Download talking points - Citizens` Climate Lobby

2012 Lobby Prep Night: Laser Talk
We can convert the entire world’s energy system to renewables within 20 years
Mark Jacobson, Stanford University, and Mark Delucci, UC Davis, wrote 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 renewables in 20 years, we can do it without nuclear, and we can
do it for the same amount that we'd be spending on fossil fuel power anyway.
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 to scrutiny from fellow experts before it is ever published.
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 everyday lives. An individual scientist, on the other hand, might say things that are
inconsistent with the scientific consensus. Fred Singer, who is a physicist, clearly knows more about
science than I ever will. However, in addition to testifying before Congress that CO2 emissions were not
a primary cause of global warming, he has also testified that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer.
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.
Jobs
There are 84,000 coal-mining jobs in the United States. If you add in transportation and related jobs
there are a total of 182,000 people employed by the coal industry. The Department of Energy predicts
that by 2030 there will be over half a million wind jobs alone. The overall job story is that renewable
energy will provide more, higher paying, and longer lasting jobs.
Border Tax Adjustment
In order for a fee on carbon to work domestically and on an International scale, an effective border tax
adjustment will be necessary. In international legal circles, Joost Pauwelyn is considered the world’s top
World Trade Organization (WTO) expert. From Geneva, Mr. Pauwelyn assured us that a border tax
adjustment is viable. This spring, he assigned a group of graduate students the task of researching how
international carbon pricing mechanisms could be harmonized with a domestic fee on carbon while
complying with WTO law. While it will probably be more complicated than we would like, it is our belief
that a border tax adjustment will pass WTO scrutiny.
Why do we want 100% revenue neutrality?
1. 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.
2. Members of Congress who signed Grover Norquist tax pledges can honor their pledge and still vote
the right way.
3. If while steadily raising the price of carbon based fuels we eliminate all energy subsidies we allow
the market to go to work without the government picking winners and losers. Venture capitalists, banks,
and entrepreneurs seeing a predictable price signal will create breakthroughs in innovation that in some
cases are even unimaginable at this point. A carbon fee is the most efficient and direct way to send a
meaningful price signal to the markets, better than subsidies, but also better than alternatives such as
government regulations or cap and trade.
4. Asking citizens to voluntarily curtail their use of fossil fuels when others may not choose to do so
can be demoralizing and ineffective. To maintain public support at the price we will ultimately need to
get CO2emissions to, citizens will need to receive a significant dividend.
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 healthcare
expenses. These costs are expected to rise dramatically. Economists from both sides of the political
spectrum, including Mitt Romney advisor Greg Mankiw, 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, incent 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.
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 and which enables businesses
and consumers to plan their energy investments. Economists like Greg Mankiw, Art Laffer and Robert
Reich overwhelmingly agree that a fee is the optimal way to reduce carbon emissions. By contrast, the
current European Union cap-and-trade system places a price on permits so low that it has no impact on
emissions. Undoubtedly, the biggest problem is offsets, which are easy to manipulate and extremely
difficult to measure and verify. Trying to make compliance inexpensive via offsets is the antithesis of
what needs to happen. 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 1990, which is now 100 Euros per ton, a pretty
hefty price. Since that time they have had a 7% reduction in emissions while GDP has risen 36%,
demonstrating that a substantial fee is effective in reducing emissions without harming the economy.
Offsets
In general, offsets credits are given to worthwhile activities -- tree planting, methane captures at farms,
and protection of the rainforest. However, the emission 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. 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. Offset projects employ inspectors to verify that a project works. But since the people
who purchase the offsets pay these verifiers, it is hard to believe that they would act against the
interests of their clients. Serious scientists and economists often state the fastest way to solve this
problem is to make CO2 emission more expensive. Offsets cost less than carbon permits; 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.
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 all 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, Protestants,
Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists as well as many indigenous peoples such as the Hopi Indians.
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.”
The Hindus: This is a matter of survival. “We cannot continue to destroy nature without also destroying
ourselves.”
The Tibetan Buddhists leader, the Dalai Lama: It is “urgent to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to
350 ppm.” We should put all political concerns aside until we have done this.
Unlike members of Congress, these faith leaders don’t have to get re-elected this year. They can help us
to powerfully support legislation to curb carbon-dioxide emissions.
Frequency and severity of weather related events
In 1981, Dr. James Hansen published a paper in Scientific American that warming over the past century
had been consistent with the effects of anthropogenic CO2 release. He also predicted that the signal
would rise above the noise by the end of the century, which happened. The last sentence 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.”
Sound familiar?
Subsidies
We support the elimination of all energy subsidies once we have begun to correct the underpricing of
fossil based fuels.
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%). At the same time, 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. E2 reported, “generally speaking, climate
change was not brought up and in fact was viewed with skepticism by many of the participants who
supported the pollution fee policy.” The main reasons given by participants for their support were:
•
They believe we have a real energy problem that has been discussed but ignored by politicians
since the 1970s.
•
They mistrust and dislike big energy companies and believe they have enormous power and
control over policymaking in Congress.
•
They feel it is fair for energy companies to pay a fee for their pollution that would give them an
economic reason to invest in less polluting energy sources, even if it means higher prices for consumers.
•
They believe that Congress should not be allowed to spend the money.
E2 also reported: “The summary is that voters are looking for leadership on energy policy.”
BC Carbon Tax
Four years ago, British Columbia implemented a carbon tax shift, and so far so good both for the
economy and environment.
According to the evidence, BC sales of fuels subject to the tax have been dropping – in fact, the average
consumption of them has dropped by 15% since 2008, while the rest of Canada’s per capita sales have
increased by 1.3%. The good news is that over the same period, economic growth per capita has been
consistent with growth in the rest of Canada. The latest data suggests there has not been any negative
impact on GDP since the tax shift was introduced in 2008, which is in line with evidence from other
countries that have brought in similar policies.
Companies, organizations and individuals have been spurred on by the policy to invest in renewable
energy and energy efficiency, which is helping to make BC’s economic growth less dependent on fossil
fuel use.
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 1st this year. 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.
In terms of political will, public support for the carbon tax is on the rise. A recent poll shows that 57% 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 23%, compared to a peak of 38% in July
2008.
BC and countries in Europe have demonstrated that there is no boogey man when it comes to revenueneutral carbon taxing. A credible mechanism to reduce emissions can help stimulate and diversify the
economy.
Here is an example of Elli’s story of why this issue is important to her. Please develop your own personal
version in advance of the conference.
Elli’s Story
Hello congressman. I’m going to introduce our team. My name is Elli Sparks. I live in Richmond,
Virginia. This is Danny Richter. He is an oceanographer from San Diego. Sitting next to Danny is Ellie
Whitney, a molecular biologist from NJ. And this is Joe Robertson, who is an English professor at
Villanova in Philadelphia.
People ask us why we are visiting members of Congress this week. On one level we are here to explore
the intersection of energy production, economic prosperity, and environmental protection. On another
level, we are here for very personal reasons. I am going to tell you mine.
My grandfather was alive when I was growing up in Baltimore. I loved him. He was such a lovely person:
strong in his faith, handsome and kind, and a wonderful storyteller. I would sit on his lap, enveloped in
his strong arms as he described his childhood in the hills of Kentucky. He talked about the watermelons
growing in his neighbor’s garden, the pawpaw trees down by the creek, and his mother -- a midwife who
was part Cherokee.
You could tell my grandpa had Indian blood just by looking at him. He had high cheekbones, dark hair,
and dark eyes. Because of my love for him, I probably read more about Native Americans than most
Baltimore girls.
I learned how Native Americans lived in relationship with the earth, respecting the Earth’s limits and
finding gratitude in the abundance.
When I was a teenager, my cousins moved to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Lancaster is only an hour or so
from Baltimore so we would visit them once a month. It was on those visits that I discovered the Amish
-- big extended families, farming with horses, feeding themselves with food they grew from their land.
Their way of life seemed ideal to me.
In high school, I remember learning about our seemingly inextricable problems with pollution. I
remember thinking to myself about the Indians and the Amish. It dawned on me that people could live
in the world without making problems for ourselves with pollution. The Indians did a long time ago.
The Amish do today.
At that point, I decided I was going to be a small farmer, taking up farming with draft horses like the
Amish.
Life took a different turn and I wound up with a degree in fine arts and a husband in Richmond. We
started our family, and life with young children took precedence over my dreams of solving the world’s
pollution problems through my lifestyle choices.
Once my children hit elementary and middle school, I decided to check back in on the environment, and
our collective relationship with it. I picked up a book in the library about climate change and global
warming. What I read made me weep.
Scientists came to Congress in the late 70’s and early 80’s, with grim predictions about a warming
planet. I was the same age then as my daughter is now. The 1970’s oil crisis had hit as well.
Three decades later, those predictions have all come true, quicker than scientists originally estimated
and with an alarming and dangerous acceleration.
I have to tell you, my first thought was surprise. “Goodness,” I thought to myself, “I set this problem
down for a decade or so and look what has happened to the world!”
Now, I know saving the world from pollution isn’t all up to me. I was simply stunned. Stunned and
deeply saddened.
Personal change is important. I’ve got friends who farm sustainably. Others who ride their bikes
everywhere they go. I shop at the farmers market and turn off my lights when I’m not in the room.
However, none of these steps will make a difference unless the big players step up to the plate.
And, that’s why we’re here, Mr. Congressman.
All of the likely climate heroes have started working on the problem. We need the unlikely climate
heroes to emerge and lead.

We need congressmen and women with strong ties to coal, oil, and natural gas.

We need politicians connected to the building industry, transportation, manufacturing, and
electricity.

We need statesmen respected by peers in their party.
We need them to lead on this most challenging of issues.
We think you, Mr. Congressman, can become our climate hero.
References
Reuters report on “Planet Under Pressure” conference, March, 2012
Global warming close to becoming irreversible – this decade critical
International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2011
Need to start reducing emissions within 5 years. A couple of paragraphs on 4th page (p.2) of the
executive summary describe their analysis.
Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene - climate change report from the Vatican
An appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce
the causes and impacts of climate change
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
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%).
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) focus group research
Every group from Tea Party to environmental voter was very similar in their strong support for “a rising
fee on ‘carbon pollution’ with the money collected returned to citizens.” (“Fee on Carbon Pollution,” pp.
5-6)
The Case for a Carbon Tax: Getting Past Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policy
Shi-Ling Hsu, PhD. Island Press, 2011. 248pp.
Op-Ed Contributors | Transitions: An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To
Bob Inglis and Arthur B. Laffer: We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide)
and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs).
Job creation: Citizens Climate Lobby's report Building a Green Economy - clean energy/efficiency
businesses produce several times the number of jobs as the same investment in fossil fuel industries;
regional disparities due to carbon tax are minimal
Job creation: Brookings study Sizing the Clean Economy - potential for explosive job growth in clean tech
businesses (6th paragraph)
Statement by Lily Donge of Calvert Investments to Steve Valk, Citizens Climate Lobby communications
director: "The S&P 500 is sitting on $1.18 trillion in cash. If there's a price signal on carbon that
unleashes even 10 percent of that, that would be more than $100 billion in new investment channeled
toward clean energy."
Dr. Mark Jacobson, Stanford - World can be powered by 100% alternative energy in 20-40 years
Scientific American 3-part series on extreme weather and climate change.
Part 1: "Storm Warnings: Extreme weather is a product of climate change."
Part 2: "Global warming and the science of extreme weather"
Part 3: "Our extreme future: Predicting and coping with the effects of a changing climate."
Dr. Max Moritz, UC Berkeley - Global warming means more wildfire for California and the West