42 Posts
I am providing a link to the Majority Staff Report "Solving the Climate Crisis" that was just released. Note that it is a PDF file 547 pages long. I have not yet gone through the document myself. https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/Climate%20Crisis%20Action%20Plan.pdf
15 Replies
7 Posts
Stuart,
Thank you for sharing this and finding the reference to carbon pricing on page 286.
I am dismayed, flabbergasted actually, that years of lobbying, thousands and thousands of letters, phone calls and face to face meetings have amounted to one lukewarm page devoted to carbon pricing in a 571 page document "solving the climate crisis." And this from the party that has 81 cosponsors to the EICDA.
Could someone please explain to me why I should not feel hopeless...
Thank you for sharing this and finding the reference to carbon pricing on page 286.
I am dismayed, flabbergasted actually, that years of lobbying, thousands and thousands of letters, phone calls and face to face meetings have amounted to one lukewarm page devoted to carbon pricing in a 571 page document "solving the climate crisis." And this from the party that has 81 cosponsors to the EICDA.
Could someone please explain to me why I should not feel hopeless...
784 Posts
Hi Steve,
There are indeed plenty of opportunities to feel hopeless around climate change.
But this report is actually not a bad thing for CCL. Because we are trying to get Republicans on board for carbon fee and dividend it could be counterproductive for that policy to become too closely associated with the Democratic brand/tribe/agenda. Given this is a Democrat only report it's actually great that they express openness to carbon pricing but that carbon pricing does not dominate the report.
For more information see CCL's review of Select Committee climate report.
My hope on climate these days comes from the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus, the bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act, and the general movement of Republicans to take action on climate (though it can feel maddeningly slow).
Tony
There are indeed plenty of opportunities to feel hopeless around climate change.
But this report is actually not a bad thing for CCL. Because we are trying to get Republicans on board for carbon fee and dividend it could be counterproductive for that policy to become too closely associated with the Democratic brand/tribe/agenda. Given this is a Democrat only report it's actually great that they express openness to carbon pricing but that carbon pricing does not dominate the report.
For more information see CCL's review of Select Committee climate report.
My hope on climate these days comes from the bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus, the bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act, and the general movement of Republicans to take action on climate (though it can feel maddeningly slow).
Tony
7 Posts
I appreciate your optimism.
I just find CF&D to be such a fundamentally good idea that I can't understand why we have to resort to finding positive signs in political tea leaves - hoping one party will embrace carbon pricing since the other isn't so much.
I'll accept the statement in their 2nd bullet point: Carbon Pricing is not a silver bullet. I'd say it's more like a silver foundation. It would undergird many of the priorities on their long list of things to do. Seems so simple.
What's niggling at me is I don't know if it's the Democrats who crafted this work that are missing something, or am I?
I just find CF&D to be such a fundamentally good idea that I can't understand why we have to resort to finding positive signs in political tea leaves - hoping one party will embrace carbon pricing since the other isn't so much.
I'll accept the statement in their 2nd bullet point: Carbon Pricing is not a silver bullet. I'd say it's more like a silver foundation. It would undergird many of the priorities on their long list of things to do. Seems so simple.
What's niggling at me is I don't know if it's the Democrats who crafted this work that are missing something, or am I?
39 Posts
An interesting tidbit about this from Bill McKibben's newsletter last week:
"With an eye to future negotiations, the House Select Committee on Climate laid down one really important marker, even if it’s buried on page 287 of its new report: 'Congress should not offer liability relief or nullify Clean Air Act authorities or other existing statutory duties to cut pollution in exchange for a carbon price.' Because this is likely to be the first bargaining position of the oil companies if President Biden takes over, it’s good to be on the record in advance that it’s not acceptable. The Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, among others, apparently deserves credit."
Jamie Raskin is a cosponsor of H.R. 763. Is this acknowledgment that the regulatory pause doesn't in fact "nullify CAA authorities"? Or are Democratic cosponsors staking out a position that the next version of the bill should not include such a provision?
"With an eye to future negotiations, the House Select Committee on Climate laid down one really important marker, even if it’s buried on page 287 of its new report: 'Congress should not offer liability relief or nullify Clean Air Act authorities or other existing statutory duties to cut pollution in exchange for a carbon price.' Because this is likely to be the first bargaining position of the oil companies if President Biden takes over, it’s good to be on the record in advance that it’s not acceptable. The Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, among others, apparently deserves credit."
Jamie Raskin is a cosponsor of H.R. 763. Is this acknowledgment that the regulatory pause doesn't in fact "nullify CAA authorities"? Or are Democratic cosponsors staking out a position that the next version of the bill should not include such a provision?
12 Posts
This Columbia Energy Exchange podcast with Rep. Kathy Castor (chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis) is somewhat revealing. Around the 20 minute mark, carbon pricing comes up and Castor says we need to put a price on carbon but dances around the issue by saying that Congress has more work to do before landing on a specific pricing policy. She goes on to say that what we really need to do is to more directly decarbonize the power and transportation sectors. She seems to be implying that they concluded that regulatory action will get these sectors decarbonized faster than putting a price on carbon. This seems a dubious argument based on what we know as CCL members. My suspicion is that this is a nod to the anti-market factions within the Democratic party (see the Green New Deal for reference).
It seems that it would be worthwhile for the CCL groups represented by Castor to follow up with her on the comments made in this podcast.
It seems that it would be worthwhile for the CCL groups represented by Castor to follow up with her on the comments made in this podcast.
300 Posts
N Scott Emery and Stuart Birnbaum - good conversation on this forum post.
I listened to Chair Castor's interview. And, also I listened to the next interview on the Columbia Energy Exchange podcast with Justin Worland (Time magazine reporter). Comments made regarding statements that Chair Castor hasn't figured out how to do carbon pricing are:
minute 14: Environmental justice activists are fighting for clean air and clean water. Climate activists are fighting to reduce emissions. These two things go hand in hand. How can we achieve a legislative solution that addresses both?
minute 17: Research shows Cap & Trade doesn't do much to reduce pollution in frontline communities. Communities where refineries and industrial energy facilities are located don't see concerns addressed. Those plants would continue to operate and benefit from a cap and trade program. Even if funds do go back to these communities there is still pollution.
If Cap and Trade does not fare well for frontline communities, how does Carbon Fee and Dividend compare? (Perhaps it more aggressively brings down fossil fuel usage?)
Robin
I listened to Chair Castor's interview. And, also I listened to the next interview on the Columbia Energy Exchange podcast with Justin Worland (Time magazine reporter). Comments made regarding statements that Chair Castor hasn't figured out how to do carbon pricing are:
minute 14: Environmental justice activists are fighting for clean air and clean water. Climate activists are fighting to reduce emissions. These two things go hand in hand. How can we achieve a legislative solution that addresses both?
minute 17: Research shows Cap & Trade doesn't do much to reduce pollution in frontline communities. Communities where refineries and industrial energy facilities are located don't see concerns addressed. Those plants would continue to operate and benefit from a cap and trade program. Even if funds do go back to these communities there is still pollution.
If Cap and Trade does not fare well for frontline communities, how does Carbon Fee and Dividend compare? (Perhaps it more aggressively brings down fossil fuel usage?)
Robin
12 Posts
That 2nd podcast gives some good perspective. Thanks for pointing it out.
I think that carbon fee and dividend will do better than cap and trade with respect to improving conditions for communities near related infrastructure. For example, coal plants will close more quickly if a carbon fee is in place. This will reduce pollution a lot.
However, I think that a carbon fee must be coupled with regulation and policies that prevent our clean energy solutions from perpetuating negative impacts on disadvantaged and minority communities. For example, how do we make sure that the placement of solar installations, wind farms, and new power lines do not unduly impact disadvantaged communities?
I think that carbon fee and dividend will do better than cap and trade with respect to improving conditions for communities near related infrastructure. For example, coal plants will close more quickly if a carbon fee is in place. This will reduce pollution a lot.
However, I think that a carbon fee must be coupled with regulation and policies that prevent our clean energy solutions from perpetuating negative impacts on disadvantaged and minority communities. For example, how do we make sure that the placement of solar installations, wind farms, and new power lines do not unduly impact disadvantaged communities?
77 Posts
CF&D addresses two of the most important issues of climate justice well: 1) effect of the increased cost of living for vulnerable, low-income populations; and 2) coal plants, which are predominantly located in minority communities, would quickly become unprofitable, reducing the asthma epidemic and other health problems in those areas.
Since low-income families have much lower carbon footprints than average, the dividend would provide a net income benefit. Furthermore, as fossil fuel costs rise, the dividend rises with it providing an automatic adjustment to further cost of living increases. No other policy I know of has price of carbon linked to automatically adjusting help to low-income families as the effects of moving to a carbon-free economy increase some prices especially during the transition to clean energy. This vital climate justice effect of CF&D needs to be much more widely understood.
Coal plants ought to be shut down fairly quickly with CF&D putting even more pressure on the ones remaining. However, many coal plants should already have shut down based on economics. Many companies who own the assets are hoping things will change and are hanging on to large assets beyond rational economic policy. If the government would enforce Clean Air Act regulations already on the books, this would be accelerated even further.
CF&D, however, does not address a number other climate justice issues: infrastructure built in BIPOC communities, just worker transitions, guarantees that new clean energy jobs will provide a living wage, resilience for BIPOC communities including recovery from climate change induced extreme weather events, and others. I think these issues can and should be addressed in other bills although I would recommend adding something to the CF&D bill to address provision #5 recommended by the Democratic Climate Crisis Plan: "Congress should pair a carbon price with policies to achieve measurable air pollution reductions from facilities located in environmental justice (EJ) communities, which face chronic and acute health impacts from a legacy of industrial development in their neighborhoods."
Since low-income families have much lower carbon footprints than average, the dividend would provide a net income benefit. Furthermore, as fossil fuel costs rise, the dividend rises with it providing an automatic adjustment to further cost of living increases. No other policy I know of has price of carbon linked to automatically adjusting help to low-income families as the effects of moving to a carbon-free economy increase some prices especially during the transition to clean energy. This vital climate justice effect of CF&D needs to be much more widely understood.
Coal plants ought to be shut down fairly quickly with CF&D putting even more pressure on the ones remaining. However, many coal plants should already have shut down based on economics. Many companies who own the assets are hoping things will change and are hanging on to large assets beyond rational economic policy. If the government would enforce Clean Air Act regulations already on the books, this would be accelerated even further.
CF&D, however, does not address a number other climate justice issues: infrastructure built in BIPOC communities, just worker transitions, guarantees that new clean energy jobs will provide a living wage, resilience for BIPOC communities including recovery from climate change induced extreme weather events, and others. I think these issues can and should be addressed in other bills although I would recommend adding something to the CF&D bill to address provision #5 recommended by the Democratic Climate Crisis Plan: "Congress should pair a carbon price with policies to achieve measurable air pollution reductions from facilities located in environmental justice (EJ) communities, which face chronic and acute health impacts from a legacy of industrial development in their neighborhoods."
58 Posts
To this point, perhaps a political argument can be made to convince Republicans to get on board. The report is fairly weak on carbon pricing, which, to me from a political standpoint equates to the Democrats somewhat ceding the field on this policy. What a coup for republicans if the party most associated with being anti-climate were able to associate themselves with an efficient, market-based approach that could be implemented quickly, be more effective than most if not all other policies and send their constituents checks every month. I found it ironic not too long ago when George Schultz who is on CCL's advisory board wrote an op-ed pushing carbon fee and dividend as a republican idea. If the Republican party incurs significant damage from the last four years and the upcoming election, is there a better way to re-establish itself, especially with younger voters, than by coming out in support of an impactful, bipartisan climate bill.
26 Posts
I heard Pelosi say something like, "We're going to pass this," as if it were one thing. And, I've often heard that a piece of legislation can be 100s of pages long with all sorts of things in it that MOC might not even be aware of. So, my question: Going forward will all/many of these measures be voted on all at once, or does each and every piece of it require an individual vote? Anybody know what we should expect?
26 Posts
Hi Brett. Thanks for the "like." Do you happen to know the answer?
Going forward will all/many of these measures be voted on all at once, or does each and every piece of it require an individual vote? :)
Going forward will all/many of these measures be voted on all at once, or does each and every piece of it require an individual vote? :)
3862 Posts
Thank you Emily, I imagine that some of the legislation will be packaged together, but given how comprehensive and thorough the report is I imagine it will not be able to be rolled into one bill. However, I'm copying CCL's Government Affairs Coordinator Adeline DeYoung to make sure she can also speak to your question:
I heard Pelosi say something like, "We're going to pass this," as if it were one thing. And, I've often heard that a piece of legislation can be 100s of pages long with all sorts of things in it that MOC might not even be aware of. So, my question: Going forward will all/many of these measures be voted on all at once, or does each and every piece of it require an individual vote? Anybody know what we should expect?
I heard Pelosi say something like, "We're going to pass this," as if it were one thing. And, I've often heard that a piece of legislation can be 100s of pages long with all sorts of things in it that MOC might not even be aware of. So, my question: Going forward will all/many of these measures be voted on all at once, or does each and every piece of it require an individual vote? Anybody know what we should expect?
277 Posts
Hi Emily Northrop,
Thanks for the question! Brett is absolutely right. It truly just depends. Sometimes it's easier to roll things into one package and other times not so much. When the House and Senate have different majorities, it makes it more difficult to find a large package of bills they both agree on. In this case, it might be more efficient to pass bills individually or in smaller packages so at least some things get through both chambers. If the House and Senate and Presidency were all Democrat after this year's election, it may become more likely that a large package of climate bills would be passed all at once.
Thanks for the question! Brett is absolutely right. It truly just depends. Sometimes it's easier to roll things into one package and other times not so much. When the House and Senate have different majorities, it makes it more difficult to find a large package of bills they both agree on. In this case, it might be more efficient to pass bills individually or in smaller packages so at least some things get through both chambers. If the House and Senate and Presidency were all Democrat after this year's election, it may become more likely that a large package of climate bills would be passed all at once.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency