Much of the focus of climate change legislation up to this point has been on the ACES bill out of the house and the Kerry/Boxer proposal in the Senate. Then we were told that Senators Kerry, Lieberman, & Graham were discussing a third proposal. I know, I know, bipartisanship again. But it will be needed on any climate change bill, since there are a few Democrats who aren't really interested in passing a bill. But there is another proposal, one that also has bipartisan credentials. It is the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, or CLEAR. Rather than using cap and trade, CLEAR uses a cap and dividend system to curb emissions. How does it work? Let's find out.
CLEAR has won kudos from all points of the political spectrum. Click on Senator Cantwell's website, and you'll see supportive statements from AARP, the American Enterprise Institute, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and MoveOn.org.
CLEAR is a "100-75-25-0" policy:
100% of the permits to bring fossil carbon into the U.S. economy will be auctioned from day one. There are no permit giveaways.
75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to the public as equal per person dividends.
25% of the auction revenue is devoted to investments in energy efficiency, clean energy, adaptation to climate change, and assistance for sectors hurt by the transition from the fossil-fueled economy.
Zero offsets are allowed: polluters cannot avoid curbing use of fossil fuels by paying someone else to ostensibly clean up after them.
CLEAR strictly limits the buying and selling of permits to prevent carbon market speculation and profiteering.
Another aspect of CLEAR I find appealing is that it reserves a fair amount of power for the WH. From Senator Cantwell's website (PDF File):
Beginning in 2012, the President sets the initial target amount of carbon from fossil fuels that can be emitted to the atmosphere without disrupting the economy, using a gradually declining "cap." The concept is to gradually accelerate emission reductions.
The level of carbon emissions remains at the level set by the President for the first three years. After that, the carbon cap increases by a quarter of a percentage point each year, from the previous year. For example, the cap on pollution in 2016 is 0.25% less than 2015, in 2017 the cap is 0.5% less than 2016, in 2018 the cap is 0.75% less than 2017, and so on
What would the resulting cuts look like?:
20% lower global warming pollution by 2020 (relative to 2005)
30% lower global warming pollution by 2025 (relative to 2005)
42% lower global warming pollution by 2030 (relative to 2005)
83% lower global warming pollution by 2050 (relative to 2005)
These numbers are the same as ACES. For a detailed side by side comparison of ACES and CLEAR, look here.
What are the advantages of CLEAR? Well, it's much simpler. The entire CLEAR Act is 39 pages, while the cap and trade portion of ACES alone is 410 pages. Also, ACES initially gives away 85% of the permits. Dividends to the public eventually would grow to about half of the permit values, but not until 2030.
The biggest problem with CLEAR is the lack of green job creation. There is the provision of investing 25% of auction revenue in energy efficency and clean energy, but that is very vague. There needs to be specific investments in clean energy, both for the planet's health and our society's as well.
In a perfect world, we could take the simple cap and dividend and combine it with concrete clean energy job creation programs. But as has been made crystal clear, the Senate is far from perfect. But the simplicity of CLEAR paired with what could be a very popular cap and dividend program could be a recipe for success.
Links (All PDF Files):
How CLEAR Works
State by State Impact of CLEAR
Side by Side Comparison of CLEAR and ACES
Senator Cantwell's CLEAR Page