UPDATE: The video of this event and an article on it can be found here.
At 10 am today, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Former Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) will speak about their bipartisan plan for having a carbon price be part of a debt deal. The moderator will be Carol Browner, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Evidence is clearer than ever that urgent action is needed to protect our nation and the world from the effects of irreversible climate change. And at the same time, our country faces a very large federal budget deficit.
This event will focus on a new bipartisan proposal to address both of these seemingly intractable challenges together rather than separately. This approach would slash the U.S. debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for their carbon dioxide pollution that endanger our health and environment. This policy will strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, make our skies cleaner, and provide hundreds of billions of dollars in debt relief.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I am not a climate denier, but I think the issue of a carbon price needs to be addressed cautiously. The denier crowd has gained a lot of traction by presenting the notion that a carbon price would be so massive and intrusive that it would drive the world into poverty. It is important to defeat this notion by leaning on the idea of a small, negotiable carbon price.
After all, the technologies of renewable energy will be embraced by the world in the next 50 years anyway. So the function of a carbon price is simply to accelerate the transition. Thus the idea can be presented in the form of equation. And the equation can then be presented in the form of choices.
IE –
1.) zero carbon price = a renewable energy economy in 50 years with X degrees of warming.
2.) tiny carbon price = a renewable energy economy in 40 years with Y degrees of warming.
3.) small carbon price = a renewable energy economy in 30 years with Z degrees of warming.
By formulating the choices in this form, I believe that people will be more comfortable and debate will move away from the yes/no entrenchment. It will be more like choosing your phone plan.
A respectable carbon tax NOW and perhaps even a fighting chance at the survival of the species as well as Earth’s Life Support Systems to go along with it. I will vote for that option. Double the price of fuel, great, it will double the value of my back yard Solar PV. All other green investments as well!
The idea that a carbon price will drive the world into poverty is exactly backwards–NOT paying that price will accomplish that goal, since we are already on track to pay the cost of climate damages, based on business as usual. Instituting a price on carbon would make us pay for the costs in market transactions, so people can make efficient decisions based on the REAL costs. The need for such a price is firmly established in economics, so there is no legitimate argument against imposing carbon taxes now.
I agree there needs to be a carbon price. But if the price is set too high it will energize the detractors. Instead if the price is set low, it will actually undermine the detractors. Since so much is at stake, it might be wise to pursue an artificially low carbon price and use each future climate disaster as an excuse for raising the price.
I’m getting bad sound quality at the web cast. Are others experiencing this, or is it at my end?
My sound is very clear
I WISH they would point out the economic advantage that accrues to businesses that reduce their energy costs per unit output. How quickly cost are paid back.
With all due great respect for CAP, Carol Browner and Henry Waxman (and a slight tip of hat to former Rep. rep Wayne Gilchrest), this was an unfocused, rambling, messaging disaster that barely touched on the topic – how a price on carbon could be a clean energy solution to the deficit.
Ms Browner started with a question I consider most critical, though off topic, basically: “What will it take” to get (congress) on board & get climate change on the short list for congressional action? HW replied that a price on carbon would unleash market forces, not offering insight into HOW this would result to the good, and confusing/conflating carbon pricing with cap & trade. uh-oh. WG said we have to see our economy as a subset of the earth’s economy; that nobody can predict the consequences of global warming; and that the Dems should sit down with Paul Ryan, “put politics aside and look at the problem. Hmmm. HW added that even if you don’t believe in climate change, it makes sense to reduce emissions for the public health. (Presumably this argument would impress Repubs in the context of deficit reduction?)
CB: the facts are compelling, there’s a serious misunderstanding about the science, so how do we educate everyone? To which WG replied this is “not something we can do in the short term”, but that members of congress can always pick up the phone and talk to “John Hansen” or others to get the facts.
Other statements as the conversation wandered:
WG & HG agreed that nat. gas is a good solution for transportation and for generating electricity, but, hey, lets not frack “unsafely”.
HW: a carbon tax would raise $200B to $1.2T and the money could be used for “research” and to reduce the deficit.
In answer to an audience question “What do climate deniers in congress say to their children about their efforts?”, WG quoted Ben Franklin as saying that ignorance & democracy are not compatible;that Obama should invite congressional leaders to the White House for dinner to discuss things; and that”we need a PLAN OF ACTION within the next year.
So who was the intended audience here? If it was other members of congress, and they did not switch off after 5 min of vagary, they got zero detail about how a carbon tax would affect the federal deficit, inspire the corporate sector or help launch a clean energy economy. They would instead have gotten the impression that Mr. Waxman does not have a serious handle on the issues, leaving him with diluted negotiating power.
All of which is serious evidence to me that the important audience, if we are ever to advance climate legislation on carbon tax, is the American public. The pressure has to come from the bottom up and I hope CAP will find effective strategies in the future for directing it’s (improved) messaging in this direction.
Not another “bi-partisan” effort with another Republican ex-Representative. Still can’t find any who actually are holding office now? Why am I not surprised?