Download Laser Talks for June 2013 Conference 1. Elevator Speech for Fee

Laser Talks for June 2013 Conference
1. Elevator Speech for Fee and Dividend
Our revenue-neutral carbon tax works like this [1]:





A tax is placed on carbon-based fuels at the source (well, mine, port of entry).
This tax starts at $15 per ton of fossil CO2 emitted, and increases steadily each year by $10 so
that clean energy is cheaper than fossil fuels within a decade.
All of the money collected is returned to American households on an equitable basis.
Under this plan 66% percent of all households would break even or receive more in their
dividend check than they would pay for the increased cost of energy, thereby protecting the
poor and middle class [2].
A predictably increasing carbon price will send a clear market signal which will unleash
entrepreneurs and investors in the new clean-energy economy.
1. The Citizens Climate Lobby. “CCL draft legislation for Carbon Fee and Dividend.” URL for pdf download:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/FeeAndDividendLegProposal081811.pdf
2. “Tax Shifts”. March 21, 2011. The Carbon Tax Center. Last accessed: 5-23-13. URL: http://www.carbontax.org/issues/taxshifts/
2. Basic Science
There are three basic facts you need to know about climate change and humanity’s role in it:
1. CO traps heat.
2. The concentration of CO is rising.
3. We’ve burned 2x as many fossil fuels as needed to account for the observed rise (the rest
has gone into the ocean and is causing ocean acidification).
2
2
We have known the first is true for over 150 years (since 1859), since Irish scientist John
Tyndall stuck some CO in a tube, shone some light through it, and found that the temperature rose
higher when there was more CO [1, 2]. The second point we’ve been seeing thanks to the direct
measurements of the Keeling Curve, which now records 400 ppm of CO in the atmosphere, up from
317 ppm in 1958 when measurements began [3, 4]. The third we know because of oil, coal, and gas
company accountants. They record how much they sell, and if you assume all that they sell is burned
(a good assumption), you end up with enough fossil CO in the atmosphere to double the rise we’ve
seen [5, 6]. These three facts are so obvious that they were apparent as early as 1895, when chemist
Svante Arrhenius became the first to predict rising temperature due to human additions of CO to the
atmosphere [7].
2
2
2
2
2
1. “John Tyndall (1820-1893)”. NASA Earth Observatory. Last accessed: 1/10/11. URL:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/
2. James Rodger Fleming (2005). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford University Press. pp. 69–70. Available
online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=09RtcSCGv7gC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. R. F. Keeling, S. C. Piper, A. F. Bollenbacher and S. J. Walker "Scripps CO2 Program”. Last Accessed: 5-24-13. URL:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu.
4. Lisa Welp and Ralph Keeling. “Now What?”. May 20, 2013. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.
Last accessed: 5-24-14. URL: http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/now-what/
5. Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2009. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001. Available online at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html.
6. Sabine CL, Feely RA, Gruber N, Key RM, Lee K, Bullister JL, Wanninkhof R, Wong CS, Wallace DWR, Tilbrook B,
Millero FJ, Peng TH, Kozyr A, Ono T, Rios AF. 2004: The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2. Science Vol. 305. pp 367371
7. “Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927”. NASA Earth Observetory. Last accessed: 5-24-13. URL:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_2.php
3. We Can Convert the Entire World’s Energy System to Renewables Within 20 Years
Mark Jacobson, at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, at UC Davis, published in peerreviewed scientific journals a plan for how to provide electricity for the entire world by 2030 using
only wind, water, and solar technology already available in 2009. When they created this plan to meet
the world’s energy demand in 20 years, they took into account that the world adds approximately 1
billion people every 12 years and that emerging economies are looking to have our lifestyle, which
requires greater energy needs. Their report shows we can meet the entire world's energy needs with
renewable sources in 20 years, we can do it without nuclear, and we can do it for the same amount of
money that we'd be spending on fossil fuel power [1, 2, 3].
Additional talking points:
Specifically, their plan calls for all NEW energy installations to be from renewables by 2030, and all power to be renewable
by 2050. However, they do state that 100% renewable energy, transport, and infrastructure is possible by 2030 if there is a
WWII -type ramp up to meet this goal.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Renewable energy can't compete with fossil fuels.
One-liner: Peer-reviewed science indicates we can switch the entire world to renewables using 2009
technology in 20 years for the same long-term cost as sticking with fossil fuels.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Renewable energy is unreliable.
One-liner: Wind and solar peak production at different times of the day, and integrating wind over long
distances can deliver ~33% of their energy with the same reliability as baseload coal, oil, or gas power [1].
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Renewables are too expensive.
One-liner: Because of the need to refine oil and energy lost as heat when burning fossil fuels, renewables
are more efficient, we need less of them, and we end up spending less money.
1. Jacobson, M.Z., and M.A. Delucchi. “Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I:
Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials.” 2010. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 11541169. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040.
2. Delucchi, M.Z., and M.Z. Jacobson. “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability,
System and Transmission Costs, and Policies.” 2011. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 1170-1190. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045.
3. Jacobson, M.Z., and M.A. Delucci. “A path to sustainable energy by 2030.” Nov. 2009 (cover story). Scientific American.
URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energyby-2030
4. Science vs. the Scientist
The process by which science is worked out, “peer review,” is not perfect but it is reliable.
What gives science integrity is that it has to hold up both to scrutiny from fellow experts before it is
ever published [e.g. 1, 2], and to the real world once people begin to use it. When my kids were little
we often had to get antibiotics for ear infections and we never doubted that the antibiotics would
work. Regularly, I go to the airport, and never do I have the thought: “I’ve heard most of these fly, I
hope they put me on one of the ones that actually does.” It is not possible that one part of science,
“climate,” has been corrupted and functions outside of this scientific process seen in every aspect of
our daily lives. An individual scientist, on the other hand, might say things that are inconsistent with
the scientific consensus. Fred Singer, who is a physicist [3], clearly knows more about science than I
ever will. However, in addition to testifying before Congress that CO emissions were not a primary
cause of global warming, he has also testified that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer [4]. You
could probably find a scientist who says that we should pray instead of giving children antibiotics; you
just won’t find any scientific organizations that will agree.
To emphasize the point, Jim Powell, a science author who served 12 years on the National
Science Board, appointed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush [5a], reviewed nearly 13,950
peer-reviewed climate articles published between 1991 and 2012. Only 24 of those articles “clearly
reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.” Of the
33,690 authors of those papers, the 24 rejecting articles were written by 34 authors. In other words,
only about 1 of every 1000 climate scientists published over 21 years would reject that climate is
changing, and/or that humans caused it [5b].
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Climate scientists are in it for the money.
One-liner: If a climate scientist could actually prove that climate change wasn't happening or man-made,
they'd be rich, and have their career made.
1. Science Magazine. “Peer Review at Science Publications.” Science Magazine Publications, 2013. Last accessed: 4-24-2013.
URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/review.xhtmlhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apath-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
2. Nature publications. ”Peer Review Policy.” Nature.com, 2013. Last accessed 4-24-13.
http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html
3. “Fred Singer”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 4-24-13. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
4. Singer, S.F. and M.K. Jeffreys. “The EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke.” Legacy Tobacco Documents
Library, University of California, San Francisco. Bates Number: TICT0002555. URL for pdf download:
http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu
5. James L. Powell. “James Lawrence Powell”. Jamespowell.org. Copyright: 2011. Last accessed: 5-16-13. A) URL for bio:
http://www.jamespowell.org/Bio/Bio.html. B) URL for home page:
http://www.jamespowell.org/index.htmlhttp://www.jamespowell.org/
5. Jobs: Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables
In 2010, there were a total of 174,000 permanent coal-related jobs nationwide (including
82,595 in coal mining) [1], and 806,831 oil and gas jobs as of 2011 [2]. By contrast, there were
3,129,112 green jobs in 2010 [3]. The Department of Energy predicts using conservative estimates
that by 2030 there will be over half a million wind jobs alone [4]. The overall job story is that
renewable energy will provide more and higher paying jobs, with more diverse opportunities [5]. This
is because $1 million dollars worth of oil and natural gas output directly creates 0.8 jobs, and $1
million of coal produces 1.9 jobs. Compare that to building retrofits for energy efficiency (7 jobs per
million), mass transit services (11 jobs), building the smart grid (4.3), wind (4.6), solar (5.4), and
biomass power generation (7.4) [6]. The green economy already supports more jobs than the fossil
fuel economy, and has for years, even though renewable energy accounts for only 12.2% of our
domestically produced energy [7].
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Putting a price on carbon will cost jobs.
One-liner: wind, solar, and biomass generate 2.5 - 9.25 times as many jobs as coal, oil, and gas for every $1
million contribution to GDP.
1. Robertson, Joseph. “Building a Green Economy.” 2010. The Citizens Climate Lobby. p. 22. URL:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/node/457
2. Josh Wright. “A Broader Look at America’s Fossil Fuels Jobs Boom”. Mar 16, 2012. Blog Post. Economic Modelling
Specialists International. Last accessed: 5-19-13. URL: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2012/03/16/a-broader-look-atamericas-fossil-fuels-jobs-boom/http://citizensclimatelobby.org/node/457
3. Rob Sentz. “BLS Releases 2010 Green Job Estimates”. March 27, 2012. Blog Post. Economic Modelling Specialists
International. Last accessed: 5-19-13. URL: http://www.economicmodeling.com/2012/03/27/bls-releases-2010-green-jobestimates/http://www.economicmodeling.com/2012/03/16/a-broader-look-at-
americas-fossil-fuels-jobs-boom/
4. “20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply.” July, 2008. US
Department of Energy. p. 209. URL for pdf download:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_revOct08.pdf
5. Martin, Scott. “Green jobs pay better as clean-tech sector booms”. Published: 7/13/2011. USA Today. Last accessed 4-2913. URL: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-12-green-jobs-economy_n.htm
6. Robertson, Joseph. “Building a Green Economy” 2010. The Citizens Climate Lobby. p. 18. URL:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/node/457
7. US Energy Information Administration. “Electric Power Monthly”. April 2013. Last Accessed: 5-19-13. URL:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1
6. Border Tax Adjustment/ Protecting Our Manufacturing Jobs
In order for a fee on carbon to work domestically and on an international scale, an effective
border tax adjustment will be necessary. Joost Pauwelyn worked as legal adviser for the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Secretariat from 1996-2002 [1], and in international legal circles is widely
considered to be among the world’s foremost WTO experts. From Geneva, Mr. Pauwelyn assured us
that a border tax adjustment is viable. As a backup, even if a “border adjustment‟ was found to be
discriminatory, the resulting violation may still be justified by the environmental exceptions. Thus, a
carbon tax would be double-covered! [2]. Having a border adjustment is important because it makes
sure that domestic manufacturers are not put at a competitive disadvantage and it will ensure that if
countries like India and China want to keep using dirty manufacturing processes, they’ll have to pay
the U.S. government for the privilege.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Pricing carbon on imports would violate WTO law. (WTO = World Trade
Organization)
One-liner: As long as the price doesn't discriminate against imports from one country relative to another,
the WTO will allow it.
1. Official website for Joost Pauwelyn. The Graduate Institute, Geneva. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/ctei/pauwelyn.html
2. Pauwelyn, Joost. “Carbon Leakage Measures and Border Tax Adjustments Under WTO Law”. March 21, 2012. Excepted
chapter from “Research Handbook On The WTO Agriculture Agreement”. Available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2026879
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2026879
7. Why Do We Want 100% Revenue Neutrality?
100 percent ensures that two-thirds of American households will come out equal or ahead
regarding the increase in energy costs. This calculation takes into account not just direct energy costs,
but the pass-through businesses will add to the cost of their products [1]. Since about 70 percent of our
economy is consumer spending [2], putting additional cash in the hands of these consumers has the
potential of being simulative. Members of Congress who signed Grover Norquist tax pledges can
honor their pledge and still vote the right way [3]. Venture capitalists, banks, and entrepreneurs seeing
a predictable price signal will create breakthroughs in innovation that in some cases are unimaginable
at this point. A carbon fee is the most efficient and direct way to send a meaningful price signal to the
markets [4]. Initially, a low price on fossil fuels will not be felt by consumers. As the price goes up, it
will increase costs steadily for all households. It will be very difficult to maintain public support if
people are not getting the money they need to offset their increase in costs.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Some of the revenue raised should be used to foster renewables.
One-liner: With a steadily and robustly rising price on carbon, it won't be long before renewables are
cheaper outright, and we won't need subsidies at all.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: 25% of the revenue must go to the government because taxation creates a drag
on the economy causing a fall in government revenues, thus increasing the deficit
One-liner: If the dividend is taxable, this is not a problem.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Some of the revenue should be used for something else.
One-liner: Republicans will only come to the table if this is 100% revenue neutral.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: People will use the dividend to buy more fossil fuels.
One-liner: The decision point is the key moment; if apples from Chile and apples from down the road are
right next to each other, the Chilean apples will be more expensive, and consumers will chose the cheaper
apples.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Republicans will never sign on to a tax.
One-liner: Even Republicans who signed Grover Norquist's pledge can vote for this and not violate their
pledge as long as it's revenue neutral* (Note, this was Grover Norquit's original position, but he changed it
later after pressure from his funders, the Koch brothers).
1. Boyce, James K; Riddle, Matthew E. “Clear Economics: State-Level Impacts of the Carbon Limits and Energy for
America's Renewal Act on Family Incomes and Jobs.” 2010. Political Economy Research Institute. URL:
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/green_economics/CLEAR_Economics.pdf
2. Michelle Jamrisko. “Consumer Spending in U.S. Climbs Even as Taxes Hurt Incomes”. Mar 1, 2013. Bloomberg. Last
accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/consumer-spending-in-u-s-climbs-even-as-taxes-hurt-incomes.html
3. Davenport, Coral. “Norquist: Carbon-Tax Swap for Income-Tax Cut Wouldn't Violate No-Tax-Hike Pledge”. Published
online: Nov. 12, 2012. National Journal. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://www.nationaljournal.com//energy/norquistcarbon-tax-swap-for-income-tax-cut-wouldn-t-violate-no-tax-hike-pledge-20121112
4. “Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions.” February 2008. The Congressional Budget Office. URL:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41663&sa=U&ei=dZR5UafEDcXp0QGY9IDQBA&ved=0C
AcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNH9DsurRn8mbQGMrA1ztdETazf8fQ
8. Pigouvian Taxation
Carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels carry significant “external” costs to society,
such as the cost of more extreme storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires, as well as much higher health
care and military expenses. These costs are expected to rise dramatically [1, 2]. Economists from both
sides of the political spectrum, including Mitt Romney's economic advisor Greg Mankiw [3, 4],
adamantly believe that these costs should be borne by the companies responsible for the pollution, and
that it will improve both the economy and the environment. These fees, referred to as “Pigouvian”
taxes, incentivize these companies and consumers to both reduce the pollution and its costs, and to
create the clean, low-carbon jobs and industries of our future. An example of effective Pigouvian
taxation is cigarette smoking. 50% of Americans used to smoke, now less than 20% do [5].
Note: Some of the other members of the Pigou club include Bill Nordhaus, Martin Feldstein, Gary
Becker, Robert Frank, Andrew Samwick, Ted Gayer, Mike Moffatt, Ken Rogoff, Paul Krugman, Greg
Easterbrook, John Tierney, Jonathan Rauch, Thomas Friedman, Joe Klein, Andrew Sullivan, Jane
Galt, Christopher Farrell, William Baldwin, Clive Crook, Al Gore, Alan Greenspan, George Schultz,
Tony Lake, Nicholas Stern, Hal Varian, Larry Summers, Richard Posner, David Frum, Nouriel
Roubini, Joe Stiglitz, Brink Lindsey, Tim Harford, Rob Stavins, Ray Magliozzi, Robert Samuelson,
Dan McFadden, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Mulshine, Kevin Hassett, Jason Furman, Anne
Applebaum, Paul Volcker, Bill Frenzel, Isabel V. Sawhill, Charles Stenholm, William Hoagland,
Robert Shapiro, David Leonhardt,Morton Kondracke, Gilbert Metcalf, Fred Foldvary, Arthur
Laffer, and a majority of economists [7].
1. IPCC, 2011: Summary for Policymakers. In: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Managing the
Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin,
D., Dokken, D., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S., Tignor, M. and P. M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
2. Jergler, Don. “NOAA: 2012’s U.S. Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events ‘Impressive’.” Published: Jan 4, 2013.
Insurance Journal. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/01/04/276178.htm
3. Mankiw, Greg. “The Pigou Club Manifesto”. Posted: Oct. 20, 2006. Greg Mankiw's Blog. Accessed: 4-29-13. URL:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html
4. Mankiw, N. Gregory. “One answer to Global Warming”. Sept. 16, 2007. The New York Times. Last accessed: 4-29-13.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html
5. Lydia Saad. “One in Five U.S. Adults Smoke, Tied for All-Time Low”. Aug 22, 2012. Gallup. Last accessed: 5-22-13.
URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156833/one-five-adults-smoke-tied-time-low.aspx
6. Mankiw, Greg. “Rogoff joins the Pigou Club”. Posted: Sept 16, 2006. Greg Mankiw's Blog. Accessed: 5-15-13. URL:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html
9. Why Do We Prefer a Fee Over Cap and Trade?
Cap and trade is our second favorite solution. We prefer a straightforward fee because it takes
no time to set up and requires no additional bureaucracy. It's easy to understand and monitor. A carbon
fee sends a predictable price signal that is not subject to market fluctuations which enables businesses
and consumers to plan their energy investments. Politically, republicans have been opposed to the cap
because it adds government bureaucracy while democrats are opposed to trading because it could
cause fluctuations in the price of energy, causing poor people to pay a disproportionately higher
percentage of their income for energy and therefore democrats think it treats them unfairly. The
current European Union cap-and-trade system places a price on permits so low that it has no impact on
emissions [1]. Also, the problem of climate change is worldwide and an approach is needed that can
accommodate the needs of emerging economies. A fee more easily lends itself to border adjustments
between countries with different or no carbon fees, enabling agreements that can be harmonized
worldwide. Sweden imposed a carbon tax in 1991, which is now $150 per tonne, a pretty hefty price.
Since that time they have had a reduction in emissions while the economy has grown by 48%,
demonstrating that a substantial fee is effective in reducing emissions without harming the economy
[2].
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Pricing carbon without a cap or targets won't make a difference.
One-liner: The majority of economists, from both ends of the political spectrum, agree that pricing carbon
will result in less carbon being burned.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Cap-and-trade is better.
One-liner: It's been tried, it failed, now it's time to try something else.
1. Walsh, Bryan. “If Carbon Markets Can’t Work in Europe, Can They Work Anywhere?”. April 17, 2013. Time. Last
accessed: 5-1-13. URL: http://science.time.com/2013/04/17/if-carbon-markets-cant-work-in-europe-can-they-workanywhere/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-
climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?pagewanted=all
2. “Where Carbon is Taxed”. May 6, 2013. The Carbon Tax Center. Last accessed: 5-24-13. URL:
http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-istaxed/http://www.usea.org.uk/section/content/?pageID=529
http://www.usea.org.uk/section/content/?pageID=529
10. Offsets
In general, offsets credits are given to worthwhile activities -- tree planting, methane capture
at farms, and protection of the rainforest. However, the emissions reductions created by these projects
might have happened without financial incentive of offsets payments, and so they should not be
allowed to substitute for real emissions reductions required by regulation. Further, there are many
ways that offsets are open to fraud [1, 2, 3]. For example, Chevron was recently awarded a
multimillion dollar offsets project for agreeing to stop burning their gas flares in Nigeria. But it has
been illegal to flare gas in Nigeria since 1984, so it is questionable why Chevron should be rewarded
for simply not breaking Nigeria’s laws [4]. Offset projects employ inspectors to verify that a project
works. But since the people who purchase the offsets pay these verifiers, there is a clear conflict of
interest that is actively avoided in, for example, the auditing industry [5]. Serious scientists and
economists often state the fastest way to solve this problem is to make CO emission more expensive.
Offsets cost less than carbon permits [6]; so they do make it cheaper for companies to continue
business as usual and allow them to not really reduce their emissions. This undermines the logic of
scientists and economists and does not address the primary problem of serious emissions reductions.
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Offsets are needed to incentivize the sequestration of carbon.
One-liner: The cheapest form of sequestration is the sequestration you never had to do, and a carbon price
is the best way to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Offsets are needed to keep businesses from being hit too hard.
One-liner: Offsets are ultimately unverifiable, and they add complexity that is unnecessary for just getting
started.
1. Hoag, Hannah. “The problems with emissions trading”. Nature. Nov 25, 2011. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-problems-with-emissions-trading-1.9491
2. Elgin, Ben and Einhorn, Bruce. “China: Climate Change Or Hot Air?”. Dec 9, 2009. Bloomberg Businessweek. Last
accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_51/b4160000488833.htm
3. Rosenthal, Elisabeth and Lehren, Andrew W. “Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas”. New York
Times. August 8, 2012. Last Accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slowclimate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?pagewanted=all
4. Wysham, Daphne. “Nothing More Than Hot Air: The World Bank's Perverse Incentives to Pollute Continue Preempting a
Better, More Principled Way Forward”. Posted online: June 1, 2011. Global Policy Forum. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL:
http://globalpolicyforum.tumblr.com/post/18089209735/carbon-offsets-a-neoliberal-scam
5. “Conflict of Interest”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
6. Reed, Stanley and Scott, Mark. “In Europe, Paid Permits for Pollution Are Fizzling”. April 21, 2013. New York Times. Last
accessed: 4-29-13. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/business/energy-environment/europes-carbon-market-issputtering-as-prices-dive.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/business/energy-environment/europescarbon-market-is-sputtering-as-prices-dive.html?pagewanted=all
11. Faith-Based Groups Call on Us to be Stewards of the Planet and Act on Climate Change
The world’s major faith groups and religious leaders have made powerful statements on the
climate. They say that climate change is real, that the burning of fossil fuels is causing it, and that we
humans have a moral responsibility to take action to correct it. These groups include Catholics [1, 2],
Protestants [2], Jews [2], Hindus [3], Muslims [2], and Buddhists [4] as well as many indigenous
peoples such as the Hopi Indians [5].
Examples:
The Vatican: “Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay using all means possible.”
The cost of doing this “pales in comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.” [1]
The Evangelical Climate Initiative: “Human-Induced Climate Change is Real and increasing
international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation.” . . . “In the United
States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and
implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide
emissions through cost-effective, market based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program.” [2]
The Dalai Lama: “Right now our greatest responsibility is to undo the damage done by the
introduction of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and climate system during the rise of human
civilisation. We know that we have already exceeded the 350 parts per million that is a safe level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In doing so we have ushered in a global climate crisis.”...”
Buddhists, concerned people of the world and all people of good heart should be aware of this and act
upon it”. [4].
National Association of Evangelicals: “It is tempting but unwise to assume that God would prevent
us from drastically harming the earth.” … “Exercising stewardship calls us to plan ahead and to use
our God given gifts, abilities and natural resources to care for this world he created. In today’s reality,
that includes considering our changing environment in order to evaluate how best to care for what he
has entrusted to us.” [2]
The Episcopal Church: Resolved, That the 77th General Convention calls on congregations,
institutions, dioceses, and corporate offices of The Episcopal Church, to work for the just
transformation of the world’s energy beyond and away from fossil fuels (including all forms of oil,
coal, and natural gas) and toward safe, sustainable, renewable, community controlled energy, and that
fossil fuel workers and their families be supported during the transition to a “post-carbon” society.”
[2]
Southern Baptists: “In the face of intense concern and guided by the biblical principle of creation
stewardship, we resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the
problem or our responsibility to address it. Humans must be proactive and take responsibility for our
contributions to climate change—however great or small.” [2]
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: I'm too busy with my faith to bother about climate change.
One-liner: All the major faiths in the US have very powerful statements on the climate, and all say we have
a moral obligation to do something about it now.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: The End of Days is coming soon, God's Judgment is upon us.
One-liner: If it's not, and you could have done something about it but didn't (like the foolish virgins), is that
a gamble you're willing to bet your eternal salvation on?
1. Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G. Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni,
R. Pachauri, T. H. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A. Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J.
Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F. Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, D. Zaelke, J. Mittelstraß. “Fate of Mountain Glaciers
in the Anthropocene”. 2011. Pontifical Academy of Sciences. URL:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Pontifical- Academy-ofSciences_Glacier_Report_050511_final.pdf&sa=U&ei=NHuBUdiyNsWA0AH364GYDQ&ved=0CBAQFjAD&client=intern
al-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHDTTngJItf2X9uK40Vt7PsQVEP6w
2. Friends Committee on National Legislation. “Faith Groups Speak Out on the Environment”. Last Revision: Sept. 2012.
URL: http://fcnl.org/issues/energy/faith_statements_climate/
3. Hindu Press International. “Hindu Declaration on Climate Change”. National Hindu Students Forum. Last accessed: 5-1-13.
URL: http://www.nhsf.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=709:hindu-declaration-on-climatechange&catid=234:international&Itemid=218
4. The Dalai Lama. “Ecological Buddhism: A Buddhist Response to Global Warming”. Dec. 20, 2008. Endorsement hosted by
Buddhist Climate Project. URL: http://www.ecobuddhism.org/bcp/all_content/350_hhdl/
5. Submitted by Thomas Banyacya, Kykyotsmovi, Arizona. “The Hopi Message To The United Nations General Assembly”.
12-10-92. URL: http://www.nativeamericanchurch.com/Signs/HOPI-UNMsg.html
12. Frequency and Severity of Weather-Related Events
In 1981, Dr. James Hansen published a paper in Science stating that warming over the past
century had been consistent with the effects of anthropogenic CO release. He also predicted that the
signal (i.e. climate change appearing in the data) would rise above the noise (i.e. background natural
variability in the climate) by the end of the century, which happened. The last sentence in the abstract
of that paper is: “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone
regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest
Passage” [1]. Sound familiar? In addition to these effects predicted 32 years ago, we know that
because warm air holds more moisture than cold air, and moisture in the air generates weather related
events, we have created the conditions for greater severity and frequency of weather related events [2].
2
1. Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell. “Climate impact of increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide”. 1981. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
2. Kevin E. Trenberth. “Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change”. 2012. Climatic Change (2012)
115:283–290. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0441-5. URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0441-5
13. Subsidies
We support the elimination of all energy subsidies once we have begun to correct the
underpricing of fossil based fuels [1]. Firstly, fossil fuels subsidies from 2002-2008 exceeded
subsidies to “renewable” projects by a factor of 5:1 [2]. Over the next ten years there are over
$158,289,000,000 in potential fossil fuel subsidies (about equal to a $2.75 carbon tax [3]). If the
market could decide, it would pick renewables. We should free it.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Solyndra!
One-liner: Because subsidies to fossil fuels industries outnumber those to renewable energy 5:1, we
support the elimination of all energy subsidies and letting the market decide.
Additional information: the value of $2.75 was calculated by dividing the 10-year cost of fossil fuel
subsidies by 10 to find the annual cost, then using the Carbon Tax Center spreadsheet to calculate
what carbon price yields a total tax take equivalent to that amount.
1. The Citizens Climate Lobby. “CCL draft legislation for Carbon Fee and Dividend.” URL for pdf download:
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/FeeAndDividendLegProposal081811.pdf
2. "Energy Subsidies Favor Fossil Fuels Over Renewables". Last accessed: 5-19-13. Environmental Law Institute. URL:
http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm
3. Charles Komanoff. “4-sector National Carbon Tax Model.” The Carbon Tax Center, 2011. URL:
http://www.komanoff.net/fossil/CTC_Carbon_Tax_Model.xls
http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm
14. Are the Canadian Tar Sands Dirtier Than Regular Oil?
Yes, they are [1]. Using the more appropriate “full fuel cycle” analysis, which includes all
emissions from extraction to burning it in your automobile, tar sands produce 15%-20% more
greenhouse gas emissions than regular oil. Less useful for understanding the true climate impact, the
State Department's analysis of the Keystone XL did not consider a full fuel cycle analysis, which is a
big part of why it was more favorable towards them. The reason tar sands have these higher emissions
is because they contain bitumen, a heavier hydrocarbon than conventional oil. It's kind of like tar, and
doesn't flow very well (such properties make it harder to clean up than conventional oil; witness the
spill into the Kalamazoo River that occurred in July 2010 which still isn’t cleaned up [2, 3]). While
you can put conventional oil directly into a pipeline, bitumen from the oil sands must be preprocessed, or “upgraded” by diluting it with a light hydrocarbon like a natural gas liquid so it will flow
through the pipeline. Because it either requires an upgrading step on-site before it's shipped, or more
intensive refining to produce the same gasoline or diesel, the energy intensity and emissions from
producing fuels from the oil sands tend to be higher, on average, than conventional crude oil.
Additionally, more CO is released from bitumen per megajoule of energy produced because they are
heavier hydrocarbons. For example, fuels produced from a typical oil field such as the North Sea of
Europe will range somewhere in the high 80s to mid 90s [CO /MJ]. The oil sands are going to be
typically somewhere in the range of 105 to 115. 15-20% may not sound like a lot, but, for instance, if
you are in California and you need a 10% reduction over the next 10 years in fuel carbon intensity, a
20% increase makes a big difference.
2
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: It's better to buy oil from Canadian tar sands than Saudi oil fields.
One-liner: A carbon price will render some renewable technologies cheaper than coal or oil before it is
ever built, and the Keystone XL will create a total of 35 permanent jobs in the US without lowering
the price of gasoline.
1. Lisa Song. “Exclusive Interview: Why Tar Sands Oil Is More Polluting and Why It Matters” May 22, 2012. InsideClimate
News. Last accessed: 5-16-13. URL: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120522/adam-brandt-tar-oil-sands-canada-europelow-carbon-fuel-directive-greenhouse-gases
2. Gayathri Vaidyanathan. “EPA tells Enbridge to do more cleanup in Kalamazoo River“. March 15, 2013. Dirty Oil Sands.
Last accessed: 5-24-13. URL:
http://dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/epa_tells_enbridge_to_do_more_cleanup_in_kalamazoo_river
3. Elizabeth Shogren. “When This Oil Spills, It’s ‘A Whole New Monster’”. August 16, 2012. National Public Radio. Last
accessed: 5-24-13. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-newmonsterhttp://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120522/adam-brandt-tar-oil-sands-
canada-europe-low-carbon-fuel-directive-greenhouse-gases
15. Polling Data
Survey and focus group research points to majority support across the political and
ideological spectrum for a carbon tax with revenue returned to citizens. A survey conducted by the
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication in Fall, 2011, found that 65 percent of Americans
support a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would “help create jobs and decrease pollution,” including
majorities of registered Republicans (51%), Independents (69%), and Democrats (77%) [1]. Similarly,
the Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) conducted focus group research on the policy of “a rising fee
on ‘carbon pollution’ with the money collected returned to citizens.” They found that every group
from the Tea Party to environmental voters was very similar in their strong support [2].
In a more recent national survey of adults who identified as a Republican or a RepublicanLeaning Independent, respondents said America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use by a
margin of 2 to 1. Likewise, only one third of respondents agreed with the Republican Party’s position
on climate change, while about half agree with the party’s position on how to meet America’s energy
needs. A large majority of respondents say their elected representatives are unresponsive to their
views about climate change [3].
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Americans aren't concerned with the climate.
One-liner: Most Americans are concerned with the climate, and a large majority (87%) say developing
sources of clean energy should be a US priority.
1. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2011) Politics & Global
Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party. Yale University and George Mason
University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf
2. Bob Epstein. “Energy Policy and The Presidential Elections – and What It Might Mean For The Next Congress”. April 30,
2012. National Resources Defense Council Action Fund. URL for pdf download: http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Energy-Policy-and-The-Presidential-Elections.pdf
3. Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, Emily Vraga, Brittany Bloodhart, Ashley Anderson, Neil Stenhouse and Anthony
Leiserowitz. “A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change”. Apr.
2, 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
URL: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/republican-views-on-climate-change/
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/republican-views-onclimate-change/
16. Government Spending on Disaster Relief
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports the number of severe
weather events that inflict at least $1 billion in damage (adjusted for inflation) has risen from an
average of two per year in the 1980s to more than ten per year since 2010 [1]. Some of these events
cost substantially more than $1 billion, as extreme weather events now cost the United States more
than $80 billion per year, on average [2]. This is money that is not going to deficit reduction, is not
going to supporting our troops abroad, is not going to programs that support the neediest in our
society. A 2010 study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that 30 percent of
small businesses fail to reopen following an official declaration of disaster or emergency [2].
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: We can't afford to switch to address climate change.
One-liner: With an average of 10 $1 billion-dollar catastrophes in the last three years relative to an average
of 2 in the 80's, we can't afford not to.
1. National Climatic Data Center. "Billion-Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters". National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Last accessed: 4-30-13. URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
2. Plumer, Brad. "The government is spending way more on disaster relief than anybody thought". The Washington Post.
4/29/13. Last accessed: 4/30/13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/29/the-government-isspending-way-more-on-disaster-relief-than-anybodythought/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_reached_81_p
ercent.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/new_orleans_reached_81_percen
t.html
17. British Columbia Carbon Tax
Five years ago, British Columbia implemented a carbon tax shift, and so far so good both for
the economy and environment [1].
For the environment, BC sales of fuels subject to the tax has dropped by 15.1% since 2008,
while the rest of Canada’s per capita sales have increased by 1.3% [2]. Per capita, British Columbians
emitted 9.9% fewer greenhouse gases in 2010 than when the tax started, compared with 5% fewer
emissions for the rest of Canada. For the economy, BC's GDP growth actually outpaced (by a little
bit) the rest of Canada's after the tax was imposed, which is in line with evidence from seven other
countries with similar policies that have had neutral or slightly positive effects on GDP [2].
So how does the BC tax shift work? The tax applies to almost all fossil combustion in the
province, or 77% of emissions, with the rate initially set at $10 per carbon ton. It rose by $5 per ton
per year until it reached $30 as of July 1 in 2012. This tax is completely revenue neutral with income
applied to personal income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, low-income tax credits and the Northern and
Rural Homeowner Benefit [1].
In terms of political will, public support for the carbon tax is on the rise. A recent poll shows
that 64% of British Columbians are in support of the policy. The same poll found the percentage of
British Columbians strongly opposing the taxes at an all time low of 17% [3].
BC and countries in Europe have demonstrated that there is no boogey man when it comes to
revenue-neutral carbon taxing. A credible mechanism to reduce emissions can help stimulate and
diversify the economy.
st
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: There are no examples of a carbon tax working.
One-liner: British Columbia, Canada has done it while reducing their fossil fuel emissions more and
growing more than the rest of Canada.
1. “Carbon Tax Act.” 2008 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 38th Parliament. Text of legislation passed available at:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/3rd_read/gov37-3.htm
2. “Where Carbon is Taxed”. The Carbon Tax Center. Last updated: Jan 15, 2013. Last accessed: 5-1-13. URL:
http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/
3. Lake, Terry. “Comment: Support for B.C.'s carbon tax continues to grow”. Dec 20, 2012. Times Colonist. Last accessed: 51-13. URL: http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-support-for-b-c-s-carbon-tax-continues-to-grow-1.31746
18. China 1: Does it Matter What We Do?
We should not have any illusions about China’s energy use. This one country with 1.3 billion
people (to our 0.3 billion) [1] accounts for almost half of the world’s coal consumption (and growing
fast) [2], yet is suffering horrible environmental impacts because of it [3, 4, 5]. At the same time,
China is also investing heavily in renewables. Last year they invested $65 billion to our $35 billion
[6]. Today they produce more than half of all solar panels, and in 2012 installed more solar panels
than any country except Germany [7]. What’s more, they have debuted a regional cap and trade
program that they plan on linking with Australia [8, 9], and also plan to institute a carbon tax by 2015
or 2016 [10].
Because of all this investment in renewables, we risk losing out on jobs, profits, and
production of renewable energy hardware to China. Because of our underinvestment, ideas that are
born in the US become reality in China. The products of those realized ideas are then manufactured in
China and sold to the US, with the majority of jobs and profits staying in China, not in the US.
This is why we should do all that we can to move away from fossil fuels as fast as we can.
China’s all in, and our economy will suffer for it. Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Why should we move if
China isn't moving?
One-liner: China is moving, and is already selling their solar panels back to us.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: It doesn't matter what we're doing because China and India are burning so
much coal.
One-liner: They're also making huge investments in renewables, so if we don't move, we will
permanently miss the opportunity to establish the jobs, manufacturing, and intellectual communities
that come with being the world leader in an industry.
1. “List of Countries by Population”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
2. “China consumes nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined”. Jan 29, 2013. U.S. Energy Information
Association. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751&src=email
3. Will Oremus. “In China, the Pollution Is So Bad It Broke the Air-Quality Index”. Jan 14, 2013. Slate. Last accessed: 5-2213. URL:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/14/beijing_pollution_breaks_china_s_air_quality_index_why_china_needs_
a_war.html
4. “A Bay of Pigs Moment”. Mar 12, 2013. The Economist. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/03/water-pollution
5. “China wrestles with acid rain threat”. Aug. 27, 2012. United Press International. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/08/27/China-wrestles-with-acid-rain-threat/UPI-54191346094959/
6. Ramez Naam. “Seven Reasons Why China may be the World Leader in Fighting Climate Change”. May 8, 2013. Slate. Last
accessed: May 22, 2013. URL:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/05/china_cap_and_trade_carbon_tax_the_country_may_lead_the
_global_climate_change.html
7. James Montgomery. “100 GW of Solar PV Now Installed in the World Today”. Feb. 12, 2013. Renewable Energy World.
Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/100-gw-of-solar-pv-nowinstalled-in-the-world-today
8. Adam Dean. “China Carbon Debut Defies Carbon Doubters”. Oct 12, 2012. Bloomberg Business Week. Last accessed: 522-13. URL: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-11/china-carbon-debut-defies-emission-doubters-energy-markets
9. Brad Plumer. “Around the world, cap-and-trade is still alive and kicking”. June 5, 2012. The Washington Post. Last
accessed: 5-22-13. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/around-the-world-cap-and-trade-is-still-aliveand-kicking/2012/06/05/gJQACSKVGV_blog.html
10. Will Oremus. “Even China Will Have a Carbon Tax Before We Do”. Feb 26, 2013. Slate. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/26/carbon_tax_treasury_nominee_jack_lew_says_obama_won_t_propose_o
ne.html
19. China 2: Should We Do Something if China Isn’t?
Since when does the United States wait for anyone before innovating? We may have 23% of China’s
population [1], but we have 2x their GDP [2], and the average American still emits a lot more CO
than the average Chinese [3]. Let’s not forget that China has only been the world’s largest CO emitter
since 2007, when they passed us [4]. We’re still number 2 [5]. Waiting for China to lead is uncompetitive, defeatist, and not in the interests of our economy or our planet.
2
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Why should we move if China isn't moving?
One-liner: China is moving, and is already selling their solar panels back to us.
1. “List of countries by population”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
2. “List of countries by GDP (nominal)”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
3. “List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
4. John Vidal and David Adam. “China Overtakes US as World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter”. June 19, 2007. Last accessed: 5-2213. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
5. “List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions”. Wikipedia. Last accessed: 5-22-13. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
20. Interaction with State Programs
There are multiple options for reconciling a national carbon tax with existing state programs such as
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the California cap and trade system: 1.
Preemption. 2. Stacking. 3. Integration. In preemption, both RGGI and the CA program would cease
to function once the federal law took effect. In stacking, both state programs would continue to
function as is on top of the federal regulations. In integration the two programs would work together.
For instance, if the California price for carbon was lower than the federal level, emitters would pay the
federal level. If the price rose above the federal level, emitters would have to pay the higher price. The
point here is that there are multiple options for reconciling the state programs with the federal
program, and should not be a reason to hold up federal action.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: A carbon tax will be impossible to reconcile with existing state legislation
One-liner: There are multiple strategies for reconciling these programs including preemption, stacking, and
integration; we just have to chose one.
1. “What Would a Federal Carbon Tax Mean for California Cap-and-Trade?”. March 14, 2013. Four Twenty Seven Climate
Consulting. Last accessed: 5-20-13. URL: http://427mt.com/2013/03/what-would-a-federal-carbon-tax-mean-for-californiacap-and-trade/?utm_source=Event+%26+Announcements&utm_campaign=97d6ef7f72Monthly_Newsletter3_14_2013&utm_medium=email
21. EPA
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency charged with ensuring the purity of our
air and water, may be one of the most effective institutions in the history of our country. Consider
EPA action on acid rain using the Clean Air Act; which returned $40 in benefits for every $1 of
incurred costs [1]. Under the same law, the Supreme Court said the EPA has the authority to regulate
CO . If Congress does not want additional regulations, no matter how cost-effective they are, they
must pass a market-based price for carbon emissions.
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: The EPA regulates without regard to the costs.
One-liner: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations to combat acid rain returned $40 in value for every $1
in costs incurred.
1. “Highlights from the Clean Air Act 40th Anniversary Celebration”. Sep. 14, 2010. The US Environmental Protection
Agency. Last accessed: 5-19-13. URL: www.epa.gov/oar/caa/40th_highlights.html
22. Carbon Fee Today Will Keep the Doc Away
Burning fossil fuels is making us sick and costing us money. The burning of fossil fuels
contributes to four of the five leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease,
cancer, stroke, and lung diseases, while putting children at risk of asthma and delayed mental
development [1]. All these missed work days, hospital visits, and deaths not only cause suffering, but
they handicap our economy, increase insurance premiums, and contribute to an unsustainable growth
in health care costs that deepens deficits and prevents our society from spending the money we need to
on education and infrastructure.
Fossil fuels only seem cheap because we pay the price through poor health and higher
insurance premiums. Coal plants alone cause more than 13,000 deaths each year in the United States
[2]. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the burning of fossil fuels causes $120 billion
annually in mostly health-related damages [3].
The market price of fossil fuels does not reflect their true cost. Your electricity bill does not
reflect the cost of your asthmatic daughter’s visit to the emergency room. Your price at the pump does
not reflect the financial and emotional cost of your father’s heart attack. The CCL’s carbon fee and
dividend legislation would make fossil fuels’ market price reflect their true cost to society, thereby
correcting a huge market failure. This simple, transparent, revenue neutral step will help prevent your
father’s stroke or your child’s asthma attack, while saving money and slowing climate change.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Health effects of climate change are overblown.
One-liner: The burning of fossil fuels contributes to four of the five leading causes of death in the United
States and costs $120 billion annually in mostly health-related damages.
1. American Lung Association. State of the Air report 2011. http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-theair/state-of-the-air-2011-report.pdf
2. Clean Air Task Force. The Toll from Coal: An updated assessment of Death and Disease from America’s dirtiest energy
source. September 2010. Available at http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal
3. The National Academy of Sciences. The Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced consequences of energy production and use.
Available atwww8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=12794
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html
23. Nuclear
The CCL takes no position on nuclear, as there are good arguments on both sides. For
instance, Dr. James Hansen argues that nuclear must be in the mix to stabilize CO levels. Some
scientists say we know coal will kill us and that nuclear might and that’s a bet we have to take. By
contrast, Friends of the Earth “Green Scissors” report points out [1] that if nuclear were a viable
business model, why would it need the $77.3 billion dollars in federal subsidies it is expected to
receive over the next 10 years?
2
1. “Green Scissors: 2012”. June, 2012. Joint, consensus publication of Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense,
and R Street. URL: http://greenscissors.com/news/green-scissors-2012/
24. Should Biofuels be Subject to the Tax?
The carbon tax is best understood as a fossil carbon tax. Since the CO released from biofuels
was in the atmosphere recently, it is not fossil carbon. While there are unresolved land-use and
particulate issues with some biofuels, much of their carbon impact comes from fossil fuels burned in
production, and thus their prices will already be rising due to the carbon tax. So, to subject biofuels to
a carbon tax is to double-tax them. This is unfair, especially since from a pure climate change
perspective, biofuels are substantially better than coal, oil, or natural gas. Pricing fossil fuels already
puts carbon-intensive biofuels at a disadvantage. Issues with particulate emissions and land-use are
significant, and must be dealt with. If they remain unresolved, this will put biofuels at a disadvantage
to other technologies long-term, and the market or subsequent legislation/regulation will render them
uncompetitive. But on the point of carbon emissions, they hold a clear advantage over fossil fuels, and
so should not be subject to a carbon tax.
2
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Biofuels should be subject to the tax.
One-liner: The largest GHG contributions of biofuels are due to fossil fuels used in manufacturing them,
and so the worst offenders from a pure climate change perspective would already be covered, and should
not be double-taxed.
25. On Natural Gas as a “Transition Fuel”
Burning natural gas produces less CO than coal or oil for the same amount of energy
produced [1]. However, if only 3.2% of natural gas escapes into the atmosphere anywhere from the
2
ground where it is extracted to the power plant, stove, or home where it is burned, then natural gas is
just as bad for the climate as coal [2].
Recent studies suggest that more than 3.2% leaks, partly due to the 50-year old (on average)
long-distance pipeline infrastructure used to transport it [3]. If the leakage problem can be solved
natural gas could serve as a transition fuel while we convert to renewable energy.
Germany has shifted from getting 6% of its energy from renewables in 2000 to 25% today
[4]. On one day in April, 22.68 GW of its energy came from solar, equivalent to 8 Japanese nuclear
power plants running full tilt for 24 hours [5]. Germany shares a few degrees of latitude with Alaska,
and is further north than any other US state except the northernmost tip of Maine [6]. Portugal went
from 17% of its electricity from renewables in 2005 [7] to 70% averaged over the entire first quarter
of this year [8]. That's an increase of 53%.
Carbon Tax-Skeptic Claim: Natural gas is the transition fuel to a renewable economy.
One-liner: Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and because when unburned it is much more potent than CO2, if
even 3.2% leaks it heats the planet as much as burning coal.
1. US Energy Information Administration. “Frequently Asked Questions”. US EIA. Last updated: March 4, 2013. Last
accessed: 5-16-13. URL: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11
2. Ramón A. Alvareza,1, Stephen W. Pacalab,1, James J. Winebrakec, William L. Chameidesd, and Steven P. Hamburg.
“Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure”. 2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 109 (17). pps 6435-6440.
3. Robert W. Howarth & Renee Santoro & Anthony Ingraffea. “Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development:
response to Cathles et al.”. 2012. Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. URL for pdf download:
https://www.google.com/urlq=http://my-pages.net/alerteschiste/fichiers/Howarth-venting-and-leakingof-methane-from-shalegas-development.pdf&sa=U&ei=2SOZUZmLMvO24APcxICIAQ&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-udscse&usg=AFQjCNGAdwy2F4y8o19sDuA-bpq96B8WuQ
4. Tara Lohan. “While Germany Is Headed for 80% Renewable Energy, We're Getting Left in the Dust”. Nov. 21, 2012.
AlterNet.org. Last accessed: 5-19-13. URL: http://www.alternet.org/environment/while-germany-headed-80-renewableenergy-were-getting-left-dust
5. Thomas. “Solar Power Record In Germany — 22.68 GW — Infographic”. April 16, 2013. Clean Technica. Last accessed:
5-19-13. URL: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/solar-power-record-in-germany-22-68-gw-infographic/
6. Google Earth.
7. Elisabeth Rosenthal. “Portugal gives itself a clean-energy makeover.” August 9, 2010. The New York Times. Last accessed:
5-19-13. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html?_r=0
8. Ryan Koronowski. “Is 70 Percent Renewable Power Possible? Portugal Just Did It For 3 Months”. April 14, 2013. Think
Progress. Last accessed: 5-19-13. URL: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/14/1858811/is-70-renewable-powerpossible-portugal-just-did-it-for-3-months/?mobile=nc
26. Export Clause and Fee-and-Dividend
There are two ways to put a price on carbon. An “upstream” fee is levied on the fossil fuel
when it is extracted from the ground. A “downstream” fee is levied when the fossil fuel is emitted into
the atmosphere. Carbon fee-and-dividend is an upstream fee, and one advantage of an upstream fee is
that it allows for the pricing of fossil fuels that are extracted in the United States but exported and
burned in other countries. A downstream fee could not constitutionally be placed on fossil fuels
extracted in the U.S., exported, and then burned in other countries.
The Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9) prohibits the U.S. government
from taxing “goods in export transit” (U.S. v. IBM) but, as presently understood by the Supreme
Court, the Export Clause does not prohibit the taxation of goods before they enter into export transit
(even if they are eventually exported).
An upstream fee on fossil fuels occurs before the fossil fuel enters into export transit. In
contrast, a downstream fee could be levied on fossil fuels burned in the U.S., but not on fossil fuels
extracted in the U.S. but exported to and burned in other countries. The Export Clause would prohibit
this because it would be a tax on goods in export transit.
The United States exported 125 million short tons of coal to other countries in 2012 [1].
Because of fracking, the U.S. could become an exporter of natural gas. An upstream fee on fossil fuels
is more effective than a downstream fee because it prices these exported fossil fuels where a
downstream fee does not.
1. “Quarterly Coal Report (4Q 2012)”. March 29, 2013. US Energy Information Administration. Table 7. URL for pdf
download: http://www.eia.gov/coal/data.cfm#imports
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/14/1858811/is-70-renewable-powerpossible-portugal-just-did-it-for-3-months/?mobile=nc
27. The Recent CBO report
CCL has great respect for the CBO as a non-partisan institution doing intellectually rigorous
work. Their recent report [1] said that a carbon tax would cause a drag on the economy. This is
unsurprising. They also pointed out that the ultimate effect on the economy is dependant on what is
done with the proceeds of the tax. They write that certain uses of the revenues can not only eliminate
the negative effects on the economy, but may actually increase economic output (p. 11). They did not
consider the revenue return proposed by the CCL in detail.
1. “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment”. May 2013. The Congressional Budget Office. Pub. No.
4532. URL: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223
28. The Increase in the Social Cost of Carbon
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is important because it is used in the cost/benefit analysis for
setting regulations. So, the recent ~60% increase in the social cost of carbon [1, 2] will mean that
some EPA regulations will have more benefits than costs, and are thus more likely to be implemented,
helping to reduce US emissions of greenhouse gases. While important for the calculus of regulations,
this change does not have much impact on our thinking for what price a carbon tax should be set at.
1. David Roberts. “The Obama climate move that nobody noticed”. June 5, 2013. Grist.com. Last accessed: 6-15-13. URL:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223
2. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866”. May 2013.
URL for PDF download:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/14/1858811/is-70-renewable-powerpossible-portugal-just-did-it-for-3-months/?mobile=nc
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html