Chelsea Green Publishing

Chelsea Green Blog

Cash, Jobs, and Deficit Reduction – Breaking the Gordian Knot on Climate Legislation

Peter Barnes, author of Climate Solutions, A Citizen’s Guide posted this article to Grist earlier this month. Unfortunately the climate bill was just pronounced dead by Senator Harry Reid. Will John Kerry resuscitate it in the weeks to come? Or will we have to wait for the next Republican president to muster enough votes , as Andy Revkin postulates? I’m not joking, that’s really what he said! Only time will tell…Which is cool because that’s the only thing we don’t have! – – The Senate is tied in knots on climate legislation. In President Obama’s view, putting an economy-wide price on carbon is the most effective way to stimulate clean energy invest­ment and jobs. Most Democrats — though not enough — agree. Roughly half a dozen Republicans, given some political cover, might go along, but the party’s leadership opposes a “national energy tax.” Sixty filibuster-proof votes are therefore not in sight. And after November, when Democrats are expected to lose seats, the prospects look even grimmer. What is to be done?

The conventional wisdom is to court Senatorial votes by giving handouts and exemptions to polluting industries. This has been the strategy pursued by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), and “pragmatic” greens until now. It hasn’t worked and isn’t likely to. The com­plex­ities are too great, and throwing people’s money at giant energy compa­nies isn’t a popular idea these days.

There is, however, another way forward. It starts with the cap-and-cash-back approach, a.k.a. cap-and-dividend, embodied in the bipartisan CLEAR Act co-sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Their 39-page bill caps and prices all carbon emis­sions, but instead of rewarding polluters — most of whom will pass their cost of polluting to their customers — it protects the people who will ultimately pay the bills — namely, us.

The CLEAR Act requires all first sellers of carbon — fuel companies like Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Coal — to buy per­mits from the federal government. These permits are auc­tion­ed, not given away free (after all, polluters should pay), and three-quarters of the proceeds are returned as equal payments to all legal U.S. residents. This is accomplished electronic­ally every month, like Social Security. U.S. manufacturers and workers are protect­ed by carbon fees at the border.  

This straightforward system has numerous virtues. First, it’s simple, market-based, and explainable. Second, it would spur con­ser­va­tion, efficiency, and innovation through­out the economy, while keeping govern­ment out of the dicey and costly business of picking winners. Third, it’s transparent — it’s easy to see how the money flows.

Perhaps cap-and-cash-back’s greatest virtue is the pocketbook protection it affords middle class families throughout the long transition to clean energy. As carbon prices climb, so auto­ma­tic­al­ly will the cash families get back. Those with big houses, cars, and travel budgets will pay more in higher prices than they’ll get back (as they should), but roughly 70 per­cent will get back more than they pay. In other words, rather than imposing a national tax, cap-and-cash-back puts money in most Americans’ pockets.  

Despite its self-evident appeal, political insiders have dismissed the CLEAR Act because it doesn’t buy off special interests, presumably a sine qua non in Washington these days. Another criticism is that it shifts money from people in the Midwest, where util­i­ties rely mostly on coal, to people in other states whose electricity is less carbon-intensive. The mag­ni­tude of this shift is actually quite small, and it can be entirely eliminated — as Cantwell has suggest­ed — by giving all states as much money back as they pay in.  

The interesting political question is what to do with the 25 percent of auc­tion revenue that isn’t returned to the people. The sums involved aren’t chicken feed: they’d amount to hundreds of billions of dollars over 40 years. The present ver­sion of the bill puts that money in a trust fund dedicated to an assortment of climate-friendly purposes. But other uses of this revenue might give the bill more traction while preserving its core virtue — installing a rising price on carbon in a simple, transparent and popular, hence durable, way.

What if, for example, that 25 percent was allocated to two grand public purposes: grants to states for job creation and federal deficit reduction? The proportions could change over time, with more job creation in the early years and more deficit reduction down the road. Such a clean-energy-plus-jobs-plus-deficit-reduction package might entice fence-sitters on both sides of the aisle. And because it’s short and simple, it could be offered as an amendment to another bill that comes to the floor this year.     

Pulling this off would require, of course, presidential leadership; Obama would have to push the plan to senators and explain it forcefully to the American people. The latter task, fortunately, plays to his strength. And even in today’s acrimonious political climate, it would be hard for voters — and, one presumes, their senators — to resist a bipartisan policy that creates jobs, reduces our financial and ecological debts, and pays hard cash to everyone.


10 Books to Curl Up With This Winter

William Wordsworth was right when he said, “Nature never did betray the heart that loved her.” Nevertheless, the cold, dark days of winter can still get the best of even Nature’s most tenderhearted admirer. What’s one to do? We here at Chelsea Green have concocted the perfect cabin fever remedy with our suggested winter reading […] Read More..

50 Low-Cost, Low-Tech Solutions to Save the Planet

Tired of watching people spend so much time thinking up big solutions to big problems that it has a paralyzing effect on taking action? If you’re like author Courtney White, the answer is yes. That’s why in Two Percent Solutions for the Planet, he takes readers on a journey to show how low-cost, easy-to-implement solutions […] Read More..

Beyond the War on Invasive Species – Review in Permaculture Design Magazine

This review was originally published in Permaculture Design, Issue #97, “Life on the Edge,” Fall 2015; www.PermacultureDesignMagazine.com Look in the Mirror Review by Peter Bane For its extensive scholarship, clear voice, and impassioned, hopeful message, this book is a joy to read—a slim but beautifully written teaching text which uses permaculture and ecosystem science as a lens for viewing the […] Read More..

5 Common Invasive Species and How to Manage Them

Last week, we asked authors Tao Orion and Katrina Blair to share alternative approaches to managing five different plant species commonly held to be “invasive.” St. John’s Wort, Garlic Mustard, Thistle, Oxeye Daisy, and Kudzu are often dismissed as annoyances at best and the target of aggressive eradication with harmful chemicals at worst. Orion and […] Read More..

What in the World is a Pawpaw?

Have you heard of the pawpaw? A few generations ago, most would say “yes!” You could ask just about anyone and they could tell you what this fruit looked and tasted like, and more importantly, where to find it. But today, the pawpaw remains a mystery to some and entirely unknown to others. In Pawpaw: […] Read More..
Follow us
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com