three is a start) are undeniable. Why? Because the old GOP died after the Bush I presidency. The Kochs and their allies did a hostile take over and installed their own people in 2012. They are known as the Tea Party, but they are loyal only to their masters, the Earls of Kansas, who want no government regulations at all.
2
Maybe there's something here that I'm not quite getting, but this kind of sounds like a slight of hand trick, or a well-meaning idea with some potentially huge unintended consequences.
So the proposal, in order to make things palatable to conservatives, is to tax carbon admissions, but then to give the money back to taxpayers in the form of constant tax rebates. But surely the only point of a carbon tax isn't just to make things inconvenient for industrialists, but also to influence consumer behavior by raising prices on carbon-generating products? If you give out cash to taxpayers, they may feel that they have no skin in the game, and then that lets them off the hook, or gives them the opportunity to keep buying products that pollute the atmosphere -- indeed, they might see the rebates as "free money" and just buy more of whatever it is that's bad for the environment.
Meanwhile, what exactly are the incentives here for businesses to change their behavior? Can't they just raise prices and pass the costs along to the newly-enriched consumers? So what's the point?
So the proposal, in order to make things palatable to conservatives, is to tax carbon admissions, but then to give the money back to taxpayers in the form of constant tax rebates. But surely the only point of a carbon tax isn't just to make things inconvenient for industrialists, but also to influence consumer behavior by raising prices on carbon-generating products? If you give out cash to taxpayers, they may feel that they have no skin in the game, and then that lets them off the hook, or gives them the opportunity to keep buying products that pollute the atmosphere -- indeed, they might see the rebates as "free money" and just buy more of whatever it is that's bad for the environment.
Meanwhile, what exactly are the incentives here for businesses to change their behavior? Can't they just raise prices and pass the costs along to the newly-enriched consumers? So what's the point?
121
They sell it to the voters by claiming it will reduce CO2 and will give them $500 per person.
What they don't tell the consumers is that it increases their gasoline prices, airplane flights, food costs, utility bills by more than $500 per year. So they will diligently pay a huge premium to buy a new car with high gas mileage, they'll turn down the thermostats in the winter and up in the summer. Tough luck on the old, young and vulnerable who need heat and A/C to keep them out of the ER. Let them eat cat food. [Mind you, it's not like they can use the gift of their $500 to fund these efficiencies, because they have already spent that money for food and transportation.]
So they cut back on energy cost and the tax on energy is increased. They have an embedded $1000 in costs from the first round, so the next year their new $500 increases their energy costs by another $1200, the "easy" efficiencies having already been made. Does anyone in the calculation of benefit for this plan include the costs of the hospitalizations and loss of quality of life?
Talk to the people in the regional greenhouse gas initiative in the Northeast how that worked out for them. The states charged a tax to the utilities, which they passed through to their customers. Some of the collected tax was offered to consumers for efficiency improvements. The tax increased every year and the collections were diverted to the state treasury.
What they don't tell the consumers is that it increases their gasoline prices, airplane flights, food costs, utility bills by more than $500 per year. So they will diligently pay a huge premium to buy a new car with high gas mileage, they'll turn down the thermostats in the winter and up in the summer. Tough luck on the old, young and vulnerable who need heat and A/C to keep them out of the ER. Let them eat cat food. [Mind you, it's not like they can use the gift of their $500 to fund these efficiencies, because they have already spent that money for food and transportation.]
So they cut back on energy cost and the tax on energy is increased. They have an embedded $1000 in costs from the first round, so the next year their new $500 increases their energy costs by another $1200, the "easy" efficiencies having already been made. Does anyone in the calculation of benefit for this plan include the costs of the hospitalizations and loss of quality of life?
Talk to the people in the regional greenhouse gas initiative in the Northeast how that worked out for them. The states charged a tax to the utilities, which they passed through to their customers. Some of the collected tax was offered to consumers for efficiency improvements. The tax increased every year and the collections were diverted to the state treasury.
5
No -- you misunderstand the incentives. The carbon tax raises the cost of production involving fossil fuels, leading to higher prices for products produced in carbon-emission intensive ways -- so all consumers are given incentives to switch to less emission-intensive products, and all producers are given incentives to produce in less emission-intensive ways. The tax rebates to not change in value based on any individual's consumption pattern -- so they do not reduce those incentives.
2
The "point" is to put a price on CO2 pollution that we've never had before. It follows the established "polluter-pays" concept and also returns the collected taxes to the consumers. Could consumers continue to make choices to live a carbon-intensive lifestyle with little extra monetary cost? Certainly. Or consumers could decide that the alternatives, including energy efficient appliances and HVAC, efficient vehicles, LED light bulbs, energy retrofits in their homes could all be paid for and then some with the returned dividends. And businesses who adopt energy efficient approaches, including alternative energy sources, will have an economic advantage over those who do not do so. Its a win-win-win.
2
The GOP has a chance to lead and show they can govern. Only Nixon could have gone to China, and perhaps only the GOP can unleash market forces (by a carbon tax) to solve global warming.
But, better do it now, otherwise:
Looking forward, Trump is overwhelmed by the Oval Office and continues to blunder and fail. He (by impeachment) and the GOP (by the '18 election) will be swept aside and be replaced by a climate friendly government with much stricter controls.
But, better do it now, otherwise:
Looking forward, Trump is overwhelmed by the Oval Office and continues to blunder and fail. He (by impeachment) and the GOP (by the '18 election) will be swept aside and be replaced by a climate friendly government with much stricter controls.
12
PagCal: Either you are dreaming or your brain has been affected by all the air pollution, water pollution and maybe even "alternative" news pollution. Trump and company are indeed overwhelmed by their positions, however, he will not be impeached and the voters will not vote in a climate friendly government in 2018.
1
Interesting that this is being rolled out just as the NOAA fraud is being uncovered.
1
NOAA fraud? Did they provide all those magic buses to deliver fraudulent voters from Boston to NH?
4