Opinion > Columns
By BOB SCHULTZ and BOB NORMAN
For the Valley News
Published: 2/11/2021
We human beings have not been kind to Mother Nature — especially since the Industrial Revolution and World War II. The way we live has been particularly damaging to the natural climate. That said, things are beginning to look up lately. The coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress in December contains what’s been called “the most substantial federal investment in green technology in a decade.” President Joe Biden has acted to rejoin the Paris Agreement, agreed to in 2015 with major U.S. leadership. These accords commit most of the nations of the world to reduce greenhouse gases and shift to renewable energy by 2050.
However, committing is not the same as acting. How will the U.S. move from the high-sounding rhetoric of the Paris accords to practical actions that will sharply reduce our carbon emissions into the atmosphere?
One of several proposals is a bill already introduced in Congress and championed by the Citizens Climate Lobby. It’s a bipartisan proposal called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, dubbed the CF&D — short for “Carbon Fee & Dividend.” If passed, the bill would demonstrate that the U.S. really is serious about the concrete actions necessary to make a difference in carbon emissions.
What is CF&D and how would it work? How would it affect us? And how could we, if we chose, help to persuade Congress to adopt its provisions?
A simple explanation goes like this: As oil and natural gas come out of wellheads, coal comes out of mineshafts and fossil fuel shipments come ashore in seaports across America, the extracting and shipping companies would pay fees for each ton of carbon that the burning of these fossil fuels will emit into the atmosphere. The fees, which would gradually and predictably increase from year to year, would go into a Treasury Department trust fund. This would, of course, force the extracting companies to charge consumers more — at the gas station, in our electric bills, for our heating fuels. But these increased costs to consumers would be offset by dividends paid from the trust fund to every American household every month.
If adopted, this market-based arrangement would give incentives to the carbon-emitting energy companies to turn increasingly to renewable energy sources. As a result, carbon emissions, along with other greenhouse gases, would decrease, thereby protecting human health and many aspects of the environment, and slowing the increase in devastating storms and wildfires, deadly flooding, and punishing droughts that have become commonplace.
This explanation leaves out lots of important details. For example, people will wonder if a “fee” isn’t just another name for a “tax.” Some do use the words interchangeably. But strictly speaking, a tax is for raising revenue (and it tends to grow the government). A fee is a payment in exchange for a service or privilege, such as paying to enter a national park.
People will also wonder how much more fossil energy would cost under this plan. The answer, to cite one example, is about 11 cents on a gallon of gas. But the monthly dividends to every household would help to cover this. Also, because most households (58%) consume less than the average consumption of carbon — because they ride public transportation or use bicycles, for example — they’ll actually get more money back than they spend on fossil energy.
Another concern is that the CF&D system would be complicated and costly to administer. It wouldn’t be, because producers of oil and coal already have to measure the output they sell, and the federal government already has in place commonly used ways to dispense money to households, such as income tax returns and Social Security payments. Also, more than 90% of American adults have bank accounts that can receive electronic payments.
In preparing this introduction to the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, we have relied mainly on the website of the Citizens Climate Lobby, a widely respected nonpartisan and nonprofit organization. Members of its 611 local chapters have been working to persuade members of the U.S. House and Senate to act on climate disruption since 2007.
You can learn more about this proposal on the Citizens Climate Lobby website, citizensclimatelobby.org. For more information about the Upper Valley chapter, email ccluppervalley@gmail.com or call 802-432-8494. To urge your representative to support this policy, call Rep. Annie Kuster at 202-225-2946 or Rep. Peter Welch at 202-225-4115.
Bob Schultz, of Lebanon, is a retired philosophy professor who taught environmental ethics for 30 years at Lycoming College, the University of Denver and the University of Washington.
By BOB SCHULTZ and BOB NORMAN
For the Valley News
Published: 2/11/2021
We human beings have not been kind to Mother Nature — especially since the Industrial Revolution and World War II. The way we live has been particularly damaging to the natural climate. That said, things are beginning to look up lately. The coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress in December contains what’s been called “the most substantial federal investment in green technology in a decade.” President Joe Biden has acted to rejoin the Paris Agreement, agreed to in 2015 with major U.S. leadership. These accords commit most of the nations of the world to reduce greenhouse gases and shift to renewable energy by 2050.
However, committing is not the same as acting. How will the U.S. move from the high-sounding rhetoric of the Paris accords to practical actions that will sharply reduce our carbon emissions into the atmosphere?
One of several proposals is a bill already introduced in Congress and championed by the Citizens Climate Lobby. It’s a bipartisan proposal called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, dubbed the CF&D — short for “Carbon Fee & Dividend.” If passed, the bill would demonstrate that the U.S. really is serious about the concrete actions necessary to make a difference in carbon emissions.
What is CF&D and how would it work? How would it affect us? And how could we, if we chose, help to persuade Congress to adopt its provisions?
A simple explanation goes like this: As oil and natural gas come out of wellheads, coal comes out of mineshafts and fossil fuel shipments come ashore in seaports across America, the extracting and shipping companies would pay fees for each ton of carbon that the burning of these fossil fuels will emit into the atmosphere. The fees, which would gradually and predictably increase from year to year, would go into a Treasury Department trust fund. This would, of course, force the extracting companies to charge consumers more — at the gas station, in our electric bills, for our heating fuels. But these increased costs to consumers would be offset by dividends paid from the trust fund to every American household every month.
If adopted, this market-based arrangement would give incentives to the carbon-emitting energy companies to turn increasingly to renewable energy sources. As a result, carbon emissions, along with other greenhouse gases, would decrease, thereby protecting human health and many aspects of the environment, and slowing the increase in devastating storms and wildfires, deadly flooding, and punishing droughts that have become commonplace.
This explanation leaves out lots of important details. For example, people will wonder if a “fee” isn’t just another name for a “tax.” Some do use the words interchangeably. But strictly speaking, a tax is for raising revenue (and it tends to grow the government). A fee is a payment in exchange for a service or privilege, such as paying to enter a national park.
People will also wonder how much more fossil energy would cost under this plan. The answer, to cite one example, is about 11 cents on a gallon of gas. But the monthly dividends to every household would help to cover this. Also, because most households (58%) consume less than the average consumption of carbon — because they ride public transportation or use bicycles, for example — they’ll actually get more money back than they spend on fossil energy.
Another concern is that the CF&D system would be complicated and costly to administer. It wouldn’t be, because producers of oil and coal already have to measure the output they sell, and the federal government already has in place commonly used ways to dispense money to households, such as income tax returns and Social Security payments. Also, more than 90% of American adults have bank accounts that can receive electronic payments.
In preparing this introduction to the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, we have relied mainly on the website of the Citizens Climate Lobby, a widely respected nonpartisan and nonprofit organization. Members of its 611 local chapters have been working to persuade members of the U.S. House and Senate to act on climate disruption since 2007.
You can learn more about this proposal on the Citizens Climate Lobby website, citizensclimatelobby.org. For more information about the Upper Valley chapter, email ccluppervalley@gmail.com or call 802-432-8494. To urge your representative to support this policy, call Rep. Annie Kuster at 202-225-2946 or Rep. Peter Welch at 202-225-4115.
Bob Schultz, of Lebanon, is a retired philosophy professor who taught environmental ethics for 30 years at Lycoming College, the University of Denver and the University of Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment