Here’s Peter Barnes on video talking about his preferred solution to climate change: cap-and-dividend.
Much more on SolveClimate.
I understand the appeal of cap-and-dividend, not just practically but theoretically, as it establishes common ownership rights over the atmosphere. But I still have never heard convincing answers to my two biggest issues with it: one, that it will never pass, despite the evidence-free claims of its supporters that the public would rally around it, and two, that it would squander a major source of revenue that could be invested in clean energy and green infrastructure.
Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?
It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford
Comments
View as Flat
biodiversivist Posted 4:55 am
05 Feb 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:01 am
05 Feb 2009
Concerning issue 1: divide out existing fossil fuel tax revenue. Then add new fossil C tax, and divide that out too.
If the first thing proposed is that existing C revenue be divided out, the public will be on side, and a precedent will be established.
(This amounts to an evidence-free claim that cheques for everyone will be a selling point. Sorry.)
Don't say "Tax and dividend", of course. You might as well say "tax and toguium hyperchloride"; much of the audience just isn't going to hear whatever comes after "Tax".
Say "Dividend" first, and make sure the proposal is "Dividend First", that it specifies that the enactment of the dividend the first thing to be done. Lots of people don't know what a dividend is, but this way they'll at least hear the word, and have some chance of formulating, in their minds, a question as to what that is. Does it mean a cheque for them, funded by soaking someone else?
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be tamed)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:13 am
05 Feb 2009
Which would be difficult to imagine it being raised high enough for this impact to be meaningful.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 8:39 am
05 Feb 2009
Would it not be advantageous to use dividends to give consumers an equity stake and interest in decarbonization?
This could be achieved by investing carbon tax revenue [or allowance auction revenue] in renewable energy and clean technologies in exchange for equity, and distributing equity shares to the public on an equitable per-capita basis. The shares would yield dividends that increase -- not decrease -- as carbon is phased out.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:18 pm
05 Feb 2009
So while I would like to see a bill that's very sparing in what it spends money on other than checks back to people, significant funds for job training (and research while I'm at it) are huge musts for me. You can't just pretend like its all green jobs and butterflies, there will be major economic dislocation for some, and while some sacrifice is necessary, we should do what we can to address it.
Max Epstein
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:43 pm
05 Feb 2009
climate mitigation and adaptation budget is not limited to carbon price revenue.
social and economic adaptation budget is not limited to carbon price revenue.
even without a carbon price, coal jobs and other volume-based coal money streams are going away.
even if -- per unit of energy -- overall energy prices end up higher than the market rate for dirty energy at that time, efficiency and conservation will cut the household usage and balance the outlay.
economic dislocation is a constant risk of industrial life. we decided to address it, years ago, by encouraging it -- destroying worker protections and real wages for most people -- replacing public goods with cheap credit access. if you want to address those things, they've been waiting for your contribution since the '70s....
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 1:42 pm
05 Feb 2009
1&2) Obviously this is true, but I (and I'm sure many others) would be very skeptical of a new program that not only brings in ~$120 billion annually, but still costs the government billions of dollars annually as well in new deficit spending. Since "revenue-neutral" has become such a rallying point for a carbon bill, would you really be able to tack on an unaccounted for $X billion without losing votes/PR? If its worth doing, and is necessitated by the carbon pricing itself (which is the proximate cause of the economic dislocation), why not carve out some (admittedly hopefully small) portion of the carbon revenue to address it, and keep the program revenue/deficit neutral?
3) Coal and manufacturing jobs may be going slowly either way. That's easy for you and me to say, since presumably neither of us are planning on applying for a coal mining job either way. Somehow I think you'd see it differently if you were 45-55ish with kids to feed and put through college, and faced legislation that could wipe out your employer and pension virtually overnight.
Max Epstein
Permalink
hapa Posted 2:54 pm
05 Feb 2009
OK then. the congresscritters will pay for what you want with carbon revenue and put borrowing and other taxes to work on other projects.
do you have a political objection or an economic objection.
Since "revenue-neutral" has become such a rallying point for a carbon bill, would you really be able to tack on an unaccounted for $X billion without losing votes/PR?
i myself can't do anything and i can't really predict what will be done or how the inherent compromises will be peppered throughout federal spending.
"revenue-neutral" is a stupid concept -- aside from the complete lack of interest in how much is too much military spending, even though its multiplier is terrible -- and it's a stupid concept because if we need to do something and the gains are in the future, we borrow the money we can't raise as investment. that's what one does. that's how things work unless you're just going to print the money or otherwise will it into existence.
i actually think the finance sector has had its turn at money creation and now it's time to push new money directly into the real human economy and the green overhaul is an excellent way to do that but nobody wants to take the bottle away from wall street baby.
If its worth doing, and is necessitated by the carbon pricing itself (which is the proximate cause of the economic dislocation), why not carve out some (admittedly hopefully small) portion of the carbon revenue to address it, and keep the program revenue/deficit neutral?
because we should buy what we need at the prices we need and not force the carbon price to serve two masters.
and
because the carbon pricing is not the cause of the dislocation. the massive effort -- to switch fuels, reduce impact, and clean up -- will be the dislocation. carbon price will only be part of that.
3) Coal and manufacturing jobs may be going slowly either way. That's easy for you and me to say, since presumably neither of us are planning on applying for a coal mining job either way. Somehow I think you'd see it differently if you were 45-55ish with kids to feed and put through college, and faced legislation that could wipe out your employer and pension virtually overnight.
years ago when i was working on a political campaign, a proposition to use transit instead of new car capacity to service a museum, the pro-car people kept saying my side was trying to prevent kids, the elderly, and the disabled from going to the museum. nobody thought existing access was insufficient and nobody was proposing to remove it (or even leave it as was, if there were real concerns) but they made their case and probably won with it.
i hate that kind of crap.
did you or did you not just read that i want social spending to help those people?
Permalink