Joe Romm: Yes, the Pope supports a carbon price. Economists just ‘misinterpreted the Encyclical’

by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, October 7, 2015

The Pope’s climate encyclical does not oppose carbon pricing. Quite the reverse, as we will see.

Leading climate economists who support putting a price on carbon, including William Nordhaus and Robert Stavins, have criticized the Pope for supposedly opposing or ignoring carbon taxes and/or carbon pricing.

I have long thought that some people were misreading and overemphasizing one paragraph in the encyclical at the expense of others that are clearly supportive of carbon pricing. This week I was able to get some insight from economist and longtime Vatican observer, Anthony Annett, a 15-year veteran of the International Monetary Fund who is a climate change and sustainable development advisor at Columbia’s Earth Institute and Religions for Peace.

Annett worked with the Vatican in the run-up to the encyclical. In April, he helped organize a Vatican event on climate change co-sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And he co-authored detailed remarks on business and market insights and implications of the Encyclical delivered at the Vatican press conference for the encyclical, named Laudato Si’.

“My view is that Nordhaus misinterpreted the encyclical,” Annett told me. “First, the Pope is criticizing the potential abuse of carbon credits, not ruling them out completely. Second, the Pope says nothing explicitly about carbon taxes. And later on he says that business must bear the full social cost of its activity — which really implies putting a price on carbon.”

Before focusing on the source of the misinterpretation, let me first underscore the central point that Pope Francis implicitly — indeed, it’s almost explicit — calls for pricing carbon. Paragraph 167 of the encyclical explains that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio echoes the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and “enshrined international cooperation to care for the ecosystem of the entire earth, the obligation of those who cause pollution to assume its costs, and the duty to assess the environmental impact of given projects and works.”

Polluters pay. They are obligated to assume the costs of polluting. To ensure there is no ambiguity about what he is saying, the pope repeats and expands the message a little later.

“As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment,” explains the Pope in paragraph 195. He is explicitly critiquing the way businesses are driven to pursue “maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations.” The Pope immediately continues, “as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution.”

The Pope then directly spells out a fairly explicit call for putting a price on carbon equal to its “social costs”:

In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. Yet only when “the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations,” can those actions be considered ethical.

In short, ethics requires the full social costs of actions that destroy a livable climate must be made clear to all and “fully borne by those who incur them.” Again, that seems like a fairly unambiguous endorsement for carbon pricing and for establishing a social cost of carbon. The Pope is quoting his predecessor, Benedict, from a 2009 Encyclical Letter, which underscores the fact that this is not a new (or controversial) position from the Vatican.

A man looks at a copy of Pope Francis’ encyclical on sale at the Vatican bookshop, in Rome, Thursday, June 18, 2015. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/ANDREW MEDICHINI

Despite the Pope’s straightforward statements in support of carbon pricing, Yale climate economist William Nordhaus just wrote an entire essay called “The Pope & the Market” in the October 8 issue of The New York Review of Books. He focused on this theme: “My major point is that the encyclical overlooks the central part that markets, particularly market-based environmental policies such as carbon pricing, must play if countries are to make substantial progress in slowing global warming.”

Similarly, Robert Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, told the New York Times in June, “I respect what the Pope says about the need for action, but this is out of step with the thinking and the work of informed policy analysts around the world, who recognize that we can do more, faster, and better with the use of market-based policy instruments — carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade systems.” On Monday, Stavins offered a lengthy defense of his position on his blog.

So what is the source of this confusion?

It is almost entirely due to paragraph 171 — set between the two endorsements of carbon pricing cited above. It states in full:

The strategy of buying and selling “carbon credits” can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.

Stavins writes, “In surprisingly specific and unambiguous language, the encyclical rejects outright ‘carbon credits’ as part of a solution to the problem.” Stavins is correct that the encyclical is specific. But the term “carbon credits” — “crediti di emissione” in the Italian version — is actually quite ambiguous.

When I read it, I thought it was quite unclear exactly what the encyclical was attacking, which is why I have been trying to get some clarification.

Indeed, Stavins himself notes in his next paragraph:

If the references to “carbon credits” were intended to refer only to offset systems (such as the Clean Development Mechanism [CDM]) and not to cap-and-trade systems, then I would be much less concerned about the Pope’s complaints. However, the encyclical does not make the distinction. Indeed, I doubt that the authors of the encyclical recognize the difference, and unfortunately, readers of the encyclical will likewise lump together all carbon markets, which is what some policy makers also do, unfortunately.

Carbon credits often refer to offsets in both English and Italian. Offsets are quite problematic, since they involve letting people sell credits for emission reduction projects that might have occurred anyway. That’s why I have written so many posts critical of domestic and international offsets (especially CDM) often using the term “rip-offsets. Even in 2015, we still see headlines exposing the abuse of CDM credits, such as “Russian industry paid to increase emissions under UN carbon credits scheme.”

Given how sophisticated and detailed the analysis is in the encyclical — and given the repeated embrace of the underlying principles of carbon pricing — I thought the authors probably meant to criticize offsets and dubious CDM projects. But the ambiguity of the “carbon credits” paragraph lent itself to misinterpretation. Without further clarification from the Vatican itself, I can understand why people took that paragraph as critical of carbon trading — although I still don’t understand how one can read the encyclical and think the Pope opposes carbon pricing. I’d urge the Vatican to issue a formal statement clarifying the matter as we head toward Paris, where a great many countries will be advocating carbon trading.

As for the encyclical’s broader critique of capitalism as it is currently practiced, it seems pretty clear that we have turned the global economy into a giant Ponzi scheme that betrays our children and is doomed to collapse. And that’s without even considering issues of income inequality.

Finally, we just learned that the new Chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the former Vice Chair, Korean economist Hoesung Lee. Lee explains in this video that if he had to choose the single most important policy for addressing climate change, it would be putting a price on carbon. A few have dissed him for such a view, but the fact is that we have ignored the call to action by the IPCC and others for so long, we’ve really limited the strategies available to us.

By any reasonable analysis, a serious and rising carbon price is the sine qua non for keeping total global warming below 2 °C and averting catastrophic climate change. The plausible alternatives are far less market-friendly strategies. That’s a key reason why so many countries and governments — from the EU to China to California — embrace carbon pricing. With the support of the Pope and other key international leaders, it seems likely this crucial policy will become even more widely used in the years ahead.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/07/3709329/pope-carbon-price-encyclical/

Mike Tidwell: U.S. climate push requires intense grassroots support around ‘cap-and-dividend’ bill

Harvard professor has it right: U.S. climate push requires intense grassroots support around ‘cap-and-dividend’ bill

by Mike Tidwell, Grist, February 1, 2013

In the past three weeks there’s been much debate in U.S.environmental circles over a provocative new paper [pdf] from Harvard University political scientist Theda Skocpol. In it, Skocpol gives the most compelling analysis yet of why the 2009 cap-and-trade bill to fight global warming went down in flames. In sum, Skocpol argues that intense and radical opposition from Tea Party Republicans proved much stronger than the environmentalists’ insider-game, partner-with-business, harness-polls-instead-of-the-grassroots approach.

My added value in commenting here is that I experienced the run-up to — and aftermath of — the failed Waxman-Markey bill from the field. I’ve been a grassroots climate organizer for 10 years, having founded the organization I still direct: the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. CCAN straddles much of the political landscape of America, organizing in the conservative “South” (Virginia) and the liberal “Northeast” (Maryland), while staying very involved in national climate initiatives in Washington, D.C., the geographic center of our region.

I saw from the church-basement view the rise of Tea Party opposition to Waxman-Markey and the insufficient grassroots organizing response from the major green groups. What efforts were made (Sierra Club stands out as well as the short-lived but respectable field effort of the group 1Sky) fell mostly on deaf ears since average people couldn’t comprehend the complexity of the cap-and-trade bill and could see no immediate and direct benefit in their lives.

Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm has joined many environmental heads in assigning cap-and-trade’s failure in large part to Obama’s lack of leadership for the bill. Plus the economy had tanked. These two factors are important, I agree, but they don’t get to the real heart of the problem.

Skocpol, on the other hand, from my field-based perspective, nails both the key problems and the solutions we need for moving forward. She is absolutely correct to call for a completely different legislative approach for the next big push on climate in Washington. She is correct in arguing that round two should be based on the policy of “cap-and-dividend” instead of cap-and-trade. David Roberts at Grist and others have applauded Skocpol’s criticism of the cap-and-trade campaign. But they are skeptical of her view that the best alternative is a policy that caps carbon emissions through permit auctions and then rebatesthe money directly to all U.S. citizens with a monthly check — cap-and-dividend.

Shutterstock

My organization took the cap-and-dividend concept for a test drive through the grassroots landscape of the liberal-conservative Chesapeake region. What did we discover? The dividend policy has widespread and intense support in the church basements and Rotary Clubs. Why? Because it’s nearly the opposite of cap-and-trade. It’s simple, easy to understand, clearly beneficial to most citizens, and obviously capable of de-carbonizing our economy with necessary speed and transparency.

The intensity gap

How do we deepen and expand our climate movement in preparation for round two? Skocpol points out that the cap-and-trade bill not only provoked opposition from Republicans but intense opposition from the vocal minority Tea Partiers. That kind of intensity from a few, as we’ve seen, can have an enormous, withering affect. The national enviros had no parallel response. They had lobbyists and pollsters and dedicated core staff, but no real ground game.

Yes, efforts were made. There were online petitions from the national groups and quick sign-on letters from health leaders, green business heads, etc. But it was mostly inch-deep and cookie-cutter. Deep, effective organizing takes years. It’s based on personal relationships that emerge through concrete action and trust over time. There’s no such thing as fly-by-night or parachute organizing.

So as the intense grassroots Tea Party backlash began, the major enviros had no meaningful grassroots response, much less an intenseresponse. Foundation money to major national environmental groups was absorbed mostly by core staff. There was no major green-group push for authentic, hard-won grassroots support in my states of Virginia and Maryland where several Senate and House swing votes existed. Indeed, many state-based grassroots groups like mine were explicitly excluded from support under several national funding initiatives whose goal on paper was to build support in the hinterlands.

Meanwhile, by early 2009, many regional and national leaders of the U.S. climate movement, mostly with outside-the-Beltway roots, could see the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade train wreck coming. These included Bill McKibben of 350.org, key leaders at the campus-focused Energy Action Coalition, Michael Noble of Fresh Energy in the upper Midwest, myself, and many more.

My objections to Waxman-Markey were both moral and practical. Morally, I was influenced by writer/entrepreneur Peter Barnes’ seminal book Who Owns the Sky? The Waxman-Markey bill treated polluting corporations and the government as if they were the rightful owners of the atmosphere. So carbon auction proceeds and privileges would flow mostly to businesses and federal programs. The ethics of that approach are questionable enough. But a bigger problem was the complete impracticality of it all. There just wasn’t enough money in the world to pay off all the carbon polluters — utilities, farmers, refineries, etc. — who felt they owned a piece of the sky, too, and therefore had something coming even under a weak carbon cap. By the end, even Campbell Soup wanted free auction permits because the company uses tin cans and, well, those require energy.

Van Hollen and the cap-and-dividend test drive

Frustrated and fearful of cap-and-trade’s failing prospects, my organization in the fall of 2008 began to promote the alternative: Peter Barnes’ cap-and-dividend idea. We went straight to our grassroots base with email alerts, videos, fact sheets, and community meetings across Virginia and Maryland. The response quickly became one of the most astonishing things I’ve seen in my decade of organizing: Average people, real people, became quickly and intensely supportive. They understood the idea and loved it: Any company introducing coal, oil, or natural gas into the U.S. economy would first need a permit obtained at auction. The auction money would then be directly rebated to all U.S. citizens through monthly, equal-sized checks. These checks — or dividends — would protect all but the richest, most energy-consuming households from harm as the price of dirty energy and related products rose under a carbon cap.

And once dividend checks start flowing, no future Congress or president will be able to stop them. Imagine a president trying to halt Social Security checks today. It ain’t happening.

It’s always easier to get people fired up to oppose something than to support something. In my years as a climate field organizer, I’ve seen intense opposition to many things: offshore oil drilling, fracking, new coal plants, tar sands. But I’ve seen intense support for only two things. One is offshore wind power. In both Maryland and Virginia, the grassroots are really inspired and turned on by the idea of expansive, ocean-based wind farms. The other is cap-and-dividend. Yes, a wonky-sounding policy to cap carbon and rebate the money makes people want to attend rallies, phone Washington, and tell all their friends. I’m not kidding.

In Maryland, CCAN was able to convince influential Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) to introduce a cap-and-dividend bill. It came out on April 1, 2009, one day after the Waxman-Markey bill, much to the ire of many national environmental groups. Van Hollen is a liberal lawmaker, yes, but at the time he also ranked at the top of the House leadership structure and served as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. With the cap-and-dividend approach, he was ahead of his time in seeing both good policy and good politics.

Getting ready for next time

Perhaps the biggest tragedy of the cap-and-trade failure is that it happened at a moment when Democrats controlled the House and briefly held a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. If only we had had a better policy. If only we had had real grassroots support nationwide. If only 350.org had been as big then as now, bringing a tar-sands type noisiness to pressure Congress and Obama.

And now that moment has passed. The Tea Party controls the House and there’s no 60-vote caucus in the Senate.

But things will not always be this way on Capitol Hill. We will have another chance, probably faster than we think given the obvious and accelerating impacts of climate change worldwide. It is true, as Bill McKibben says, that the physics of our planet will not bend to the expedience of Washington politics. Sooner or later, the politics of Washington will have to bend to the physics of our planet.

So the sooner we prepare for that moment the better. Theda Skocpol’s study of cap-and-trade has come at a good time. May that tried-and-failed policy rest in peace. I’m optimistic that her remedy — cap-and-dividend — will be embraced in due course from coast to coast, thus changing our climate destiny.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/harvard-professor-has-it-right-u-s-climate-push-requires-intense-grassroots-support-around-cap-and-dividend-bill/

The Northwest and Northeast Passages are open. Northwest Passage opens for 4th year in a row, 4th time in recorded history -- Jeff Masters' Wunderblog

The Northwest and Northeast Passages are open


Northwest Passage opens 4th year in a row


by Dr. Jeff Masters, Wunderblog, August 27, 2010

The Northwest Passage--the legendary shipping route through ice-choked Canadian waters at the top of the world--melted free of ice last week, and is now open for navigation, according to satellite mosaics available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. This summer marks the fourth consecutive year -- and fourth time in recorded history -- that the fabled passage has opened for navigation. Over the past four days, warm temperatures and southerly winds over Siberia have also led to intermittent opening of the Northeast Passage, the shipping route along the north coast of Russia through the Arctic Ocean. It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive year -- and the third time in recorded history -- that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005, and the Northwest Passage in 2007. It now appears that the opening of one or both of these northern passages is the new norm, and business interests are taking note--commercial shipping in the Arctic is on the increase, and there is increasing interest in oil drilling. The great polar explorers of past centuries would be astounded at how the Arctic has changed in the 21st century.




Figure 4. Arctic sea ice extent image for August 24, 2010, as compiled by The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. The northern route (Western Parry Channel) through the Northwest Passage was completely clear of ice, as was the Northeast Passage. The southern route through the Northwest Passage was still partially blocked.

What caused the opening of the Northwest and Northeast Passages?
The remarkable thinning of Arctic sea ice in recent years has left behind a very thin layer of mostly 1-year old ice in the Arctic, highly vulnerable to rapid melting. As I describe in detail in wunderground's sea ice page, this thinning was mostly due to natural wind pattern in the 1990s, much warmer than average ocean waters invading the Arctic from both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, very warm air temperatures, and deposition of black soot from fires used to clear agricultural land in Europe and air pollution originating in industrialized regions of the Northern Hemisphere. This year, Canada experienced its warmest winter in history, and record warm temperatures were observed during spring over the Western Canadian Arctic. Spring 2010 was the warmest in the region since 1948; some regions of the Western Canadian Arctic were more than 6 °C (11 °F) above average. These warm conditions helped break the ice up early in the Northwest Passage. Warm conditions continued this summer over both the Northwest and Northeast Passages, with temperatures averaging 1-2 °C above average over the majority of the region. As observed in previous years, contributing to this year's melt was the presence of much warmer than average ocean waters invading the Arctic from both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and the deposition of black soot on the ice, which absorbs sunlight and heats up the ice. Lack of sunshine and natural wind patterns this summer helped counteract the melting, though, compared to the record melt year of 2007. Still, 2010 is on track come in 2nd or 3rd place for the lowest summertime Arctic sea ice extent on record. The past six years have had the six lowest Arctic ice extents on record, and this summer's melting season took a huge toll on the amount of thick, multi-year old ice, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Modeling results from the University of Washington Polar Science Center (Figure 5) suggest that the volume of Arctic sea ice is at a record low for this time of year. The loss of so much old, thick ice this year makes it increasing likely that Arctic sea ice will suffer a record retreat that surpasses 2007's, sometime in the next ten years. We are still on track to see the Arctic sea ice completely disappear in summer by 2030, as predicted by a number of Arctic sea ice experts.





Figure 5. Arctic sea ice volume as computed by the PIOMAS model of the University of Washington Polar Science Center.

When was the last time the Northwest and Northeast Passages melted free 3 consecutive years?
The first recorded attempt to find and sail the Northwest Passage occurred in 1497, and ended in failure. The thick ice choking the waterways thwarted all attempts at passage for the next four centuries. While we cannot say for certain the Northwest Passage did not open between 1497 and 1900, it is highly unlikely that a string of three consecutive summers where both the Northwest and Northeast Passage opened would have escaped the notice of early mariners and whalers, who were very active in northern waters. We can be sure the Northern Passages were never open between 1900-2005, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh & Chapman, 2001). A very cold period dominated northern latitudes during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, known as "The Little Ice Age", further arguing against an opening of the Northern Passages during those centuries. The Northern Passages may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 900 and 1300 AD. Temperatures in Europe were similar, though probably a little cooler, than present-day temperatures. However, the Medieval Warm Period warmth was not global, and it is questionable whether or not sections of the Northern Passages along the Alaskan, Canadian, and Russian shores shared in the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period. So, a better candidate for the last previous multi-year opening of the Northern Passages was the period 6,000-8,500 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast that suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years during that period. Prior to that, the next likely time the Northern Passages were open was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2-3 °C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4-6 meters higher. It is possible we'll know better soon. A new technique that examines organic compounds left behind in Arctic sediments by diatoms that live in sea ice give hope that a detailed record of sea ice extent extending back to the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago may be possible (Belt et al., 2007). The researchers are studying sediments along the Northwest Passage in hopes of being able to determine when the Passage was last open.

But Antarctic sea ice is at a record high!
Climate change contrarians like to diminish the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by pointing out that in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent has hit several record highs, including in July of 2010. They fail to mention, though, the fact that ocean temperatures in the Antarctic sea ice region have warmed significantly in recent decades--and faster than the global average temperature rise! So how can sea ice increase when ocean temperatures are warming so dramatically? This topic is discussed in detail by one of my favorite bloggers, physicist John Cook over at skepticalscience.com. In his words:

"There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). "

This counter-intuitive result shows how complicated our climate system is. Climate change contrarians are masters at obscuring the truth by taking counter-intuitive climate events like this out of context, and twisting them into a warped but believable non-scientific narrative. Lawmakers tend to hear a lot of these narratives, since the lobbying wings of the oil and gas industry spent $175 million last year to help convince Congress not to regulate their industry. This number does not include the tens of millions more spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, coal industry, and other business interests intent upon stymying legislation that might cut into profits of the oil, coal, and gas industry. For comparison, the lobbying money spent by environmental groups in 2009 was approximately $22.5 million. Spending for PR efforts aimed at influencing opinion on climate change issues probably has a similar disparity. This is a major reason why you may have heard, "Hey, Antarctic sea ice is increasing, so why worry about Arctic sea ice loss?"

Commentary
Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there. Planet Earth's attic is on fire. This fire is almost certain to grow much worse. When the summertime Arctic sea ice starts melting completely a few years or decades hence, the Arctic will warm rapidly, potentially leading to large releases of methane gas stored in permafrost and in undersea "methane ice" deposits. Methane is 20-25 times more potent than CO2 at warming the climate, meaning that the fire in Earth's attic will inexorably spread to the rest of the globe. To deny that the fire exists, or that the fire is natural, or that the fire is too expensive to fight are all falsehoods. This fire requires our immediate and urgent attention. Volunteer efforts to fight the fire by burning less coal, oil, and gas are laudable, but insufficient. It's like trying to fight a 3-alarm blaze with a garden hose. Every time you reduce your use of oil, gas, or coal, you make the price of those fuels cheaper, encouraging someone else to burn them. Global warming will not slow down until Big Government puts a price on oil, coal and gas--a price that starts out low but increases every year. This can be done via emissions trading, a "fee and dividend" approach, or other means. People are rightfully mistrustful of the ability of Big Government to solve problems, but we don't have a choice. The alternative is to geoengineer our climate--an extremely risky solution. It is time to pay the big bucks and send out the fire engines, before the conflagration gets totally out of control. Consider the Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 and the Pakistani floods of 2010 a warning. These sorts of extreme events will grow far more common in the decades to come, because of human-caused climate change.


Link:  http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1589

James Hansen: People’s Climate Stewardship / Carbon Fee and Dividend Act of 2010

People’s Climate Stewardship / Carbon Fee and Dividend Act of 2010:

Proposed Findings:

1. Causation: The overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed literature by climate scientists worldwide indicates that burning of fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2 levels which, along with emissions of other greenhouse gases, is causing an accelerating rise in global temperatures and ocean acidification.

2. Mitigation (return to 350 ppm or below): Current atmospheric CO2 levels of 387 parts per million (“ppm”) are the highest in human history. A rapid return to levels of 350 ppm CO2 or less is necessary to slow or stop the rise in global temperatures and ocean acidification.
 

3. Endangerment: We face a global climate emergency. Further increases in global temperatures and ocean acidification pose imminent and substantial dangers to human health, the natural environment, the economy and national security and an unacceptable risk of unmanageable catastrophic impacts to human civilization.
 

4. The False Economy of Cheap Fossil Fuels: Fossil fuel prices currently do not reflect their true, long term-costs to society, the environment and future generations. This false economy of cheap fossil fuels is obstructing an economy-wide transition to low carbon energy sources.
 

5. Benefits of Carbon Fees: Steadily-increasing carbon fees on fossil fuels are the most efficient, transparent and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a low-carbon economy. They will stimulate investment in low-carbon technologies, create powerful, predictable incentives for businesses and households to increase their energy-efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints and harmonizing carbon tariffs will create incentives for other nations to enact carbon fees.

6. Co-Benefits: Adding carbon fees to the prices of fossil fuels will have many additional benefits, including: (1) reducing dependence on foreign oil, (2) stimulating advances in low-carbon energy technology, (3) job growth in low-carbon energy and energy conservation, efficiency and retrofitting, (4) reducing conventional (non-greenhouse-gas) pollutants emitted by fossil fuel burning which cause health and environmental harm.

7. Return Revenue: All revenue from carbon fees should be returned to households equitably, in order to build broad public support and ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy,.

Therefore, we propose the People’s Climate Stewardship Act:

1. Collection of Carbon Fees/Carbon Fee Trust Fund: Beginning on July 1, 2011, a carbon fee of $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions will be imposed on all fossil fuels at the point of first sale in the U.S. economy. CO2 equivalent fees shall also be imposed for other greenhouse gases including methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) emitted as byproducts, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. All fees are to be returned to American households as outlined below.
 

2. Steady step-up of CC2 Fees, Ensuring Replacement of Fossil Fuels with Low-Carbon Energy: The yearly increase in carbon fees including other greenhouse gasses shall be at least $10 per ton of CO2 equivalent each year, to steadily reduce U.S. CO2-equivalent emissions by 2050 to 10% of the 1990 U.S. CO2-equivalent emissions. EPA and DOE shall annually review greenhouse gas emissions data and determine whether an increase larger than $10 per ton per year is needed to achieve emissions reductions commensurate with that reduction trajectory. If EPA and DOE find that U.S. emissions are not being reduced sufficiently, the CO2 fee shall increase by $15/T CO2 in the following year. [Modeled after Rep. Larson’s H.R. 1337
“America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act.”]
 

3. Mechanisms for 100% Revenue Return: All revenue from CO2 and CO2 equivalent fees shall be returned to households. Mechanisms include: (1) Equal monthly per-person “dividend” payments made to all U.S. households (1/2 per child under 18 years old, with a limit of 2 children per family) each month beginning on August 28, 2011, (2) Use all carbon fee revenue to reduce payroll taxes for employers and employees. Unemployed persons and Social Security recipients shall receive equivalent distributions.
 

4. Border Adjustments: To ensure that U.S.-made goods remain competitive abroad and to provide an additional incentive for U.S. trading partners to adopt their own carbon fees, Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Tariffs shall be charged for goods entering the U.S. from countries without comparable Carbon Fees. Carbon-Fee-Equivalent rebates shall reduce the price of exports to such countries and ensure that U.S. goods remain competitive in those countries. 

5. Phase Out of Fossil Fuel Subsidies : All existing subsidies of fossil fuels including tax credits,
shall be phased out within 5 years.
 

6. Moratorium on New or Expanded Coal-Fired Power Plants without CCS: No new coal-fired power plants shall be permitted, constructed, or operated. No expansions in capacity of any existing coal power plants shall be permitted, constructed, or operated. [Exception: Permits may be issued for facilities that successfully demonstrate safe and effective long-term Carbon Capture and Sequestration of at least 90% of CO2 emissions.]
 

7. Seeking Treaties: The President shall seek treaties with other countries that encourage adoption of similar programs to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. 

Proposed by Dr James Hansen: Earth Day, April 25, 2010.

More information at the Carbon Tax Center: http://www.carbontax.org.

Contact: James Handley at 202-546-5692

Link:  http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100425_PeoplesBill.pdft