* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download talking points - Citizens` Climate Lobby
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management 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
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
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