Peter Barnes’s Posts

• Our carbon pricing system should not be a shotgun marriage

  Why two climate bills are better than one 8

  Posted 7 months, 1 week ago

  Two different House committees are considering climate legislation -- and that's not a bad thing.

• Utility players

  Beware utilities seeking free pollution permits 3

  Posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

  America's electric utilities are waging a no-holds-barred campaign to get 40% of carbon emission permits allocated for free. Why aren't Obama and Congressional Democrats fighting back?

• Green unity

  How Obama can revive the economy and heal the planet 6

  Posted 1 year agoA few days before the election, Barack Obama told Time's Joe Klein:

  Finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There's no better driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy ... That's going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.

  That's exactly the right choice for numerous economic, geopolitical, and ecological reasons. By spawning "a new energy economy," Obama can create millions of new jobs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and avert catastrophic climate change. But the politics of launching that new energy… Read More

• Why not a revenue-neutral carbon cap?

  The silver-lining of Lieberman-Warner's demise 11

  Posted 1 year, 5 months ago

  The demise of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill may not be a bad thing if it spurs environmentalists and politicians to ask: Is this the best way to cap carbon?

  Let's be clear what Lieberman-Warner was. Yes, it contained a carbon cap. But mostly it was about spending or giving away trillions of dollars. It was, as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) put it, "the mother and father of all earmarks," and every lobbyist in town was at the trough.

• Creating an Earth Atmospheric Trust

  A system to control climate change and reduce poverty 19

  Posted 1 year, 10 months ago

  The following is a guest essay.

  -----

  Stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere at a level that will fulfill the mandate of the UN Framework Concentration on Climate Change to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" will require drastic departures from business as usual. Here we introduce one attractive response to this challenge that may seem visionary or idealistic today but that could well become realistic once we reach a tipping point regarding climate change that opens a window of opportunity for embracing major changes.

  No silver bullet exists capable of solving the complex and… Read More

All Posts

Peter Barnes’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bad use of higher carbon prices

  I have great esteem for Jim Barrett and Michel Gelobter, former colleagues of mine at Redefining Progress.  And we agree on the most important thing: to solve the climate crisis, we must raise the price of carbon (through either a tax or a cap with auctions). Where we disagree is on what to do with the revenue.  

  As I understand Jim's position, he would divide the revenue from higher carbon prices four ways: (1) investments in efficiency and renewables; (2) cash for low-income families; (3) spending on job retraining and retention; and (4) 65% or so for payroll tax cuts.

  I would argue that using 65% of carbon revenue for payroll tax cuts is not a wise use of so much money.  First of all, if half of that goes to employers, that's just a huge windfall for WalMart, McDonald's, and other companies with lots of employees.  They're not going to pass that on in higher wages; it will go straight to their bottom lines.  Second, there's the non-trivial problem of how to finance Social Security.  And third, what about the millions of Americans who don't pay payroll taxes -- retired people, students, stay-at-home parents, the unemployed, workers in the informal economy?  They'll face higher carbon prices too, and under Jim's plan, they'd get nothing back.

  What about investing in efficiency and renewables?  The whole point of raising the price of carbon is to drive private investment into efficiency and renewables.  Other policies -- efficiency standards, feed-in tariffs, etc. -- can also do this.  So I see little need to spend public dollars here.  We can get the `better and cheaper life' Michel envisions by leveraging private capital rather than by taxing the middle class.

  Job training and transition assistance to impacted industries and workers are things that require public spending, but the amounts involved aren't huge, and there are other (progressive) revenue sources that can be tapped -- e.g. general revenue, a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and/or a shift of current subsidies to fossil fuels.    

  As for low-income families, they'd receive cash under cap and dividend.

  In sum, the case for spending higher carbon prices as Jim proposes is weaker than the case for giving the money back through equal monthly dividends.  

  Peter Barnes http://www.capanddividend.org

  On Peter Barnes' carbon policy proposal would not spur the economic changes we need posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses