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.


Why Modern Wheat Is Making Us Sick

Why is modern wheat making us sick?  That’s the question posed by author Eli Rogosa in her new book Restoring Heritage Grains.Wheat is the most widely grown crop on our planet, yet industrial breeders have transformed this ancient staff of life into a commodity of yield and profit—witness the increase in gluten intolerance and ‘wheat […] Read More

A Dictionary to Survive the Future

When British economist David Fleming died unexpectedly in 2010, he left behind his great unpublished work, a masterpiece more than thirty years in the making—an intellectually evocative and inspiring dictionary, Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It. In it, Fleming examined the consequences of an economy that destroys the very foundations—ecological, […] Read More

Overshoot, Collapse, and Creating a Better Future

In 2016, Earth Overshoot Day happened on August 8—the day when we’ve exhausted the planet’s resources for the year, and are essentially borrowing from future years to maintain our existence today.Perhaps you celebrated this day with a counter-solution: a vegetarian meal, telecommuted, or turned off the air conditioning. There’s a lot more you could be […] Read More

Plants & Pests: Will Bonsall’s Advice on “Wee Beasties” in the Garden

“From a plant’s point of view there is little difference between a cutworm, a woodchuck, a blight spore, and, for that matter, us.”“These are all things that in one way or another prey upon it. It is an inevitable constraint of all living things: We escape one peril only to ultimately succumb to another,” so […] Read More

To Create Climate-Secure Foodscapes, Think Like a Plant

The techniques and prophetic vision for achieving food security in the face of climate change contained in Gary Paul Nabhan’s Growing Food in a Hotter, Drier Land may well need to be implemented across most of North America over the next half-century, and are already applicable in most of the semiarid West, Great Plains, and […] Read More
Follow us
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com