As of yesterday, I would suggest that the possibilities of enacting carbon fee and dividend legislation in the next 4 years is very close to zero. Given the nature of the Republican party as the party of Trump, I cannot imagine any MOC or Senator that would risk his/her political future under a Trump administration to support anything resembling a diminishment of fossil fuel production. At best, there may be a small tweak of border adjustments, as Europe and maybe others may impose carbon taxes on our exports. But at best, this is small game.
In the middle of this decade, the ability of carbon fee and dividend to substantially alter the path to global warming, or, more importantly the ability of a carbon fee and dividend to affect the outcomes after 2029, is suspect. The horse has left the barn, so to speak, for modest actions. Almost all of the current data has most nations way behind in meeting their modest commitments for CO2 reductions. Meeting a 1.1 C limit to world temperatures seems impossible. 2 C might also be impossible. This isn’t good. Bringing carbon fee and dividend to the fore in 2029 as a meaningful climate action seems almost quaint at this point. This was the decade to make significant course changes, at a lesser cost. It appears this decade is going to be lost, at least in the United States. Insofar as the US could have been a world leader in climate action, this election will have repercussions for decades to come. And not only are we unlikely to make progress over the next 4 years, there is every promise that any advances we made in the last 4 years will be rolled back.
My question is at what point will carbon fee and dividend be ineffective as a measure to reduce CO2 emissions? At what point will we as a world society be pushed to stronger and more aggressive measures, such as banning fossil fuel drilling, banning ICE cars, ban natural gas stoves, perhaps even getting the World Court to add environmental crimes to the list of Crimes Against Humanity? If we get Carbon Fee and Dividend passed and enacted in 2029 (fast track) and rammed through with an accelerated program (unlikely), will it matter?
Pointedly, what is the year (modeled) at which point carbon fee and dividend will not be the potent agent for controlling carbon emissions that it is today?
@Ira Beckerman Carbon pricing will always be the most potent measure for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. (Dividends make carbon pricing fairer and politically more popular.) Of course carbon pricing can't work if it's not enacted, but that's true of all the other measures you mention. The second Trump administration is not about to ban fossil fuel drilling, nor is any other jurisdiction for that matter. In the interim, our best bet may be continued subsidies for clean technology, since much of the money has been going to Red states. A number of Republican legislators oppose repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. But I'm sure we'll hear from Rachel on what policy opportunities exist going forward in today's political environment.
Hi @Ira Beckerman. I agree with what @Jonathan Marshall said above. There is no ‘too late’ because a carbon price will always be effective at reducing climate pollution, and every fraction of avoided global warming matters.
CCL will continue to do everything we can to reduce emissions and avoid as much warming as possible. The election results make that more difficult than other outcomes would have, but there are still opportunities, and we at CCL know how to lobby members of Congress from across the political spectrum. We're the best positioned organization to operate in the coming political climate, and we're going to get to work doing it.
Senator Cassidy has already talked about implementing a carbon tariff next year, for example. Permitting reform remains a viable policy, as do healthy forest solutions in a Farm Bill that is now more likely to be finally get done in 2025. We'll also have to play some defense, to protect as many of the IRA's provisions as possible, for example. And a carbon price isn't completely out of the realm of the possible, if fiscally conservative Republicans decide they don't want to add trillions of dollars to the national debt as a result of tax cut extensions.
Remember that action is the antidote to despair, every fraction of avoided warming matters, and it's never too late to improve our future world 🤓
@Dana Nuccitelli
Great points Dana. Carbon border adjustments, especially if done in concert with the EU, could have as much or more effect than domestic carbon pricing. There is also a lot of work to be done on research and implementation of carbon capture, especially by management measures for ocean and natural systems. Finally, although not widely popular, I think great research progress could be made on geoengineering, which we are going to need some of according to James Hansen. Time is of the essence on all these.
@Ira Beckerman, We've obviously a tough road ahead. Most of the rest of the world is using and/or moving to carbon pricing. Being a laggard is not a useful option for the U.S. According to RMI, clean energy capex is rising and about to eclipse fossil capex which is falling at about the same rate. A carbon fee accelerates that divergence.
Constancy is my favorite virtue. So many people will go for a little while and get excited for a year or two, but it is really constancy that gets things done.
-- Marshall Saunders
@Ira Beckerman
Recent 3 tiered global carbon pricing proposal from the director-general of the WTO:
@Ira Beckerman
It sounds like you are saying the green new deal is more likely to pass than the carbon fee in the next Congress. The party is libable to flip every election. We always have to live with that. But CCL is non-partisan.
@Robert Beggswith respect to geoengineering, especially release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere I have often recommended the novel Termination Shock by Neil Stephenson. While a novel, that plays out mostly in Texas, and moves to China, India and New Guinea, it shows the geopolitical risks of such measures, with unexpected changes in climate patterns globally. Even if one isn’t into the science of climate, it is a great read.
@Ira Beckerman things certainly feel grim on multiple fronts. I wonder though if there might be hope for a carbon fee if Elon Musk is in the cabinet. Elon Musk introduces his new right-wing fans to a carbon tax; goes as well as you'd expect | Electrek
Angie - I was wondering the same thing. Although, we should all be reminded that these are the two loosest cannons on the planet, so it is hard to predict where this is going. Musk also likes money and winning, so he is certainly motivated to push EV initiatives within the White House. Would this extend to carbon fee and dividend, or would it end with the US military buying a zillion cyber trucks?
@Dana Nuccitelli
How does permitting reform remain a viable option in a drill baby drill context? Those analyses we were depending on didn't take into account a huge upswing in gas and oil production.
Hi @Lynda Marin. We're not going to see a huge upswing in oil & gas production. Remember that it's already at record levels now. There's only so much demand for oil & gas, and increasing production decreases prices and profits. Promises to cut gasoline prices in half won't be realized for precisely this reason – it cuts into fossil fuel profits.
Permitting reform remains viable, but the challenge is that the Republican ‘wins’ in the Energy Permitting Reform Act – mostly increased oil & gas leasing and accelerated LNG export terminal permits – are irrelevant because they're things that a President Trump can do unilaterally. I think there will be some efforts to pass the bill in the lame duck anyway, but I think it's a very long shot for this reason. We'll probably see some renewed negotiations next year with Republicans switching to NEPA reform as their ‘wins’ in a new negotiated bill, but we'll see.
@Ira Beckerman I have to ask, if a carbon price is politically unrealistic, then how is banning fossil fuels politically realistic? CF&D is comparatively gentle and nonpartisan. Okay, now imagine a politician saying “I have written a new bill to make gasoline sales illegal a year from now.” Anyone willing to vote for that?
Or is our proposal to end elected governance and replace it with a carbon banning dictatorship? That's fine, but how does that dictatorship succeed, when even the tanks and fighter jets needed to impose the dictatorship run on fossil fuels? I am not trying to offend, I seriously just do not understand how the proposal works politically. I understand the gravity and urgency of our climate predicament. Yes it is extremely grave. But “we are going too slow” has to have a realistic strategy of how to go faster without crashing.
I also believe that scientific estimates on how fast the earth is warming are actually too conservative and that there are new feedback loops coming into play, e.g. permafrost melting releasing CO2. So I hope we can all agree we are in a race with ourselves to slow the emissions of CO2.
I would think we could agree that carbon fee and dividend, if enacted in 2029, would be valuable. But what if it isn’t enacted then? What if it isn’t enacted until 2039, or 2049? Carbon fee and dividend was always going to be part of a larger effort, requiring multiple initiatives. Could we agree that if carbon fee and dividend isn’t enacted until 2049 and other initiatives are not put into play, we would be figurative and literally cooked?
I think we would understand that carbon fee and dividend is the lower fruit and that these other initiatives will require greater and greater trade-offs and compromises. But when we’ve hit 3 or 4 degrees C, banning most fossil fuel production doesn’t seem so far-fetched, given the anticipated consequences to our lives and society. And by then, we hopefully have tried almost everything available that is less drastic. So my bottom line question was at what time does carbon fee and dividend no longer be all that useful as a solution, say if we have passed the 2 degree C, the 2.5 degree C, or 3 or 4 degree C point? Is it closer to 2029 or 2049? That was my primary question.
@Angie Fitzpatrick - that video you linked to could be shared and amplified by CCL to communicate with Republicans about Carbon Fee and Dividend. We can acknowledge the pushback but focus attention on the content of the message.
Having Trump's efficiency expert explaining CF&D is highly relevant in the new political landscape. Elon Musk explains the science, basic climate economics of market failure, why cashback carbon pricing is a good idea, and even talks about the misleading tactics of the fossil fuel industry, all in 8 minutes. And this is a new video he reposted on Twitter!
We could share this with Republican Congressional offices, ask if they have any questions, and review the trade benefits of a carbon price-backed CBAM. This complements the interest Republicans are showing around a carbon tariff.
We can also share the O&G majors' public support for carbon pricing (while acknowledging that they also fund the delaying tactics Elon mentioned) :
- BP: “BP supports a price on carbon because it's fair, efficient and effective”
- Exxon: “We believe a price on carbon emissions is essential to achieving net zero emissions”
- Shell: “Shell advocates for governments to use carbon pricing”
CCL could focus its fall and summer lobby strategy and training on sharing the great responses above to the OP, which would be useful for all CCL volunteers to internalize.
And we can all offer public events: show the Musk video, explore En-ROADS, then show CCL's original intro video (https://youtu.be/9oyguP4nLv0?si=EypcwrBHSgX82OAB). We might be able to attract more Conservatives to join CCL with this approach. Event title idea: “What Does Musk Say on Climate?”
Hi @Ira Beckerman. What you're talking about is one reason why CCL added our other policy agenda areas. Permitting reform is still feasible, as is incorporating more forestry policies into the Farm Bill next year, a carbon tariff is a possibility, and a carbon price is a long shot but not impossible. And we'll also have to play defense to preserve as much of the IRA as possible, and no doubt defend a lot of other important climate areas.
There's a lot to do, and we won't be reaching 2°C until maybe mid-century (and hopefully never!), so we still have time to get that work done.
And just to reiterate, there is no ‘too late.' 2°C is better than 2.2, which is better than 2.4, and so on. Every fraction of a degree and ton of carbon matters.
Hello @Ira Beckerman
Are you registered for the upcoming Dec. 6-7 Virtual Fall Conference? I am sure there will be more information on CCL's near term focus, so be sure you register. This year, we lobbied Congress on the 2024 Policy Roadmap. A page on the internal CCL web site, which you can access if you are a member, shows progress on those goals. Log into https://community.citizensclimate.org and use the search function to find 2024 Policy Roadmap
Carbon Fee and Dividend
Permitting Reform
Healthy Forests
Electrification and Efficiency
Election activity - turning out the environmental vote
There is a lot of other information on that page, about CBAMs, advocating for climate policy in the Farm bill, etc.
I hope this is helpful...
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