Taking Action on Climate Change
I’ve prepared these notes with the hope of gaining feedback on a plan to mitigate climate change. In starting, let me be clear that I am open to various policy options or even a blend of such alternatives. Please speak freely if leaving any comments.
The specific policy I want to address is that of adopting a carbon tax. The general public, along with a host of notable organizations, are supportive of such legislation https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/polling-data/ . Its tremendous value lies in its ability to incorporate the external costs of burning fossil fuel into the price of a given market item. For a detailed positive discussion, I would HIGHLY recommend reading Jeff Nesbit’s "This Is the Way the World Ends" (notably his short closing chapter “The Anvil”).
The strategy for legislating a carbon tax, as outlined here, is focused on promoting it as a single policy option. This is quite intentional as I believe only a very concentrated effort can push such an important outcome forward within a reasonable period of time. In contrast, while I support virtually all of the provisions in the New Green Deal, I think building a bipartisan consensus for such a broad platform might be very slow in coming.
Unfortunately, one dark side of this narrow focus is that it fails to factor in externalities which themselves might be a byproduct of the tax. For example, with a carbon tax, certain industries will likely decline and we’d be faced with the additional challenges of unemployment, poverty, and worker retraining. Should our initial legislation take such factors into account or would it be more expedient to just cross those bridges as the need arises?
Working out the details for a suitable carbon tax is also a formidable challenge. Indeed, consideration of such details goes beyond the scope of this brief outline. Nonetheless, in the interest of building some consensus and having an initial starting point, I draw attention to HR 763 as advocated by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. It is endorsed by many organizations including renowned climatologist James Hansen https://energyinnovationact.org/supporters/ . Besides being revenue neutral, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby outlines the following components of HR 763.
Carbon Fee - This policy puts a fee on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. It starts low, and grows over time. It will drive down carbon pollution because energy companies, industries, and consumers will move toward cleaner, cheaper options.
Carbon Dividend - The money collected from the carbon fee is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. Program costs are paid from the fees collected. The government does not keep any of the money from the carbon fee.
Border Carbon Adjustment - To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported goods will be assessed a border carbon adjustment, and goods exported from the United States will receive a refund under this policy.
Regulatory Adjustment - This policy preserves effective current regulations, like auto mileage standards, but pauses the EPA authority to regulate the CO2 and equivalent emissions covered by the fee, for the first 10 years after the policy is enacted. If emission targets are not being met after 10 years, Congress gives clear direction to the EPA to regulate those emissions to meet those targets. The pause does not impact EPA regulations related to water quality, air quality, health or other issues. This policy’s price on pollution will lower carbon emissions far more than existing and pending EPA regulations.
The final piece of this general discussion is aimed at the problem of politically marketing a carbon tax. The starting point here is in recognizing that public opinion has been rapidly moving in the direction of believing that climate change poses an immediate and serious threat to our personal safety. This change of opinion is no doubt tied to recent authoritative reports on the hazards of climate change (e.g., https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ and https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ ).
A likely byproduct of this reporting has been the growth of climate change rallies occurring around the globe. Huge participation was seen, for example, in the March 15 Climate Strike which staged over 2,000 events including 70 rallies in cities across the US. A recurring theme for these high-profile events has been for us to take quick and bold action on climate change. And this, I believe, leaves the door open to make a refinement in messaging which specifically embraces a carbon tax (and perhaps HR 763).
In closing, I would like to summarize the many questions that I think are pertinent to this discussion. I have more ideas that I might add, but before going there I’d be very interested in hearing how others are looking at this set of complex issues.
1. With respect to ranking the value of specific policy alternatives, how does adoption of a carbon tax compare to other options such as fossil fuel divestment, refining efficiency standards, or geo-engineering? I give a carbon tax the highest rank.
2. Among alternatives for a carbon tax, how does HR 763 rate in terms of addressing major concerns? Are there pieces that should be added or removed? I have a favorable impression but my experience is limited.
3. To what extent might it be necessary to tie carbon tax legislation with other related policy concerns such as for anticipated changes in employment? Am open to various amendments yet think these should be reasonably limited.
4. If some consensus emerges that a carbon tax such as HR 763 is a winning ticket, what are the prospects for incorporating this message into the fabric of our climate rallies? Seems that communication with event organizers would be a great starting place.
Comments
Tax the assholes who make the profit till they scream
You want to save the planet, go after the people who make money killing it hard and FAST. Only solution that's gonna work. When they claim they have no money, Start lopping off corporate charters until they cough up the dough to fix their mess.
They will scream bloody murder, that it can't be done, and that the only solution is a nice safe tax that EVERYONE has to contribute to, because we're ALL killing the planet. Which would be nice for them of course, since a nice little poll tax doesn't touch the corporate profit line, since imaginary constructs don't exist as far as that goes. They'll claim that slow, steady progress is far preferable to anything. Look, they even have a nice Green New Deal that will solve all our problems, and it only requires that we give the corporations MORE money to gradually shift to green energy... maybe... a bit.
So, no. No interest whatsoever in a "Fair" tax. We've tried that, and continue to try that as we watch them laugh all the way... hell, they don't even have to get up to go to the bank any more. I want the rich to pay, and the corporations to bleed for their sins. And I am well aware that this is NOT a constructive response, so feel free to ignore it. But it is Honest.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks I think yours is an
I think yours is an honest and fair response. Actually what you bring to mind are all of the huge tax breaks the fossil fuel industry gets while others do not. Perhaps this might be set as a priority for change in our 'to do list' and that's exactly what I am wanting to consider.
Avid Agnostic
Corporate death penalty for oil companies?
It's a good start. Course, quite a few defense contractors will also have to go, since we haven't even touched on the MIC contribution to this little fiasco, which everybody in government is also keen to ignore.
(Hell, I'm sure all that depleted uranium is just as safe as they say. And in thirty years when everybody who would have been charged is safely retired and "Harmless" the truth will come out.)
Repealing Corporate tax breaks? Slap on the wrist, if that. I'm talking more along the lines of "Have the money ready, or we will take your business apart, building by building, computer by computer until we find it. And the longer we have to dig, the more we will take."
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Both of your comments
are spot on, dmw. I couldn't agree more. Quit taxing the 99%. Tax the crap out of the profiteers. 'nuf said.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Yes, I wonder with the
tax preferences they get, what proportion of 'their' profits has been funded by regular tax payers.
dfarrah
Good question.
We probably wouldn't be surprised.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
slap on the wrist
Not so if we're talking about the "awl bidness". The "awl bidness" gets subsidies and corporate tax breaks the likes of Goldman Sachs can only dream about. (So the likes of Goldman Sachs invest in the "awl bidness" instead.)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Seize Saudi assets to pay for conversion to renewable energy
and climate-change damage mitigation measures.
After all, the Saudis are the ones who profited (and are still profiting) most from putting all that CO₂ into the atmosphere.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=saudi+aramco+111+billion
You’ll know the Powers That Be are finally getting serious about global warming when the idea starts getting traction of expropriating the fossil-fuel-profiteering hereditary dictator dynasties.
It’s foolish to believe American or European politicians are serious about global warming until they start talking about the literal kings of fossil fuel in the same tones they used and are using to gin up war against Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.
2050 is too late
A dear friend of mine sent me this link yesterday. They say this will turn it around by 2050. Way way too late. Also, Jim Hansen promoted this idea early on, but I am not sure he does anymore. Any recent articles or videos from him on this? The climate catastrophe has accelerated exponentially in the past couple of years so that the good ideas of ten years ago don't mean anything now.
As individuals, I believe it is vital we embrace the tenets of deep adaptation - http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf - in our attitudes and actions. Practice mindfulness and start adapting in every baby step way possible.
Even the Green New Deal is not enough because the dominance of the Military Industrial Complex must be cut to nothing.
The majority of the people in power need to wake the fuck up ASAP and take radical action for there to be significant salvation. I view the HR 763 as a mamby pamby weenie ploy to lull the public back to sleep. I want to follow the money here. Who is financing it?
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
@mhagle Thanks for the very
Thanks for the very thoughtful response and I will take it to heart. I agree with much of what you're saying - notably on Green New Deal & MIC. I also agree that a carbon tax might really be 'mamby pamby' at this late stage so am still wondering what a 'radical' singular solution might be. It's altogether possible that a complete movement away from capitalism is our only hope yet then I wonder how we move on with that sooner rather than later. Appreciate your comments.
Avid Agnostic
It appears to me
we will not get out from under capitalism as long as we have the government we have. The leaders are all profiting from the system. Until the people rise up and take action to change the system, capitalism will be with us.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I completely agree . . .
The Leap Manifesto was promoting this very idea. https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
Although I don't see mainstream politicians in the USA promoting this.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
@mhagle Looked over the Leap
Looked over the Leap Manifesto and was very impressed. Will take time for me to get this all sorted out yet looks very good at the onset. To some degree reminds me of what Naomi Klein has discussed with respect to Blockadia and native populations.
Avid Agnostic
I've previously stated in this space...
... that I'm post-hope. I don't encourage others to be, but it colors any comments I may make. I think we should act boldly and with urgency and do everything possible, if only to go out fighting instead of lying down waiting to die.
There is no more time for low-disruption approaches. The window for that closed long ago, maybe 30 years ago. Maybe 75 years ago. Maybe 250 years ago. Any carbon tax has to be structured to be ruinous to fossil fuel companies as quickly as possible. Any approach has to include an absolute moratorium on new oil and gas leases. We also need to find a way to claw back the existing leases. If we aren't willing to compromise contract law in favor of maintaining a world that supports human life, we deserve extinction.
The IPCC interim report issued a few months ago calls for a 50% reduction in emissions worldwide by 2030. As every IPCC report, it wildly understates the problem, but let's leave that aside. That means a worldwide cut in emissions of 0.5% per month, compounded, starting six months ago. We can't start out slow and catch up later. We're out of road to kick the can down. There's only one way to drop emissions that sharply, and that's to wreck the economy. No single proposal is going to get us there, and the US could go to zero net emissions and the world still be on the increase.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
@WoodsDweller Good points...
Good points...
and I especially agree with "Any carbon tax has to be structured to be ruinous to fossil fuel companies as quickly as possible." I am not very confident that this can be done, yet trying and failing might be better than just tossing in the proverbial towel.
Avid Agnostic
@WoodsDweller I am just the opposite.
I am just the opposite. I don't worry a bit. I don't think we will have much global warming, but if we do it will be so good for the plant kingdom that the entire animal kingdom will benefit. Plants absolutely love CO2. They are finally getting enough of it to thrive.
Who speaks for the plants? I guess I am one of the few progressives that do. We had all of that carbon bound up in the earth where the plants could not access it. Now they can.
I am with you
Yes and yes ...
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
I'm post hope, too.
I think humans will go the way of the dinosaur, and maybe it is meant to be that way anyhoo.
dfarrah
I’ve worked on two carbon tax initiatives
Both of which failed at the ballot box. The scary thing is that the pricing was modest ($25/tonne or so). I’ve seen policy analyses though that suggest that nothing short of $400/tonne will move the needle on transportation / cars. The only thing that will work is making new ICE manufacturing illegal.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
@Hawkfish Interesting to learn
Interesting to learn about your experience with the carbon tax. Also appreciate your notes on what size tax could even make a substantive difference. From what you've said, seems HR 763 would fall far short (initially set at $15 per ton). So, even if the HR 763 carbon fee is gradually increased, seems it could take an extraordinary amount of time to reach a meaningful goal.
Avid Agnostic
In a nutshell
The first one was revenue neutral (tax refund through state level earned income credit) and the Democrats sabotaged it. The second one was revenue positive (with goodies for every dem idpol group you can think of), so the Goopers didn’t like it. The oil companies didn’t like either and outspent both campaigns.
I think they can have a positive effect on other parts of the economy but transportation is just too rigid (sunk costs of cars, distributed decision making, inertia, fatigue) that it really takes a big stick to make it work for that.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
NO! No! No!
Of all the schemes to address climate change, carbon taxes may be the worst of them all. I could tick off reasons for three days without notes.
1) This is one of those neoliberal, "market-based" plans. Think Romney / Obama ACA for health "insurance." University of Chicago-style BS.
2) Ask Immanuel Macron how carbon taxes worked out for him—21 straight weeks of Yellow Vest protests.
3) There is literally NO chance these taxes will solve anything. We live in a society designed to run on fuels. If we want a functioning society, we must build a new sustainable one that doesn't need fuels. How exactly will driving people deeper into poverty lead to that outcome?
Agreed
Carbon tax provides a small motivation for the consumer to change to sustainable fuels. But these alternatives have to be in place in quantity and available to the average consumer. Carbon tax is way too little too late.
This works-
1. Outlaw the use of fossil fuels on a given schedule. For example no new fossil fuel burning cars may be sold by 2025, etc.
2. Develop the technology and supply chain for sustainable energy.
3. Invest in carbon sequestration and large scale deployment.
4. Replant forests. Research how to grow food on smaller acreage and return much of the agriculture land to CO2 consuming forests.
On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give each of these a 10. Carbon tax would get a 1. You cant get there by taxing. you have to design the alternative civilization and implement it by the power of government, on a schedule that has a chance to be successful at averting global climate crisis.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Right.
See e.g. John Bellamy Foster's argument against the carbon tax:
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/02/01/james-hansen-and-the-climate-change...
Key paragraph:
Perhaps we can say that the OPPOSITION to carbon taxes has unleashed a wider, mass-based ecological and social revolution (e.g. the gilets jaunes), but that remains to be seen.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Appreciate Discussion and Reference
Thanks for sharing this material (notably with reference to Hansen). In getting things sorted out for myself it should be very helpful.
Avid Agnostic
I appreciate the open-mindedness!
The actual preparation to get society to get off of carbon-burning is far, far more intensive than anything you'd get from a tax incentive to burn less carbon within the existing infrastructure.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama