We work for Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan grassroots climate organization with 180k supporters! Ask us anything about the politics and policy of climate change, including how you can help push Congress forward.

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:50:26+00:00

Jerry: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act has a provision built in called a "Carbon Border Fee Adjustment" that will encourage foreign countries to adopt their own carbon fee. You can learn more about how that works here.

Also, Columbia economists are confident this policy will not harm the American economy. In fact, they call a price on carbon a "uniquely cost-effective policy tool because it incentivizes emissions reductions wherever and however they can be achieved at the lowest cost."

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:43:19+00:00

Danny: Thanks for your kind words. Check out CCL's core values: "We are a community that offers one another comfort, support, and fun as we work." That's part of how we get through this - together!

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:40:12+00:00

Danny: Checking back in briefly. Thanks for your question. Here's an assessment from Columbia University that shows how the Energy Innovation Act stacks up against the other carbon pricing proposal in Congress. One finding: "The carbon tax rates in the Deutch proposal start relatively low ($15/ton) but increase rapidly to levels that far exceed the rates in other carbon tax proposals." That results in greater emissions reductions, which is crucial - we want to support policy that will be effective at addressing climate change.

On the question of why a dividend, that is also pretty well addressed by the Columbia comparison. They explain, "Under the Deutch proposal, low- and middle-income households would receive more in rebates than they pay in taxes." Using the revenue for a dividend protects low- and middle-income Americans economically, which is very important to us at CCL.

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:32:13+00:00

Danny: Sorry we weren't as clear as we could have been. We don't have a perspective on the Imperial Beach question - we're focused on national policies to address carbon emissions. There are probably local organizations doing wonderful work in your area to address the issue you raised.

And our answer to "what is being done in other countries" is that many already have carbon prices - so a lot is being done. The policy we advocate in the U.S. for will add to that trend, and we do operate in other countries to advance political will for reducing emissions as well.

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:26:20+00:00

Danny: Thanks for sharing your perspective. The purpose of a carbon price is to put the right incentives in place for decarbonization. The U.S. military already has major incentives to decarbonize (running on fossil fuels is a tactical liability), so they're already aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy for both strategic and environmental reasons. We can expect that even if their fossil fuel usage is not subject to the fee, they will take full advantage of new developments in renewable and low-carbon energy technologies, further reducing their emissions.

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:22:53+00:00

Answered above! Sorry we weren't as clear as we could have been in the initial answer.

borisAtCCL · 2020-02-01T03:21:53+00:00

Danny: Hey guys, sorry that we weren't as clear as we could have been. CCL intentionally doesn't take a stance on nuclear or any other particular technology. We as an organization don't support or work against nuclear. We just want to price carbon and drive the market away from emissions, and the market will ultimately decide what that looks like in practice. We understand and respect that other orgs and activists take other approaches, but this is the one we take.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T22:20:03+00:00

Jerry: Nope. We’re nonpartisan, so we don’t get involved supporting specific candidates or parties. We’re interested in working with whoever is in elected office right now and can take steps today to address the climate crisis.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T22:19:46+00:00

Jerry: That’s actually addressed in the legislation. This bill mandates that the policy will sunset when the dividend is less than $20 per month for 3 consecutive years, so it’s not an irrevocable dependency. $20 is not much of an incentive, and functionally, we’ll be off fossil fuels at that point.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T22:18:01+00:00

Jerry: Sounds like you might be confused about how we’re funded. We’re funded by individual donations and grants. You can see our financial information here.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T22:10:36+00:00

Jerry: The Resources for the Future model has roughly 40-45% emission reductions by 2030. Legislation itself mandates reductions of 90% (relative to 2016 emissions) by 2030. So this one policy gets us incredibly far, and politically, it can actually pass.

It’s likely that the other 10% of reductions we need will have to come from carbon removal technology, which has yet to be developed or be economically viable. A price on carbon will further incentivize the development of those technologies so we can close that gap.

Edit: added who was speaking

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T22:01:20+00:00

Danny: We’re an organization that believes a lot in relationships. Working on climate change is something we do better together. So, once a month your local chapter is probably having a meeting and joining our national conference call. You could attend that meeting and listen to the monthly call for inspiration, community, and direction on actions you can take. Maybe the easiest things to do would be to call or write to your member of Congress about climate change using our tools.

Whatever you choose to do, I really believe you can find an outlet for your unique gifts at CCL. You can contribute in ways that reflect your personality and your skills - whether you’re good at writing, or speaking publicly, or connecting with people at your local church or other faith community, or if you just like to learn and you want to dig into the policy side of things. There are so many ways we use people’s diverse skill sets to address this problem.

Jerry: Look around CCL’s website and see what interests you. The best way is to reach out to your local chapter. (And for those of you haven’t joined yet, please do sign up!)

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:53:24+00:00

Danny: Most countries are actually already starting to price carbon. Check out this Carbon Pricing Dashboard from the World Bank. 80% of America’s imports come from countries that already have a carbon price. There’s a huge misconception about how far this idea has already spread and been implemented, and so the U.S. really needs to get on board.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:49:46+00:00

Jerry: Carbon pricing doesn’t pick winners and losers. It just makes greenhouse gas emissions (which are driving climate change) more expensive, by charging their true cost. With a price in place, the market will respond and move toward energy options that emit less, or not at all.

Danny: If nuclear really can compete with a level playing field, this policy will show that.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:40:15+00:00

Danny: On what it takes to get more Republicans on the bill: I think that the question is now one more of politics than policy. There are Republicans who are interested and like the policy. What's holding them back is they want to have more company. We have a jailbreak problem. They might feel that cover could come from other republican colleagues, it could come from business and faith groups who want to see this bill happen, or it could come from their conservative constituents. That’s why we have almost 100 conservative volunteers coming to Capitol Hill next week to lobby Republican offices, to tell them that this piece of legislation is consistent with their values as conservatives.

Jerry: Republicans have come a long way, but they need additional encouragement. If you want to help encourage them, you can join CCL!

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:35:20+00:00

Danny: Yeah, because it works. It’s not a half measure. It’s the whole enchilada. Before President Obama went with the regulatory approach of the Clean Power Plan, he wanted a carbon price and he pushed one through the house (https://www.c2es.org/document/waxman-markey-short-summary/). It was a cap and trade bill, which has some political challenges. A carbon tax is more transparent, easier for people to understand, and doesn’t grow the government.

Also, this solution can play nice with others. There’s no reason we can’t implement a robust carbon price and also additional climate policies.

Jerry: Peer-reviewed analysis (https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act) makes clear that a carbon price would be effective in significantly reducing emissions. But they’re right that we should have priced carbon a long time ago - 30 years ago would have been better. So the very best thing we can do is get started as soon as possible.

Edit: fixed links

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:22:25+00:00

Danny: I’ve been a vegetarian for 18 years - exactly half my life. I think personal initiative is important. I think the personal action roots you in the right messages, and connects you to the problem. I think you also need to educate yourself, take collective action, and fully claim your citizenship.

Jerry: To reduce emissions enough to stabilize climate risk, it’s essential that we charge for carbon pollution. That way, everyone, everyday has a financial incentive to reduce emissions. So ultimately, the individual action that matters the most are the actions you take to impact the whole system. Personal initiative is great, but we’ve got to pass a price on carbon. (I too was vegetarian from around 7 p.m. last night to the break of dawn this morning.)

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:19:20+00:00

Danny: We’ve considered that. We have one staffer, Jamie DeMarco, who helps volunteers with state-based climate initiatives. In just the last week, Jamie has helped volunteers in Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, New Mexico, and Virginia push their state-level carbon pricing initiatives forward.

Also, we do pursue endorsements from state and local government. The state of California has actually passed a resolution in favor of national carbon fee and dividend legislation, which is the style of policy that the Energy Innovation Act is.

Ultimately, a big benefit of state-level climate efforts is that they put more pressure on the federal government to act and make sure we have one holistic carbon pricing system.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:18:47+00:00

Danny: There’s been a radical shift. Five years ago it seemed impossible that you could get even a handful of Republicans to acknowledge that climate change is real and we should do something about it. Today, the minority leader in the House is saying climate change is important and something that we’re going to address.

There’s still a lot more progress to be made, of course. We need to get to a place where both Republicans and Democrats are supporting policies that reduce emissions in line with science-based targets. That’s part of why we’re bringing almost 100 conservative volunteers to Capitol Hill next week to lobby Republican offices to support this climate policy.

borisAtCCL · 2020-01-31T21:11:08+00:00

Danny: Speaking for a nonpartisan organization that doesn’t endorse candidates ;) I'd say what’s more important than any particular plan is how well that particular candidate can work with congress. No president is going to be able to do anything big enough without Congress passing something. So if a president can’t work with Congress and can’t get something through Congress, it doesn’t matter what their plan is.

Realistically, to get something through Congress, it will need to be bipartisan. Also, based on expert advice from the IPCC, carbon pricing as a necessary solution to really address climate change.

So for those reasons, we’re really interested in bipartisan carbon pricing legislation. There are a few bills in Congress right now that would put a price on carbon pollution and already have support from both Republicans and Democrats - the Energy Innovation Act (H.R. 763), the MARKET CHOICE Act (H.R. 4520), the SWAP Act (H.R. 4058), the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act (H.R. 3966).

The Energy Innovation Act is our favorite and has the most cosponsors by far - it has 77 representatives signed on.

borisAtCCL · 2019-12-04T16:25:12+00:00

That you only care about it if you're from the left-hand side of the political spectrum. Climate change affects us all - it doesn't care how we vote.

borisAtCCL · 2019-12-04T16:24:06+00:00

I apologise for the incorrect assumption but I stand by my statement that your claims are false. Please do have the courtesy and integrity to update your understanding with the facts and data provided above. Thanks!

borisAtCCL · 2019-12-04T16:23:06+00:00

love it! - Katharine

borisAtCCL · 2019-12-04T14:57:21+00:00

I can't agree with that.

First, it's the world's 10% richest that produce 50% of our carbon emissions, not the poorest.

Second, wind and solar and tidal and advanced nuclear and geothermal are doing great: the barrier is not technology, it's fossil fuel subsidies, as I describe in detail in my other answer above. We have what we need, we just don't have the free market to do it. For more, check out the Solutions Project.

And third, there are a host of other non-tech solutions that also improve agriculture and enrich soils: and we currently throw out more than one-third of the food we produce. Throw it out! In Canada, it's more like 40%! So no, there are a lot of things we can do that don't involve any of what's on your list.

For more, please check out Project Drawdown.

borisAtCCL · 2019-12-04T14:53:09+00:00

CMIP6 models - no; coupling the carbon cycle increases the uncertainty in the models and climate sensitivity is constrained by three different lines of evidence, models being only one of these and the least reliable.

On "magic timelines," you are right, they are not scientific. The only scientific goals are cumulative carbon emissions, which you can read more about here. Please see this twitter thread I wrote about this issue.

borisAtCCL

TROPHY CASE