Condemning carbon trading as "fraught with uncertainties, lack[ing] transparency and creat[ing] large opportunities for emitting facilities to engage in fraud," a national coalition of environmental justice organizations has called for a federal carbon tax to address "the most critical issue of our time" -- the climate crisis.
The June 2 statement from the Climate Justice Leadership Forum is the latest sign of mounting disaffection with the top-down push for carbon cap-and-trade. It is particularly significant because the 28 signatory organizations, which span the country from Anchorage to New Orleans and from Oakland to New York City, have been the spearhead of a rising movement by communities of color to crack open the historically affluent and white U.S. environmental lobby, much of which has backed the cap-and-trade approach to pricing carbon emissions.
Moreover, CJLF's endorsement of "an equitable carbon tax" serves notice that lower-income and "minority" constituencies are concluding that the disproportionate impacts of carbon taxes and other user fees can (and must) be reversed through progressive use of the carbon tax revenues.
CJLF's statement declares (all emphases added):
An equitable carbon tax must be set high enough to encourage emissions sources to make financial investment in technological controls and energy efficiency, and to begin researching and developing clean, renewable energy options.
A carbon tax cannot remain static and should not merely track inflation, but should rise over time so that resource conservation and development of clean renewable energy can continue to be an attractive alternative to fossil fuel use.
The Climate Justice Leadership Forum's strong endorsement of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade is welcome news at the Carbon Tax Center, which I co-direct, even though our positions diverge on the important question of revenue treatment. The Carbon Tax Center wants 100% of carbon tax revenues to be returned to Americans via either tax-shifting or regular "dividends" to safeguard less affluent families who, on average, consume less energy than the wealthy. The Leadership Forum urges:
Program revenue from a carbon tax should be used to fund programs designed to wean the economy off fossil fuel; should provide assistance for vulnerable workers and communities working to transition to the new economy; should include subsidies for energy efficiency that prioritize low-income communities and communities of color, particularly those living in vulnerable areas (coastal zones, floodplains, arctics, urban areas).
CTC strongly supports such efforts but wants them funded from general revenues to avoid the horse-trading that could otherwise "raid" the carbon tax revenues and reduce dividends available to families. Still, this tactical difference pales beside our shared perspective on the importance of enacting carbon taxes instead of carbon cap-and-trade.
CJLF's critique of carbon cap-and-trading says, in part:
A cap and trade system creates a volatile market that does not create business incentives to invest in new technologies because prices of emissions credits could be less than the price of new technologies. A cap and trade system makes economic planning difficult because the market price, lacking regulation, is not consistent and is difficult for businesses to predict.
CJLF's supports of carbon taxing is equally unequivocal:
A carbon tax carbon reduction system has been found by scientists, economists, policymakers and regulatory analysts to be the most efficient means to reduce carbon emissions.A carbon tax can insure predictability and create immediate incentives for emitters to invest in new cleaning technology for polluting facilities.
Signatories to the CJLF statement are listed below (as of June 1, 2008). The coalition's statement should be seen as both a milestone in climate advocacy and further indication that support for carbon pricing is slipping away from cap-and-trade and moving toward carbon taxing.
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage AK
Arbor Hill Environmental Justice Corporation, Albany, NY
Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Oakland, CA
California Environmental Rights Alliance, Los Angeles, CA
Clark Atlanta University Environmental Justice Resource Center, Atlanta, GA
Communities for a Better Environment, Los Angeles, CA
Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, Seattle, WA
Community In-power and Development Association, Port Arthur, TX
Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Hartford, CT
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice at Dillard University, New Orleans, LA
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, Detroit, MI
Environmental Justice Action Group, Buffalo, NY
Environmental Justice Climate Change Initiative, Oakland, CA
Environmental Research Foundation, New Brunswick, NJ
For a Better Bronx, Bronx, NY
Harambee House Inc., Savannah, GA
Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, MN
Jesus Peoples Against Pollution, Jackson, MS
Just Transition Alliance, San Diego, CA
Land Loss Prevention Project, Durham, NC
National Black Environmental Justice Network, Washington, D.C.
National Community Revitalization Alliance, Washington, D.C.
New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Trenton, NJ
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, New York, NY
People Organizing to Demand Economic & Environmental Rights (PODER), San Francisco, CA
Southwest Network for Economic and Environmental Justice, Albuquerque, NM
United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park (UPROSE), Brooklyn, NY
WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Harlem, NY
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Comments
View as Threaded
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 7:19 am
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 8:43 am
16 Jun 2008
It should be called a toxic waste dumping fee, set to the best estimate of the cost of the damage done by the waste being dumped into the atmosphere.
The first $90 billion per year should be used for R&D of better energy systems and the rest returned to the taxpayer.
This would be simple, fair, and transparent. It is easily adjusted as our knowledge improves; and leads to the best solution in the shortest time.
Cap n trade will result in thousands of very bright people wasting their talent to become rich by gaming a system that will not do an efficient job of improving our energy systems.
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 9:56 am
16 Jun 2008
An equal dividend would be progressive; lower income folks use far less fossil fuel than high fliers, SUV drivers and McMansion owners. Much better than BUSH's stimulus checks, carbon dividends would arrive every month and go up every year.
Now THAT'S a stimulus.
Check out http://www.carbontax.org for more information and news about revenue-neutral carbon taxes.
Permalink
Adi Posted 1:31 pm
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
joebhed Posted 12:43 am
17 Jun 2008
But, with the utmost respect from a thankful, long-term fan, the CJLF has it all over the CTC on this.
As a 'carbon-tax-now' advocate, I fail to comprehend the veracity of the CTC position.
I believe it is the old "spoonful of honey makes the medicine go down" theory of political economics.
Congressional leaders disdain for doing their job by acquiescing to a "centrist", 'representation without taxation' position, causes advocates to include some "honey" in their policy proposals.
I have a hard time believing that you need to "cap-and-dividend' as a means of protecting the lower income among us (me included) from the perils of the cost of meeting our environmental stewardship responsibilities.
And, then you need to find OTHER legislation to fund the solutions to the problem? Who is going to pay for that legislation and those solutions?
And, if you are going to craft that "other" legislation in a manner that ensures that it will not get siphoned off to non-carbon-reduction uses, well, you can craft the same protection into any bill.
Finally, I really do not understand how you can say that you will have a carbon tax set at a sufficient level to incentivize carbon reduction actions by polluters, while saying ALL of that tax revenue is needed to offset the economic impacts from those activities on lower income Americans.
So, the ONLY socio-economic benefit of all that taxing is a redistribution of wealth?
You are right on the carbon tax issue.
But, we would all be well served if the CTC got behind the CJLF "tactic" for funding the solution to the problem. Their proposal is for doing the right thing. Now.
Respectfully,
Joe Bongiovanni
Harborton, Virginia
Permalink
hypocrites Posted 1:33 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:06 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 1:52 pm
17 Jun 2008
As Joe Bongiovanni suggests, revenue from a carbon tax COULD be doled out for "good works" such as alternative energy projects.
Lieberman's cap-and-trade bill attempted this: auction (some) carbon emissions permits and dole out auction revenue to a long list of technological and political favorites. (It was "deficit neutral"-- a tax that would have SPENT ALL of the revenue.)
Three flaws, Joe:
Congress tends to dole out money to powerful corporations. (Lieberman's bill included subsidies for ethanol, nukes, "clean coal" research, as well as "adjustments" for the very fossil fuel industries that would have paid for pollution permits. Every fat corporate pig you can think of was bellying up to the trough.)
It's early in the race: neither Congress nor anyone really knows which technologies will work the best for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A tax on carbon pollution sets the market to work on finding, developing and marketing those technologies.
A carbon tax has a disprortionate effect on lower income people UNLESS linked to a dividend to distribute the revenue to everyone equally. We'd all pay higher prices for fossil fuel but we'd all get the same dividend. So those who use less than their share of fuel (lower income folks and those who learn to reduce carbon impacts) would pay less in increased prices than their dividends. We'd be PAID to conserve the carbon recycling capacity of the atmosphere while the wasters at the top would be penalized.
The Carbon Tax Center figures that the bottom 3/5 of income would be net gainers under a carbon tax with dividend. Only the top 1/5 would pay more carbon tax than their dividend. Why? The top 1/5 uses a LOT more fuel: flying, driving big vehicles and living in huge houses.
So, yes a carbon tax would push everyone to reduce fossil fuel use. Recyle the revenue through a divident and we can do it WITHOUT hammering the poor.
That's MY idea of environmental justice.
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 2:18 pm
17 Jun 2008
You raise some great points. Check out my response: "Dividend makes Carbon Tax Environmentally Just."
I'm thrilled that a large group of EJ organizations supports a carbon tax.
I think it's essential that a carbon tax be revenue-neutral. I hope advocates for disavantaged people will understand that a tax that hits poor people hardest isn't just and wouldn't be as effective,
Permalink