* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download MEDIA PACKET, SEPT. 8, 2014 U.S. can lead climate fight with
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Biosequestration wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
MEDIA PACKET, SEPT. 8, 2014 U.S. can lead climate fight with carbon fee The road to a 2015 global warming agreement in Paris passes through New York this month at the UN Climate Summit. The steep cuts needed on greenhouse gas emissions will require a steadily-rising fee on carbon, which is possible if we give revenue from that fee back to the people. As the clock winds down toward a global climate treaty in Paris next year, world leaders – including President Obama – are gathering at the UN this month (Sept. 23rd) to energize negotiations and build momentum for an agreement that can prevent the most catastrophic consequences of global warming. The primary objective of the Paris treaty is to contain global warming by the end of the century to 2 degrees Celsius. Going beyond that threshold, scientists warn, will result in disastrous impacts – sea level rise, crop failures, record heat waves, water shortages, mass migrations – that will be difficult, if not impossible, for human civilization to adapt to or manage. The urgency for nations of the world to agree on steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions cannot be overstated. In November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its final report summarizing a series of reports that have been released over the past year, but a draft of that report was leaked last month. The New York Times, citing the IPCC’s draft, reported: “Runaway growth in the emission of greenhouse gases is swamping all political efforts to deal with the problem, raising the risk of ‘severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts’ over the coming decades, according to a draft of a major new United Nations report… “Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks that are likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. “The report found that companies and governments had identified reserves of these fuels at least four times larger than could safely be burned if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level. “That means if society wants to limit the risks to future generations, it must find the discipline to leave a vast majority of these valuable fuels in the ground, the report said.” So what are the chances that an effective agreement will be reached to preserve a livable world for future generations? Right now, those chances don’t look good. A team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looked at the commitments for emissions reductions that nations are likely to make with next year’s treaty. Plugging those numbers into models, the MIT team found that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are likely to rise much higher than 450 parts per million, the level scientists say mustn’t be breached in order to keep global warming under 2C. As Inside Climate News reported: “Indeed, the team predicted that emissions would grow so fast by the year 2050, that greenhouse gas concentrations would exceed 530 or 580 parts per million by the end of the century.” And there’s more discouraging news. It now looks like an inadequate treaty is destined to be non-binding, with countries setting voluntary targets. The New York Times reported late last month that the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to negotiate a treaty that would not require a two-thirds majority in the Senate for ratification. Any treaty that carries the force of law needs Senate approval. But, as the Times reported: “To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.” The President is doing what he can with the hand he’s been dealt on Capitol Hill, but “name and shame” will lead to crash-and-burn where the climate is concerned. There must be a greater incentive for nations of the world to live up to their stated commitments on emissions reductions and to ultimately go beyond those targets. Finger wagging will not suffice. How the U.S. can lead on climate In lieu of an effective and binding global agreement, the United States must lead by example and also provide the incentive for other nations to follow our lead. In the absence of congressional action, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to cut emissions from electrical power plants is a step in the right direction. But EPA rules will not provide the kinds of emissions cuts across all sectors sufficient to ward off catastrophe. Nor will EPA rules provide the incentive for other nations, particularly China and India, to match our effort. The solution, supported by conservatives such as former Secretary of State George Shultz, is a market-based approach known as Carbon Fee and Dividend, coupled with border tariffs. A recent study from the highly-respected Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), examined the impact – both environmentally and economically – of a fee on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at $10 per ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 a ton each year. Revenue from the fee was divided equally and returned to households as monthly payments. Border tariffs on imports from countries without an equivalent price on carbon, were factored into the study. Findings from the REMI study should elate both environmentalists and economists: After 20 years, CO2 emissions would drop 50 percent below 1990 levels. Note in the chart below that Carbon Fee and Dividend will achieve substantially greater reductions in emissions from electrical generation than EPA regulation. Because of the economic stimulus of recycling revenue from the carbon fee into the pockets of people who are likely to spend the money, 2.8 million jobs would be added to the economy. Until now, opponents have claimed that putting a price on carbon would kill jobs. That myth has been shattered, thanks to the REMI study. With carbon fee and dividend, U.S. leadership to cut carbon carries with it the upside of adding jobs. By applying border tariffs, other nations will have a strong economic incentive to follow the U.S. lead in pricing carbon. After all, why would any nation allow their businesses to pay the U.S. government for the cost of carbon when those businesses could be paying their own government? A recent editorial from the Washington Post concurred: Putting a price on U.S. carbon emissions, and applying a charge on imports from countries without a strong anti-emissions policy, would give China and others an incentive to implement plans of their own. The message to other nations would be loud and clear: If your businesses wish to compete in lucrative U.S. markets, you must put a price on carbon. Much better than “name and shame,” the border tariff of Carbon Fee and Dividend falls into the Teddy Roosevelt school of policies: It is a big stick that would allow us to speak softly in Paris, but get closer to a livable world. Time to change the reality on Capitol Hill The catch in this win-win solution, of course, is that it requires Congress to act. Pessimists and cynics will scoff at such a notion, but if current reality excludes any expectation of Congress enacting climate legislation, then it is time to change that reality. It can be changed with newspapers – the fourth branch of government – pushing Congress to act through editorial endorsement of carbon pricing policy. It can be changed with citizens, like the volunteers in 175 Citizens’ Climate Lobby chapters across the U.S., talking to their members of Congress about the importance of taking action on climate change and getting thousands of letters to the editor published in newspapers throughout the nation. It can be changed with leaders in business and finance coming together, as they did with the bi-partisan coalition that issued the Risky Business report this summer, to urge action that limits the economic fallout of climate change. It can be changed with faith leaders, like Pope Francis, issuing a moral challenge to care for God’s creation and protect the poor from the ravages of climate change, a challenge expected soon in the Pontiff’s forthcoming encyclical on the environment. While it is too late to enact major legislation like Carbon Fee and Dividend in the 113th Congress, forward-thinking Republicans and Democrats should work together now to forge a bi-partisan bill that is introduced and passed early in the next Congress. Current reality places our planet on a trajectory that leaves too many people sick, hungry, thirsty and homeless because of climate change. If we alter the reality in Washington – and pass a fee on carbon that gives revenue back to the people – America can lead the world toward a safer, more secure future, no matter what happens in Paris next year. About REMI Since 1980, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) has provided economic impact studies for governmental and private-sector clients including the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), consulting firms Booz Allen Hamilton and Ernst & Young, the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), the California Department of Finance, the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The REMI model incorporates four major modeling methodologies including input-output modeling, computable general equilibrium modeling, New Economic Geography, and econometrics. Its structure accounts for both the costs and benefits of any policy options, and it provides detailed, multi-regional, and multi-year results on the economic and demographic impact of decisions including the implications for job creation, gross domestic product (GDP), personal income, and population. This study used data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the ReEDS model, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and ran here by Synapse Energy Economics, to show the net effect of a national-level fee-and-dividend carbon tax when accounting for the downside of higher energy costs and reduced energy production versus the benefits of additional household income and spending, improved air quality, and investment in alternative power generation types. Other major REMI studies in the energy arena include state-level carbon tax analyses for Massachusetts, Washington, and California. Other studies include the impact of Medicaid expansion in 25 states and the state-by-state impact of federal immigration reform options; those results were a feature of the Wall Street Journal late last year. General studies using REMI include economic development, energy, transportation, education, tourism, taxation, and other topics. CONTACT: [email protected], 404-769-7461