Comments on: Arising from the Senate’s Ashes?

By: Andrés J. Forno

Andrés J. Forno — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:00:17 +0000

Raising the price of carbon is a necessary condition for implementing carbon policies, and because the health of biosphere is a global public good, everyone, everywhere on earth must face the same price, and everyone, everywhere on earth must be indeminized in the sme way for the damage to the biosphere. This means that if the best solutions so far, these are “carbon fee and dividend” or “revenue-neutral carbon tax”, are to be completely fair; they have to be of worldwide application, i.e. any African shall be paying the same tax and receiving the same dividend as any American will. But, will such fairness ever be possible, given the fact that a human in America consumes at least 4 times more carbon than a human in Africa?

By: David F Collins

David F Collins — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:36:03 +0000

“Americans’ sense of energy savings? Small change.” — TDC’s 2010/08/17 charming essay on typical Americans’ awareness of CO2 emissions, makes the point that most of us have a poor understanding of how to take effective conservation steps; we do not see it as something really worth paying attention to. And the Carbon Tax is the most effective way to change that. Money is an effective motivator. As Francisco de Quevedo put it, “Poderoso caballero — Es don Dinero.” The Carbon Tax, in the Fee-And-Dividend form, is the best way to go. This is pretty well acknowledged by thinking people, on the political right (yeah, there actually are some, I met one in Michigan a few months ago) and left.

But how about the unthinking people? Political obstacles are formidable; when there is such massive opposition to doing the minimally effective, it’s gonna be horrendous to do something effective. Demagoguery and bigotry cannot be ignored on the simple basis of their being wrong both morally and factually.

Yes, now we may begin. But how? It’s kinda like, how’re we mice gonna bell that cat?

By: Ezra Small

Ezra Small — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:30:28 +0000

This is a great piece Charlie, thank you for your wonderful insight on this very crucial, political, social, and environmental opportunity!

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:58:34 +0000

A carbon fee (or tax) is likely to be opposed, not only by those who oppose any new tax, but by those who favor taxes and who live off of them.

Consider the current dire economic situation of most state and local governments. Think of schools as an example. When energy prices rise due to a carbon fee, where will the money come from to cover the higher cost or to pay for new conservation improvements? Maybe we lay off some teachers? Or maybe we raise local taxes? We will have our carbon dividends in our pockets to help pay extra taxes, but a lot of people will have trouble making the connection.

How do we maintain revenue neutrality; or do ve begin to compromise already?

By: James Newberry

James Newberry — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:20:30 +0000

Thanks Charles for all your work (over decades) on energy economics.

Please consider that our collective foot is on the accelerator of climate change through billions of dollars of direct fuel subsidies, tens of billions of indirect (tax expensing) fuel subsidies, and hundreds of billions per year of externalized subsidies that exist due to the policy of “cheap fuels.”

I am in favor of your concerns, but should we continue to drive the climate toward meltdown via. subsidy policy. If not, then let’s start identifying these, such as the work of Green Scissors 2010 report and Sima Gandhi of Center for American Progress.

By: Dean Weichmann, Wisconsin

Dean Weichmann, Wisconsin — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:55:30 +0000

On second thought, a carbon dividend.

By: Dean Weichmann, Wisconsin

Dean Weichmann, Wisconsin — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:45:42 +0000

Albert’s comment suggests to me that this should become a climate dividend rather than a carbon tax.

By: Albert Bates

Albert Bates — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:53:38 +0000

Sallan Fdtn writes: you’ll have to show me why carbon tax would improve that snowflake’s chances. Sallan, the political perk on this is the dividend. Checks in everyone’s mailbox — more, and more often, than the token stimulus checks of the past couple administrations. The CLEAR Act showcases this selling point. It is a vote-getting goldmine.

By: Jeanne Fudala

Jeanne Fudala — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:00:41 +0000

P.S.

I also meant to add that I so respect Janes Hansen who is so straight-on about anything pertaining to climate!

By: Jeanne Fudala

Jeanne Fudala — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:58:36 +0000

Charles, I so hope you’re right!

Many really dedicated climate activists, as opposed to Big Green, have turned to the cap and dividend bill, the Cantwell/Collins CLEAR Act as the best thing we can hope to achieve. It’s clear (pun intended) to me that won’t get any further, either. I hope great people like Ted Glick and Van Jones will get behind the carbon fee and dividend proposal.

And could someone with more influence/expertise please keep trying to put a bug in Rachel Maddow’s ear. She is so articulate on so many things but she is so wedded to cap and trade. It’s ironic that I have to be glad the obstructionists blocked it.