James Hansen is still speaking out for a carbon fee & dividend system. In an interview with Yale 360 a few weeks ago, he said
The one thing, which is most important, is the assertion by the fossil fuel industry and the people who support them, that it would be expensive to solve the problem, is absolutely wrong. There have been economic studies that show if you add a gradually rising fee to fossil fuels, by collecting a fee on fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine, or port of entry, and if you distribute the money to the public, an equal amount to all legal residents, it would actually spur the economy. (emphasis added)
And that doesn’t even consider the reduction of CO2 which would result from making carbon more expensive than other options. In one fell swoop, F&D could make irrelevant the many other laws and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and related pollution.
The concept of a carbon fee & dividend is nothing new. Hansen wrote a letter to President-elect Obama urging him to support it. But it apparently wasn’t well understood. Back then, even Worldwatch Institute headed their article on his letter Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax. Yet, right up top, it said
In his plan, Hansen recommends levying a rising tax on fossil fuels and redistributing 100 percent of the proceeds to taxpayers — a tax and dividend approach. (again, emphasis added)
Apparently, people read that as a
TAX
and dividend
approach, which is probably why “tax” has been replaced with “fee”.
It would impose a fee on carbon emissions at their source, such as coal mines, raising the price of fossil fuel energy.
But instead of giving the proceeds to the government, three-fifths of the money would be refunded to U.S. residents.
Well, it’s not fully revenue neutral, but it’s a start. And the number of additional co-sponsors? Zero. It died without even a whimper.
- In 2014, Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz introduced the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act. Number of additional co-sponsors? Zero. Not even Sanders or Boxer signed on. Granted, like the previous bill, it didn’t include a firm commitment to return all revenues to the people (it makes it much more complicated than that), but it includes a host of things expanding on the idea of a carbon fee. It includes import/export consideration and a section on escaped methane, for example. (I didn’t read the Sanders/Boxer bill, so I don’t know if it included those items). And it, again, died without even a whimper.
- And in the last Democratic debate, Sanders challenged Clinton on whether she supported a carbon tax. Did he say dividend? If so, I missed it. But at least climate change finally got mentioned. Based on the results of the NY primary, it’s probably fair to say that this, too, died with barely a whimper.
I firmly believe that a fee & dividend approach would initially be derided as a TAX!, but would lead to a major change in mindset once the rebates started (Do Alaskans complain about their oil tax?). It seems to me that the fee & dividend idea is a recognition of how the fossil fuel industry damages the commons, and is both progressive and democratic. Would that it were also Democratic.
This story was triggered by an item today in my strongly conservative and corporatist paper on the interview which took place back on the 12th.
Oh, and I’ve been on board since 2006; my first diary was about it. (And it, par for the course, faded away with barely a whimper).