Comments F James Handley has made

"… CCS is considered a leading technology for reducing CO2 emissions from fossil-fuelled electricity generation plants and could permit the continued use of coal and gas whilst meeting greenhouse gas targets. However considerable energy is required for the capture, compression, transport and storage steps involved. In this paper, energy penalty information in the literature is reviewed, and thermodynamically ideal and “real world” energy penalty values are calculated. For a sub-critical pulverized coal (PC) plant, the energy penalty values for 100% capture are 48.6% and 43.5% for liquefied CO2, and for CO2 compressed to 11Â MPa, respectively. When assumptions for supercritical plants were incorporated, results were in broad agreement with published values arising from process modelling. However, we show that energy use in existing capture operations is considerably greater than indicated by most projections. Full CCS demonstration plants are now required to verify modelled energy penalty values. However, it appears unlikely that CCS will deliver significant CO2 reductions in a timely fashion. In addition, many uncertainties remain over the permanence of CO2 storage, either in geological formations, or beneath the ocean. We conclude that further investment in CCS should be seriously questioned by policy makers. ” [Emphasis added.]

Van,

Glad you're determined to keep the focus on green jobs in a low-carbon economy. 

Have you considered supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax?  A broad (bipartisan) consensus of economists and policy analysts (and a growing coalition of environmental activists) conclude it's by far the most effective and fair policy to stimulate both private and public sector investment and jobs in a green economy while pumping revenue back to all households -- especially benefitting low and middle income families.  For more information, visit the Carbon Tax Center.  Far better to level the playing field with a pricing system promoting alternatives (jobs building wind, solar and mass transit) and conservation (jobs building and retrofitting houses, buildings and factories) than to rely on a patchwork of government programs whose funding couldn't possibly match the private sector and would vary every year.  

Your firing for signing a petition calling for investigation of 9-11 strikes me as absurd.  In "The Man Who Knew," (2002) PBS showed how the Bush Administration pulled FBI anti-terrorism specialist John O'Neill off the trail of Al Qaeda.  There's no question of their responsibility.  Al Franken (and his team of Harvard researchers) also documented Bush administration malfeasance that lead to the 9-11 attacks in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".  Nobody's questioning Franken's bona fides.  But none of this can be news to you.

To me, and probably many others, your departure leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  My sense is that you're a hero and that your full story hasn't yet been told.

Van fan,

James Handley

Van,

Glad you're determined to keep the focus on green jobs and building a low carbon economy. 

Have you considered supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax?  A broad (bipartisan) consensus of economists and policy analysts (and a growing coalition of environmental activists) conclude it's by far the most effective and fair policy to stimulate both private and public sector investment and jobs in a green economy while pumping revenue back to all households -- especially benefitting low and middle income families.  For more information, visit the Carbon Tax Center.  Far better to level the playing field with a pricing system promoting alternatives (jobs building wind, solar and mass transit) and conservation (jobs building and retrofitting houses, buildings and factories) than to rely on a patchwork of government programs whose funding couldn't possibly match the private sector and would vary every year. 

Your firing (ostensibly) for signing a petition calling for investigation of 9-11 strikes me as absurd.  In "The Man Who Knew," (2002) PBS showed how the Bush Administration pulled FBI anti-terrorism specialist John O'Neill off the trail of Al Qaeda.  There's no question of their responsibility.  Al Franken (and his team of Harvard researchers) also documented Bush administration malfeasance that lead to the 9-11 attacks in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".  Nobody's questioning Franken's bona fides.  But none of this can be news to you.

To me, and probably many others, your departure leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  My sense is that you're a hero and that your full story hasn't yet been told.

Van fan,

James Handley

Encouraging that Wirth is calling for the Senate to re-think ACESA and cap/trade. But calling cap/trade a "tax" isn't caricature, it's fact. Cap/trade's (apparent) political advantage is that it doesn't bear the "tax" name, but that doesn't change the truth: cap/trade is a hidden, volatile and regressive tax that could crash worldwide financial markets again.  It's time for an honest discussion about an explicit, predictable, progressive carbon tax shift to reduce payroll taxes as Rep. Larson has proposed.  Tax carbon pollution, not work!

If it passes, apparently both Hansen and Inhoufe agree that ACES would do little or nothing to reduce U.S. GHG emissions. 

But even if ACES could somehow be effective in meeting its very weak goal in the U.S., it would not set up a template for an effective international system.  Linking cap/trade systems is nightmarishly complex and would lead to perverse incentives for countries to set weak(er) caps in order to become suppliers of allowances in exchange for cash.  "Hiding the price" makes harmonization and linkage very challenging.  In sharp contrast, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that linking carbon tax or fee systems is relatively straightforward, involving the harmonization of one parameter-- the carbon price, which can be accomplished with WTO-sanctioned border tax adjustments.

The goal of climate legislation has to be to set an example and begin to weave a pattern that can form the basis of a workable international system.  ACES isn't leadership, it's obfuscation.  No one will follow us down that dead-end.

Billhook,

Waxman-Markey is a step backward for many reasons.  Perhaps the most glaring: a $2 trillion market in carbon-based securities (with accompanying unregulated derivatives) would do little or nothing to reduce emissions and might crash the financial markets again, putting climate way on the back burner.  With unemployment soon to be in the double digits because of financial gimmicks, are we really willing to entrust not only our financial system, but our climate system to Wall Street?  That's not a partisan argument, that's common sense.

And Waxman-Markey would repeal or phase out a whole range of existing authority by EPA and states that is at least a backstop.  If we have to wait another year or two to get the policy right, that's far better than trying to wrest this Rube Goldberg contraption from the grasp of traders, coal interests and the purveyors of bogus offsets.   

Fortunately, the Senate doesn't seem all likely to pass it.  The sooner we start thinking about a simple, effective pricing system the better. 

This hearing is to consider different “legislative tools” for addressing climate change.  But the witness list looks like cap-and-traders vs. climate change deniers.  Either way we lose.

The public is justifiably wary of a carbon trading system that could crash financial markets and which hasn't been effective in the EU. Cap-and-trade tries to hide the price, which leads to huge exaggeration of its cost (by many Republicans) as well as its effectiveness (by many Democrats).

Former Clinton advisor and political scientist Elaine Kamarck suggests it may be time for the Senate to go Back to Plan A: The Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax.  “If we can design a policy that is transparent and easy for people to understand, puts an effective price on carbon, and reimburses average Americans for all or nearly all of their increased energy costs, we have a chance to reverse climate change in a timely manner.”

Direct carbon pricing options will be the subject of a briefing for Senators, staff, NGOs and reporters next Monday July 13 at 1 PM in rm 208-209 of Capitol Visitor's Center.  The Price Carbon Campaign, Carbon Tax Center, Climate Crisis Coalition, Friends of the Earth, the Friends (Quaker) Committee on National Legislation, WeAct for Environmental Justice, the Clean Campaign, and Progressive Democrats of America are hosting. 

Lead NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen will speak along with Robert Shapiro economist and former undersecretary of Commerce, Cecil Corbin-Mark policy director of WeAct for Environmental Justice and Janet Milne, professor at Vermont Law School.

Ken, Bravo!

There is an alternative to cap/trade: Revenue-neutral carbon fee or tax. The Carbon Tax Center has posted our reasons for concluding that Wax-M isn't good enough.

One point you didn't mention: ACESA would create a $2 trillion carbon market that would be mirrored by an unregulated derivatives market. If you think that global warming can be solved by another financial crisis, ACESA is your bill. But if you think that kind of chaos might just push climate policy off the table, this one's too risky.  

Cap/trade allows the Energy and Commerce Committee to print money (by calling it "allowances") and to give it away to anyone who might oppose the bill.  Because E & C is the most coal-friendly committee on the Hill, we got a bill that does more for coal and heavy industry than for climate.  The best thing about the original bill was the requirement for utilities to shift to renewables and to increase efficiency (RES).  But RES was weakened below what many states have already required (and would largely pre-empt them) in order to get cap/trade.  So now the bill looks like a lifeline to big coal with some environmental ornaments thrown on.

The Republicans are screaming that cap/trade will jack up consumer costs.  CBO's numbers tell another story-- carbon prices around $26/t CO2 in ten years.  That's a whopping 26 cents a gallon of gasoline, and even smaller price effects on electricity if the free allowances to utilities really are passed through to consumers.  No price on carbon and no effect on emissions.  The Republicans are grossly exaggerating the cost of this bill, and the Democrats are exaggerating the emissions reductions cap/trade with huge offsets and a loose cap could possibly produce. 

If the Republicans want to gripe, they should complain about the federalization of the building codes.  Building codes are one size fits all.  That will REALLY cost (and hassle) consumers.  And with the Dem's insistence on keeping coal cheap, that means consumers will have a choice-- keep wasting cheap fossil fuel or blow the bank account on contractors for upgrades that won't save money.  Great way to piss off everyone and lose seats in the Senate. 

Congress should reinstate the higher RES standards, scrap cap/trade and pretty much everything else in the bill, and declare victory for this year.  Next year, a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

I agree with DESIGNIMPACT: putting a serious price on carbon emissions is essential so that millions of decision makers start taking into account those costs.  It's not the only step, but it's necessary. 

The Waxman-Markey cap/trade bill doesn't even try to price carbon.  Some advocates claim that caps can reduce emissions without substantial price fossil fuel increases (through offsets), and the give-away of allowances to local distribution utilities was justified as a way to avoid consumer price increases. 

David Morris, co-founder of the Institute for Local Self Reliance called the bill a "giant step backward" arguing that it would be stronger without the cap/trade provisions.  Similarly, Garth Lipow pointed out in Gristmill recently that once the free allowance holders are vested, the Wall St. traders are in the game, and the purveyors of offsets (real or imaginary) are cranking out profits, there's no turning back, even if this policy doesn't reduce GHG emissions.  And it hasn't in the EU. 

Unfortunately, among the BEGs (Big Environmental Groups: EDF, NRDC, Sierra?), belief in caps is so strong that they're willing to abide almost anything to get them.  If this is U.S. leadership, I hope the world doesn't follow.  (The U.S. insisted on cap/trade in Kyoto which is how the EU got into the mess it's in.)

British Columbia enacted a revenue-neutral carbon tax last year, returning all revenue to the public.  Premier Gordon Brown (an avowed fiscal conservative) won re-election last month despite his opponent's attempt to pillory his carbon tax.  That's leadership that the world should follow.

Excellent summary, Kate.

Given coal's huge role in GHG emissions, vast inefficiencies and the potential for alternatives in the electricity sector, RES seems like the most potent near-term GHG-reducer in the Waxman-Markey bill.  Hope we can restore higher numbers for both efficiency AND renewables.      

As for cap/trade, proponents seem ready to abide whatever give-aways, water-downs and double dealing are needed to enact the (illusory) "assurance" of a "cap" that will "save us" by meeting "80% by 2050" (even though it's 80% of 2005 emissions, not 1990).

If caps were iron-clad guarantees, their logic might be sound.  Give anything away if it saves the planet, right?  But caps aren't really guarantees-- they're more like goals.  Especially 40 years from now and if we're relying on EPA to enforce them.  (I speak as a 14 year veteran of EPA enforcement.)

There are two ways to reduce emissions: direct regulations (e.g., RES, appliance standards, building codes, fuel efficiency standards, banning light bulbs, etc.) or by raising fossil fuel prices relative to other cleaner energy and energy conservation.  Caps (if enforced) are a way constrain supply and indirectly raise prices, inducing conservation, substitution and innovation.  

The more pronounced, predictable and widely-perceived the carbon price increase, the more emissions are reduced.  The more we hide the price, the less the system works.  Until we're willing to face the fact that we must raise carbon prices, direct regulation is a more honest and effective approach than "hide the price" (cap/trade) with give-aways and loopholes.  If you believe in the tooth fairy, "caps" are for you.  If you believe prices change behavior, it's a carbon tax.  And if you don't want to add to tax burdens, make the carbon tax revenue-neutral: use the revenue to cut out some other tax as the carbon tax goes up. 

Thanks Kate for letting readers know that there is still time to fix or ditch Waxman-Markey, especially in Ways & Means. 

Auctioning all the permits instead of giving them away to polluters would fulfill candidate Obama's promise and provide revenue that could be directly distributed to households via a payroll tax cut or a direct dividend.

Cutting out offsets would ensure that the bill actually makes carbon reductions in the U.S.  Offsets are practically an invitation for fraud.

Setting a predictable carbon price directly would be another huge improvement, cutting out the price volatility, traders and the huge profits and gaming for Wall Street.

With those three steps, we'd have a bill that would be fair and effective.

See http://www.carbontax.org.

Robert,

You seem to be saying -- 

1) If allowances can be traded, the intial allocation (by auction, gift, lottery... ) doesn't matter because trading will get allowances to those who value them most (essentially Coase's Theorem) which will allocate the burden of acheiving the chosen level of emissions reductions (the cap) at least cost, and

2) If it's politically necessary to give away allowances to the participants to win support for the system, that's worth doing; it doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the system at reducing emissions.

The problem: Nobody actually knows exactly how much reduction emission reduction is optimal.  "80% by 2050" has acheived a totemic quality but it's not an accurate description of the scientific consensus.  Dr. Hansen says: Get CO2 levels back down to 350 ppm ASAP.  (We're at 386 now.)  Which means: reduce emissions now, as fast as we can.   

We can't efficiently allocate for an "optimal" level of reductions -- we don't know what it is.  If we set the "optimal" too loose, we're leaving lots of low cost reductions on the table.

A gradually-increasing carbon tax avoids that problem.  It says: carbon prices are going up.  If you can find a way to reduce emissions at today's price, do it.  And if you can find a way to make reductions at tomorrow's price, get ready.  If the carbon tax were revenue-neutral, the tax wouldn't be a "brake" on the economy, in fact it's potentially a stimulus -- discouraging resource waste, and if the funds were used to reduce payroll taxes, spurring employment. 

To me, the political problem is this: big coal / utilities, "energy intensive industry", purveyors of offset projects, gas companies, and the sharks on Wall Street all have better access to the Energy & Commerce Committtee than the workers who'd get reductions under a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  So instead of a simple, effective carbon pricing system, Waxman-Markey is a system to pay off all the big corporate interests that's lost its raison d'etre which should be maxmimum GHG reductions at lowest cost.  Waxman-Markey is minimum (if any) reductions with maximum payola. 

So if you're saying that cap/trade is great for hiding the price and the payola, I agree.  But it's built on a false assumption of scientific omniscience and is not an effective climate policy.  

For more information about revenue-neutral carbon taxes, see http://www.carbontax.org. for videos, petitions and letters to Congress see http://pricecarbon.org.

A globalized "equal effort" is good starting point for international climate policy. The U.S. could lead by enacting a revenue-neutral carbon tax like the one British Columbia enacted last year and which Premier Campbell stuck with and won re-election on May. 

Developing countries won't enact caps on emissions and the EU's carbon cap shows no signs of delivering the promised reductions anytime soon.  If the U.S. were to enact a carbon tax in the context of tax reform-- reducing other taxes simultaneously while also imposed harmonizing taxes on imports -- we'd create an immediate incentive for our trading partners to enact their own carbon taxes to recoup that revenue.  An equal carbon tax level would represent an "equal effort" while taking advantage of cheaper reductions available where ever they exist. 

The 900 page Waxman-Markey bill amply demonstrates the perils in trying to statisfy everyone with handouts.  All the interest groups got their cut, but because of huge offsets and a weak if not completely muted price signal, the bill's result would be negligible emissions reductions for at least a decade. 

We can do far better and we can set the example and be the catalyst for a wordwide carbon reduction strategy.  Best of all, a carbon tax could be in place in months.  If our goal is to lead by example in Copenhagen we should be thinking simple, transparent and easily linked carbon tax, not some Rube Goldberg contrivance like cap-and-trade. 

See http://carbontax.org, and http://pricecarbon.org.

Gar,

You've nailed it again.  The first rule of negotiation: Don't start with your bottom line. Mainstream environmental groups are so hungry for a deal that just a promise of reductions a decade or two from now has them drooling. 

Have we forgotten?  The whole point of this bill is GHG emissions reductions.  Instead, we're offered a giant offsets program, a vast new carbon allowance commodities market, more money and credibility for "clean coal" and all kinds of other goodies for special interests that all get their slices now.    

It's not over.  Ways & Means gets the bill next.   They've held half a dozen hearings on the problems of cap/trade including volatility.  Five members have introduced carbon pricing bills in Ways & Means -- any of which would be a quantum improvement over the cap/trade provisions of Wax-Mar.  House members need to hear from voters who want real reductions soon instead of shell games of cap/trade.  

Call em, folks: 202-225-2131.

See http://www.carbontax.org, and http://www.pricecarbon.org.

Rgional Disparities in the incidence (impact on household income) of a carbon tax or cap with auction were studied by economists Hasset, et al. (AEI) at and Burtraw, et al. (RFF).  Both concluded these differences are small -- primarily because roughly half of our carbon footprint is indirect-- it's the fossil fuels used in the production of goods.  Indirect incidence tends to be uniform because so many goods are marketed nationally.      

See http://www.carbontax.org/issues/regional-disparities/

Hassett et al. concluded:

"Carbon taxes are… thought to have uneven regional effects. We … find that the regional variation is at best modest. By 2003 variation across regions is sufficiently small that one could argue that a carbon tax is distributionally neutral across regions."

Differences in effects on industry and employment are certain to be larger.  Rep. Larson's (D-Conn) carbon tax measure addresses this by temporily devoting some revenue to "transistion assistance" for impacted workers. A state like Montana, with both coal and wind resources, might be a net employment gainer under a carbon tax as construction and operation of wind generation facilities increased; but its coal workers would still need transition assistance.

Inglis and Flake's measure could easily be modified to include transition assistance. Otherwise, it's remarkable how similar it is to Larson's bill. Rep. Inglis prefers that a carbon tax be revenue-neutral -- every dollar in carbon tax would be used to cut payroll taxes; he hopes this will appeal to other Republicans concerned about global warming who don't want to create a larger federal government.  

Anyone who doesn't think Inglis is serious should read this:

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/37475.

He's gone to Antartica, he gets the science and the economics. 

Either a carbon tax or cap/trade raise fossil fuel prices-- that's the point -- to encourge conservation and alternatives.  But two recent economic analyses concluded that cost differences between regions are slight primarily because about half of the carbon price would be indirect-- the energy cost of making things we buy on a relatively uniform national market.  See http://www.carbontax.org/issues/regional-disparities/. 

Of course, the coal industry would be hard-hit.  Efficiently phasing out coal or requiring carbon capture (if feasible) is a key purpose of climate legislation.  Rep. Larson's carbon tax bill offers transition assistance to those regions.  See New Larson Bill Raises the Bar for Congressional Climate Action.  Places like Montana and West Virginia can go from coal to renewables like wind and end up with more jobs and a cleaner environment. 

Yes, the U.S. has been lapped in the climate race.  

Here's a study in contrast:

- Carbon Tax advocate Gordon Campbell rode to victory in yesterday's election in British Columbia, widely viewed as a referendum on the carbon tax.   

- Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., Rep. Waxman continues a death struggle to salvage cap/trade by further weakening climate goals, larding on more offsets and giving away free allowances to polluters.   

If we want to catch up, the U.S. might consider BC's example: they enacted and implemented a gradually increasing revenue-neutral carbon tax in five months and now it's withstood a serious political test.

Carbon Tax analysis and policy information at http://www.carbontax.org. 

Letters to Congress and videos at http://www.pricecarbon.org.

Thanks, Peter / Investing "dividend"

Yes, Hansen articulated the reasons for revenue-neutrality of a carbon tax. It has to be fair (non-regressive) and it has to build political support. And as Peter points out, like Social Security, the program has to hold up for 40 years or so without attempts to divert the funds.

See Hansen Tells Ways & Means: Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax Needed to Spur Clean Technology Revolution.

I am intrigued by Ken's idea of investing "dividend" money in the green economy, especially renewable energy. Since the "dividend" would presumably be income-taxable, maybe a way to encourage investment would be to allow people to invest and defer taxes (like an IRA) in an approved fund for clean energy capitalization.  That would allow those with discretionary income to make green energy investments, providing a pool of capital, while not hurting those who need their "dividend" money immediately.  
 On Some perspective on tax-and-dividend and a better alternative posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 26 Responses

Hansen says "put a price on carbon"

Sign a petition and letters to Congress at the Price Carbon Campaign.On Thousands protest against coal in front of D.C.'s Capitol Power Plant posted 9 months ago 18 Responses

Hansen: crisis compels revenue-neutral carbon tax!

See Hansen Tells Ways & Means: Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax Needed to Spur Clean Technology Revolution.On Congress starts to outline how they'll meet Obama's directive on climate and energy legislation posted 9 months ago 12 Responses

Dr. Hansen: Carbon Prices, Not Secondary Markets

No telling what President Obama meant in terms of timing (this session or this Congress) or mechanism (tax or cap), but House Ways & Means (the greenest committee on the Hill) is studying simple price-based mechanisms to reduce GHG emissions. See Hansen Tells Ways & Means: Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax Needed to Spur Clean Technology Revolution.  
On Obama puts climate and energy atop his priorities list in his first address to Congress posted 9 months ago 8 Responses

Browner is no socialist, but she is a regulator

Browner / EPA are regulators. But there are 3 general approaches to reducing GHG emissions:

1. Regulate,
   
2. Market-based (cap/trade),
   
3. Price (carbon tax or fee).

Testifying on 9/18/08 to Ways & Means, Browner advocated a "predictable market signal" (which would suggest pricing) but embraced cap-and-trade.

The committee didn't ask: What magical enforcement process will assure compliance with a cap? Would EPA shut down power plants when they've run out of CO2 permits? Wouldn't trading result in seconardy markets like those that crashed our mortgage and banking systems?  

Browner concluded: EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, but "Given the magnitude of the problem, and the scale of the solution required, I believe it is important that Congress provide national leadership on this issue."  

She's worried that Congress will punt GHG emissions policy to EPA without clear instructions. A preview of the nightmare: EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: twist existing Clean Air Act authorities into a cap-and-trade rule. Battle it out in the federal courts where the rule (and EPA's authority to make it) will be challenged and delayed for years. Then slug out the years-long process of implementation. Even if you believe cap-and-trade would work, can we really wait another decade to find out?  

British Columbia enacted and implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 5 months. EPA used a fee system to quickly phase out ozone-depleting CFCs.

Regulation isn't the only way, and tradeable permits aren't the only alternative. Pricing mechanims are simple, direct and effective.

Hope Browner is talking to new budget director Peter Orszag, whose CBO reports concluded that carbon taxes would be five times as effective as fixed caps.  

See www.carbontax.org.On Are you now or have you ever been a member of the environmental party? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses

Mileage based auto insurance

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy suggests that auto insurance based on miles driven.  This would create a continuous incentive to reduce GHG emissions by driving less.  (Instead of the usual "all you can drive" insurance.)  It's also fairer.  

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds ...On A price signal in the vehicle market is best applied to the vehicle posted 9 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

Price Signals Nudge Everyone.

David Roberts,

Sure, we urgently need public investment in research on renewables, efficient public transportation, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, a smart grid...  But not funded by a carbon tax.

A clear, transparent, upward-trending price on carbon would move the whole economy, not just those receiving subsidies.  There just isn't enough money around to bribe everyone to cut fossil fuel use as much as we all need to do.  Furthermore, the legislative process isn't a good way to pick technology winners; they'll emerge when they're not submerged in cheap fossil fuel energy.  

In order to create a strong enough price signal and to sustain the necessary upward trend,  recycling carbon revenue is essential to avoid hammering poor and middle income households and dragging down the economy.  And recycling revenue builds support.  The Alaska Permanent fund is wildly popular.

Price signals and public investment work together:  Buses and trains fill up when fuel prices rise.  Utilities (and their customers) buy wind power when coal is more costly.  

But as Davedenali commented above, trying to do both together may mean doing neither effectively.  Senate Republicans' resistance to the stimulus bill suggests they won't sit still for cap-and-spend bill.  But at least some, e.g., Sen. Corker, show interest in a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  

Maybe I'm dreaming, but I sense the possibility of a bipartisan revenue-neutral carbon tax this year!  And without the long implementation delays of cap-and-trade.   On House speaker now says she wants a climate bill passed by December posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 10 Responses

Don't hide the price, recycle the revenue!

To me, this is Lipow's most important point:  

"[W]e will never reduce industrial emissions sufficiently without a priced-based mechanism."

Clear expectations of a gradually-rising carbon price would drive investment and innovation in the direction of a low-carbon economy.  Even the most cleverly-targeted subsidies can't be big enough or widely distributed enough to do that, and given how Congress works, funds would probably go to existing, powerful industries and interests rather than to spurring innovators.

The main alleged political advantage of cap-and-trade is that isn't called a "tax" and that it hides the price signal.  As Lipow describes, adherents concoct bizarre contortions to "fix" cap-and-trade's flaws.  But they can't "fix" what they claim is a feature: that it hides the price. (And yes, secondary markets tend to muddy price signals further.)  USCAP claims to be able to avoid higher consumer electricity prices with free allowances to electricity distribution companies.  When we waste vast amounts of energy because it's so cheap that we don't even think about it, is muting the price signal really a good feature?  

Even a modest, predictable price increase is a tough sell.  Revenue recycling, via a payroll tax reduction as Rep John Larson (D-Conn) is proposing, is a transparent way to make a serious price on carbon politically and economically feasible.  

Don't hide the price, recycle the revenue.  

For more on revenue-neutral carbon taxes, see www.carbontax.org.  Video explaining carbon tax at www.pricecarbon.org. On Carbon pricing needs to supplement, not undermine, other means of cutting emissions posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

Sen. Corker Hits the Mark, Kerry Notices

"We're shooting real bullets now", Corker said.

And he hit the mark: A gradually-increasing revenue-neutral carbon tax would give conservation and renewables a chance to compete while pricing out the dirtiest energy first.  Returning 100% of revenue via a payroll tax reduction or would stimulate employment and avoid pounding low and middle income households.      

Of carbon capture and storage ("clean coal") Corker quipped, when "donkeys fly".

Roberts' "nobody's lighting the revenue on fire" retort exposes cap-n-traders' agenda: taxpayer funding of favorite projects through a hidden, volatile, regressive tax called a cap.  Who'd get the carbon auction dough?  If the Lieberman bill was a clue: polluters, especially utilities, "clean coal" research, corn-to-ethanol subsidies, nukes...

After Corker called for a transparent, simple carbon tax, Kerry didn't scream "poison pill".  No, he asked Corker to help with a bipartisan approach.   On Sen. Bob Corker wants a carbon tax posted 10 months ago 5 Responses

Senate testimony-- Corker steals the show

Senator Corker asked Gore about transparency: Wouldn't a carbon tax work better?  

Gore said, Yes definately, that's his preference.  

Corker said, my goal is to make this better.
Senator Kerry invited Corker to help draft the bill.  

Encouraging, if like most economists including Peter Orszag the new Budget director and Gore, you're convinced a carbon tax would work a whole lot better and avoid delay, gaming and volatitilty endemic to cap-and-trade.  
On On Capitol Hill, Gore urges quick action on climate posted 10 months ago 2 Responses

Why not Carbon Tax?

Most economists like carbon taxes better than cap-and-trade because they're simpler, more transparent and don't create price volatility and aren't as easily gamed.

Most (but not all) politicians like cap-and-trade, because it hides the price from the public.  The word's getting out that cap-and-trade is really a tax; maybe now we can listen to what the economists are saying and compare the two approaches without hiding. See www.carbontax.org.

And if we just have to do cap-and-trade, what about a price floor?  With a sagging economy driving down carbon emissions, the cap isn't likely to be a real restriction for several years.  A price floor, like a carbon tax, would create incentives for innovation and conservation measures now, even before economic growth resumes and we approach cap limits. On NRDC and EDF endorse the weak, coal-friendly, rip-offset-heavy USCAP climate plan posted 10 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

Fix "crumbling roads, bridges" Ugh!

Why should the federal government prop up the auto-based transportation network? Turn it over to states, let them outsource maintenance in exchange for tolls-- let drivers start paying their way.  

Instead, fix, modernize and expand our crumbling (or non-existent) rail, bike and pedestrian networks. Jobs building an efficient infrastructure for the post-oil, low-carbon age!  

Old-fashioned highway construction encourages longer commutes and increases energy-consumption. "They're going to put a bunch of money through a broken system to stimulate the economy. That doesn't make sense to me," said Colin Peppard, a transportation expert for Friends of the Earth. (Wash Post 12/24/08.)

FoE recently began a "Road to Nowhere" campaign, saying that new roads would lead to new pollution.  They're urging Obama to keep the economic stimulus clean.On Obama references energy, climate challenges in inaugural address posted 10 months, 1 week ago 13 Responses

Carbon Tax gains momentum as cap-n-trade fades

Describing USCAP's proposal, Pew's Eileen Claussen said, "all the components of the plan are linked."   So are the players.  All betting on a piece of the revenue "pie".  From what I can tell, ("transparency" isn't a word associated with cap-and-trade) "dessert" is expected to be served through free allowances, offsets and subsidies funded by a hidden, regressive, volatile tax, called a "cap."

That dog won't hunt.  That "give-away" plan was Lieberman-Warner. Senator Corker didn't sit quietly for it.  He's reportedly drafting a carbon tax bill as are Rep's Larson and Inglis. Rep. Stark has just introduced one.  All expect to feature revenue recycling.  Think bi-partisan revenue-neutral carbon tax.   See www.pricecarbon.org.

- James Handley   On Business/enviro alliance unveils climate plan, attracts critics posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

See "A Tale of Two Elections"

posted Friday 11/7 at the Carbon Tax Center
site.

(Discussing implications of Canada's election for US policy.)
On Canada has its own elections, which may shape future of a carbon tax posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

Economics for a "Planet in Peril"

Yes, this historic election sent a clear signal for "transformative change."  

To transform policy on climate and energy, we must use the most powerful market signal: Prices.  The Stern Report on Global Warming put it bluntly, "failure to price carbon emissions represents the greatest market failure of history."  

Will Obama have the guts and political support to start pricing carbon so we all have incentives to conserve and switch to renewable energy?  

Our planet truly is in peril and we need the strongest and most effective medicine for the climate fever.  "Tax Pollution, Pay People" urges NASA's lead climatge scientist, Dr James Hansen.  He supports a carbon tax on coal, oil and gas producers with all revenue distributed individuals. That price signal could lead to real transformative change: energy conservation, development of renewables, and green jobs.  

The work begins now.  See www.carbontax.org.
 On Obama triumphs, names environment and energy as priorities posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Revenue-Neutral CarbonTax Still the Best Policy

Sadly, Canada's Conservatives will continue to govern by "divide and conquer."  

Dion's Liberal Party courageously pressed for the most effective and fair policy to reduce Global Warming: a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  

Conservatives gained seats but failed to gain a majority in a three-way race where both Liberals and the NDP proposed plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The results suggest that a majority of Canadians support such measures, but may not agree about which one. Hardly a condemnation of Dion's proposal or even of his political acumen.  I count him as a hero.

British Columbia successfully enacted a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  Perhaps for now, progress in Canada will be on the provincial and local level.  I hope that an Obama administration and the new Congress will give serious consideration to a carbon tax in the US as the many flaws of "cap-and-trade" become inescapably evident.  

For more information, see www,carbontax.org.On Canada's election deals defeat to Liberal Party and carbon tax posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Brent Blackwelder has it right!

We should be re-thinking the entire financial structure with the goal of aligning the incentives to create a green, low-carbon economy.  

This "crash" COULD be an opportunity!

Conservatives don't govern and they don't regulate, because they don't believe in government and they hate regulation, no matter what harm it prevents.  Would you give the keys to your new car to a guy who hates cars?  Are we surprised that he crashed it?  

Progressive Greens: Please start articulating an alternative to "Republican-lite" -- most people instinctively avoid watered-down imitations.  FDR boldly offered a "New Deal" -- that's the kind of leadership we need now!  A New Green Deal!

Barak?On Friends of the Earth says anti-regulation approach causes environmental destruction posted 1 year, 2 months ago 25 Responses

Nixon maimed Muskie's EPA

Unable to prevent EPA's birth, Nixon gouged out its eyes and ears, severed its limbs and declared himself a proud father.  

To pre-empt Sentor Muskie's legislation of a science-based independent environmental regulatory agency, Nixon signed an executive order consolidating already-existing functions of other agencies.  Then he shoved his "new EPA" into a sick building (Waterside Mall) owned by Spiro's friend (Bressler) in Southwest DC where its staff combatted an epidemic of chronic illnesses while struggling to do their already difficult jobs.

Tricky Dicky's slight of hand worked brilliantly. EPA is an intensely dysfunctional, grossly understaffed and underfunded executive agency without its own authorizing statute and subject to intense political struggle at every turn.  

Most people assume that EPA protects the environment.  EPA doesn't really even have legal authority to "protect the environment."  It still operates under a patchwork of poorly-coordinated statutes with conflicting mandates.  EPA is too weak (blind, deaf and limbless) to resist industry and is subject to every whim of the White House.  (Most recently, Bush dictated that EPA disapprove California climate rules on utterly spurious legal grounds.)  

EPA Enforcement (where I served as an attorney for 14 years) is pathetically crippled just as the trickster intended.  EPA's penalty authority is paltry and the number (and importance) of enforcement cases has declined to a trickle while nearly every indicia of environmental health is declining just as the vital signs of a dying patient might.  

After 1994, Speaker Newt Gingrich emasculated EPA enforcement by cutting its funding.  (Not a whimper was heard from VP Al Gore.)  Newt understood the importance of preserving Nixon's mirage while leaving "EPA enforcement" essentially an oxymoron.  

The mirage of EPA is one of "The Trickster's" most enduring and apt legacies.  On Nixon: Not a closet enviro posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Better medicine -- Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

"States bypass logjam at the federal level with their own cap-and-trade programs."  Sounds like good news but on closer inspection, probably an illusion.    

Sadly, cap-and-trade is decidedly a second-best policy that hasn't acheived any net reductions in the EU after five years of struggle.  A wide range of economists and the Congressional Budget Office conclude that a carbon tax would be at least FIVE times as cost effective as a fixed cap at reducing GHG emissions.  

Why? Because rising price signals distribute the cost of reductions across the economy and over time. Quantity controls (caps) create artificial scarcity and force costly short-term reductions.  Trading mostly enriches traders.)  

British Columbia leads the way with a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  BC "primed the pump" by distributing carbon tax dividends to citizens before the tax took effect.  Savvy and effective.  Canada's (centrist) Liberal Party leader Stephan Dion is championing a national "green shift" whose key element is a revenue-neutral carbon tax.  

But here in the US, the subject of carbon taxes remains decidedly on the political sideline (even while it's mainstream economics).  

The Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org) is dedicated to informing citizens and policy-makers about the advantages of a carbon tax.  

The dire consequences of global warming demand the most effective policy.  Let's get our best player -- carbon taxes -- off the sideline and onto the political playing field.    On Western states unveil draft cap-and-trade scheme posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Carbon Tax + Dividend = Environmental Justice

Joe,

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,    

 On National environmental justice coalition blasts cap-and-trade, backs carbon tax posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Cap-and-trade like Byzantine health-care system

"Impossibly tangled" nails it!   Lieberman-Warner was like the convoluted health-care system that we're stuck in.  Everyone in the system gets a cut but it doesn't work very well for users.  

Carbon traders, like the insurance companies, would skim money out of everyone's pockets without reducing global warming.  

Clauseen is right-- SIMPLIFY!  But not just a little bit.  Go for a revenue-neutral carbon tax with dividend.  No pork, no games, no price spikes, no free permits.  

See www.carbontax.org for more information and news about revenue-neutral carbon taxes.  British Columbia is doing it.  We can, too!On What went wrong on Lieberman-Warner? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

When's a tax not a tax? When it's revenue-neutral

Calling cap-and-trade a tax IS truthful, even if motives of the truth-tellers aren't pure.

Lieberman-Warner was fairly described as the biggest tax ever proposed, handing out trillions in free permits and subsidies to political and technological favorites. (Way too early to handicap the technology race.  Corn-based ethanol anyone?)  

A REVENUE-NEUTRAL carbon tax (or cap) on fossil fuel producers, returning revenue to individuals  as a dividend are vastly different than taxes that raise money and dole it out.  As Eric de Place suggests, they deserve a different name than "TAX"; unlike the usual taxes, they're not a drag on the economy, aren't regressive and aren't corporate welfare, standard objections to taxes.  

Should we call it a carbon disposal fee with dividend?  Few object to fees for garbage collection or sewage.  A carbon tax would make our energy bills more like most water bills -- pay for bringing it to us and for disposal.

Humans are pumping out twice the CO2 that Earth can recycle.  Economists say, "price it or lose it."  Right now, prices say "FREE UNLIMITED DUMPING HERE."  And we're doing it.  

Check out www.carbontax.org for more information and news about revenue-neutral carbon taxes.  On The political chances of carbon taxes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Boxer's trap for global warming deniers

I'm a bit surprised that Repubicans are falling into Boxer's trap so predictably.  The Lieberman-Warner bill never had any chance of passage.  She forced a vote so the environmental score-keepers would notch one up for the Ds and one down for the Rs.

The bill is deeply flawed -- Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and a coalition of other progressive environmental groups point out that the bill would GIVE AWAY most of the carbon emissions permits. They advocate actioning ALL permits.  Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have also called for 100% auction of permits.  So Lieberman-Warner is already way behind the political curve.  

But who would get the permit auction money?  The bill gives most of it to big energy corporations.  

Rep Markey has introduced a bill in the House that would distribute auction revenue to individuals, and Sen Corker has offered a similar amendment in the Senate.  Worthy improvements that aren't getting serious consideration (yet).

Lieberman-Warner is a trail balloon, but more than that, it's a trap to bring the howling dogs who deny the climate problem out of the woodwork so Democrats can campaign against them.  As legislation, it's a failure.  As political strategy, it's working like clockwork, and I can't help wondering why Republicans don't try to improve the bill (or at least fake it) intstead of obstructing it.  There's plenty to improve on (like where the revenue would go) and they could avoid being tarred as neanderthal global warming deniers.  

Too bad Boxer's political trick is working so well.  But maybe it will lead to a realignment in the Senate.

Economists agree that the gold standard for effective climate policy is a revenue-neutral carbon tax with dividend.  Maybe the spectacular crash of Lieberman-Warner will start a discussion about better alternatives.

For more about the advantages of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, see www.carbontax.org.On GOP leaders resort to high jinks to stall climate bill posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Politicians folllow. We must educate and organize

Obama's showing potential.  Didn't pander for a "gas tax holiday."  Pointed out its tiny monetary value ($30, average) and that it would mostly profit oil companies and encourage oil addiction.  

We'll have to educate and organize, as the civil rights activists did.  Obama seemes willing to "lead" if there's a movement ahead and behind him.

Getting Obama elected (and 60 votes for the environment in the Senate) would be the beginning of a movement towards sound energy and environmental policy.  The rest is up to us.On Obama claims nomination, but Clinton says she's not going anywhere yet posted 1 year, 5 months ago 14 Responses

YES! Truth in Carbon Pricing

Yale Econ. Professor Bill Nordhaus says pricing carbon emissions is "essential... to tackling global warming" and "the rest is largely fluff."

Ryan's got it right: we're not even considering the costs to our climate of our everyday decisions and yet they accumulate to make North Americans emit about 25 times as much carbon as the global average.  

A gradually-increasing revenue-neutral carbon tax would send the right signal.  It would change expectations and show us how to make efficient decisions about everything from where to live to what to wear.

Revenue-neutrality is very important-- last week NASA's lead climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen concurred with the consensus among economists: distribute the carbon tax revenues as a dividend to each household.  

That would be both effective to dampen global warming and economically progressive.  Imagine "stimulus checks" coming every month.  Yes, the prices of things would go up in proportion to their carbon content, but average and below-average income people would come out ahead.  And we'd all have the right price signals to get busy reducing fossil fuel use and switch to alternatives.

For more on revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend, check out www.carbontax.org.

 On Carbon pricing is about tweaking the little, everyday decisions we make posted 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Response

Truth in Carbon Pricing

Terrific Piece!

Obama dared to tell the truth that a "gas tax holiday" would only make things worse, and he WAS rewarded for it.   Very encouraging.

Proponents of cap-and-trade seem to assume that Americans can't handle the truth and prefer our carbon taxes hidden.  So they dismiss a much more effective strategy -- a revenue-neutral carbon tax -- as politically impractical.    

But, yes, let's take the positive response to Obama's candor as a indicator that people will understand and appreciate the truth.  Wouldn't distributing carbon tax revenue as an equal monthly "dividend" to each taxpayer give it populist appeal (like Bush's stimulus checks)?  And wouldn't that frame it as a net gain for those who strive to reduce carbon emissions?  

So why not a Carbon Tax and Dividend?

The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill would only auction some of the permits (handing  free permits to past polluters).  And it would hand billions in revenue from the auctioned permits (hidden taxes) to special interests.  They're thinly veiled as "alternative" energy -- such as (fictional) "clean coal," nuclear (which already receives more than its share of subsidies) and ethanol (ditto).  

So cap-and-traders are hiding the tax and they're quietly giving away the revenue to industries that already have advantages.

Are we ready to say: Enough with hidden taxes and subsidies already?

Instead, why not distribute the stimulus widely and push everyone to conserve and switch to renewables?  Put cash in the hands of consumers and businesses to choose the best technologies while taxing the most carbon-intensive options the most heavily.  

That would be truthful, effective AND POPULAR.  

For more on revenue-neutral carbon taxes, see www.carbontax.org.On Behavioral quirks make taxes a tough sell posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Carbon Tax & Dividend beats cap & trade

Yes, Boxer-Lieberman-Warner's now a mere "trial balloon." (Or is that a "hot-air" balloon?)

Cap-and-trade carries intrinsic flaws: price volatility, manipulation, long implementation delays, nearly impossible enforcement, regressivity, potential for tradeable permits to fund arms deals and terrorism...  

Beyond cap-and-trade's intrinsic flaws, Romm shows that B-L-W's "cost containment" measures would gobble up emissions reductions.  

To add insult to injury, B-L-W would GIVE most permits to polluters, rather than auction them.  (See FoE's "Fix or Ditch Lieberman-Warner" campaign.)      

In B-L-W, revenue from auctioned permits winds up "kick starting" a list of political favorites, including Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).  

The idea: capture (condense) CO2 from hot exhaust gases of coal-fired power plants.  How?  Giant refrigeration systems.  Where's THAT energy come from?  MORE COAL.  Still more energy to pump the CO2 into depleted underground gas formations.  (Possibly offset by methane (natural gas) displaced by CO2.)    

PEPCO Energy charges ~25% extra for 100% wind-generated electricity in DC.  Could CO2 be captured and sequestered for less than 25% of the net energy from coal?  If not, wind energy is ALREADY cheaper than coal + CCS and should become more economical as we improve designs and build capacity.  Conversely, CCS will become more costly as the easier sequestration sites are used up and pumping costs (for longer distances and deeper formations) rise.  It's a dead-end.  

So, can we PLEASE cut out the subsidies already?  Government trying to pick technological winners got us corn-produced ethanol, a net energy loser surviving on government largess.  

Better yet, skip cap-and-trade AND the subsidies! Let the markets work. Tilt the playing field away from fossil fuels with a gradually-increasing revenue-neutral carbon tax and distribute the reveneue as a per person dividend.  The Congressional Budget Office reported that a carbon tax would work FIVE times as effectively as a fixed cap. Economists ranging from Rob Shapiro (former Clinton Admin), Bill Nordhaus (Yale) to Ken Green (AEI) agree that a revenue-neutral carbon tax works much better for both the economy and the environment than clumsy cap-and-trade.  

With gimmicks like "cost containment" and CCS, B-L-W looks worse than doing nothing, at least for now.  

Not a moment too soon to start building support for a gradually-increasing revenue-neutral carbon tax like the one British Columbia is impementing.  The election's less than half a year away.  

For more on a gradually-increasing carbon tax with dividend, see www.CarbonTax.org.
On If cost-containment mechanisms in new climate bill are exploited, emissions could remain unchanged posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Carbon Tax better than Boxer's patches

Sen Boxer says she's listening to scientists, but is she ignoring economists and the Congressional Budget Office conclusion that a carbon tax would be FIVE times as effective as a fixed cap?  

CBO noted ways to improve cap-and-trade which would make it more like a tax:

1. Auction ALL the permits.

2. Make it revenue-neutral ("Cap and Dividend")

3. Build in a safety valve to mitigate price spikes, and

4. Keep a very close eye on the traders who profit by speculation and volatility.  

The remaining problems with cap-and-trade are potentially fatal and don't arise with a carbon tax. Two brave whistleblowers in EPA Reg. 9 wrote an open letter to Congress describing the flaws and manipulations of cap-and-trade as attempted for smog emissions in LA.  It's at www.carbonfees.org.

Will the best medicine for the escalating climate crisis, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, remain on the shelf because of its ugly label?  

For more on the advantages of carbon taxes, check out the Carbon Tax Center at www.carbontax.org.  

(And yes, Will Candler, "cap and dividend" would address #1 and # 2, but still leaves problems #3 and #4.)On Sen. Boxer's summary of her Manager's Amendment to Lieberman-Warner posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Nuclear Subsidies -- INSURANCE; Oil subsidy -- WAR

Nukes recieve another subsidy: limited liability. The Price-Anderson Act limits liability of nuclear power plants to $300 million each.  If they had to buy full coverage on the open market, would any would be built or operated?

And they're absolved of liablity for long term radioactive waste encapsulation and monitoring.  Which is why Congress has to FORCE states to take nuclear waste along with hefty bribes.

And speaking of subsidies, what about the elephant in the room -- oil is subsidized by oil wars.  If the material cost of the Iraq wars were factored in, what would gasoline cost?  (If the death toll were factored in, even at $1 million per life, the cost would be astronomical.)

Whatever subsidies wind, solar and other alternatives enjoy, they pale in comparison to these.  

And of course, don't forget that the effect of all these subsidies is to make energy conservation very un-attractive.  In an economy where so much energy is wasted, conservation is the cheapest "alternative" fuel around.  

Nuclear and oil subsidies are bribing us to waste energy and we're doing a fine job.On Subsidies for wind power pale beside subsidies for nuclear posted 1 year, 6 months ago 23 Responses

Great week for truth in carbon pricing

Three heartening developments:

• Obama gained high ground by acknowledging the inconvenient truth: reducing fossil fuel prices in the face of climate catastrophe isn't a good idea.

• British Columbia intiated a revenue-neutral carbon tax with dividend to create incentives for a more carbon-efficient economy.

• Two courageous EPA enforcement attorneys exposed the manipulations and failures of cap-and-trade at www.carbonfees.org.  

Along with Al Gore, and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, economists from left to right (Rob Shapiro, Bill Nordhaus to Greg Mankiw and Ken Greene) agree: pricing greenhouse gas emissions is a necessary first step in any effective effort to combat global warming.  And like the EPA whistleblowers, they agree that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would work much better than cap-and-trade.

Because I'm convinced that a gradually-increasing revenue-neutral carbon fee would stimulate our entire economy towards efficiency and renewables (and create incentives for our trading partners to follow suite) I volunteer for the Carbon Tax Center.  www.carbontax.org.

We have much work ahead to build support for a carbon fee and dividend system, but after this week, I have hope.

  On What North Carolina and Indiana tell us about future oil and climate policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 1 Response