There may be an opportunity in the next Congress for a carbon price. However, external forces could constrain the opportunity such that if something passes, it will look different from the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. This webinar explores how three external constrain the debate, what that means for CCL’s priorities, and most importantly, for the climate.
After you watch, discuss what you learned with a fellow CCLer.
Here's the recording https://community.citizensclimate.org/events/item/24/17016
And slides are here: https://cclusa.org/carbon-pricing-opportunities
I was just able to listen to Dr. Richter and Wolfram's presentation. Thank you. I have one observation and one question:
Observation - I noted the three goals of a carbon price - reduce climate pollution, take care of low income households and political staying power. What I find missing for my conservative peers is reference to “market based”, “empowering citizens”, "not growing government". I like your use of “climate pollution” (vs. "climate change") but I have found it powerful to also highlight the concept of a market dislocation/imperfection, letting individuals decide for themselves how to spend the dividend, and letting our capitalist system then driver the transformation (not a continuous stream of new regulations).
Question - I liked the idea of going beyond just a “carbon price" and including NOX, SOX and PM2.5. This fits better with the idea of climate pollution. For my benefit, what percent of emissions do these three items represent as compared to CO2?
Thanks again,
Max (Montana CCL)
Loads of info on general carbon pricing topics on CCL's public website, https://cclusa.org
@Dana Nuccitelli @Daniel Richter can you help Max with his question above:
NOX, SOX and PM2.5. …, what percent of emissions do these three items represent as compared to CO2?
That's a complicated question @T Todd Elvins @Max Scheder-Bieschin, because it varies by source. Also we've had a lot of success regulating most air pollutants, and so their levels are considerably lower than they were before the Clean Air Act was passed, for example. But in general we in the US annually emit about:
- 6.8 million tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx)
- 1.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO₂)
- 1.7 million tons of particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5)
- 6.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases
@Dana Nuccitelli - Thank you. So much much smaller, but still good for the narrative of reducing pollution rather than just carbon. For a success story there are two - acid rain in the US and CFC globally. We can come together… Max
@Max Scheder-Bieschin - for a global perspective of how much each climate forcing contributes, this graph from the IPCC's AR6 is instructive:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-2/figure-2-10
But just to clarify, @Max Scheder-Bieschin @John Gage, the other pollutants discussed above (NOx, SOx, PM2.5) are fossil fuel air pollutants that cause other adverse health effects. They're not climate pollutants (a.k.a. greenhouse gases).
Hi @Dana Nuccitelli, Figure-2-10 of the IPCC AR6 WG1 is specifically showing climate forcings. So I believe that all the gases shown there are driving change in the climate in some way.
Yes @John Gage, those are all greenhouse gases in the figure you showed, but they don't include the NOx, SOx, and PM2.5 mentioned by Danny and discussed above (note the difference between N2O and NO2 and other NOx).
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