Originally posted on old Community. Links may no longer be active.
What's your story on what you found when you and your household tried the CF&D Calculator? CCL created a Twitter Moment for the Calculator's release to encourage supporters to share their results online and a Forum discussion for groups to share how they're using the new Calculator tool in their tabling efforts. A majority of Americans would benefit from a Carbon Fee & Dividend, but how would it affect your particular budget? After using the new CF&D Calculator to find out, this discussion thread is for everyone interested in posting their own household's story to share on Community. CCL is currently working on compiling real-life case studies for the larger network to share and when completed it will be posted on the Community's page for the CF&D Calculator here.
4 Replies
I ran a scenario for Muncie, Indiana, leaving all other items at the default setting, except I had a household of 4. Resulting net dividend: $14.00, $7.00 lower than a "homeless" scenario. Not very inspiring. Not a good sales message.
The real vig is in the out years. But calculator doesn’t allow entries beyond Year 1. I had a couple of exchanges about this (and a few other elements) with the calculator designers. Got nowhere. My basic issue was, it’s too dumbed down on the front end, and too complexified (?) in the FAQ. Anyone interested in pulling apart the interwoven assumptions in the FAQ would be up for playing with those assumptions in the calculator. Better to give them a straightforward opportunity to do that and cut back on the explanations than to limit the scenario capability of the calculator. Or, worse, force them to interpret the FAQs to "trick" the calculator into out-year results, which are bound to be inaccurate.
One feedback I got was that the volume of data to do out-year calculations would be prohibitively expensive. It doesn't have to be, if you let go of the idea that the tool is precise or accurate in the first place, or needs to be. It isn't, and it doesn't. It can't account for the feedback loops and behavioral dynamism that the new economic system would induce, not should we expect it to be able to do that. It's a rough approximator., and there's nothing wrong with that.
Having people use the FAQ info to "trick" the calculator produces far less accurate results than you would get if you took control of the user input experience by putting a "year" field on the input screen.
Just leave all other input as the user entered, and multiply by $25, $35, etc., for each out year, rather than by $15.
I agree with the perception that the front end is too 'dumbed down' compared to our attempt to answer more complex questions in the FAQ. I welcome these candid comments so we can make improvements for the next update. I also agree that it is frustrating that we can't extend the calculations into out-years, with the caveat that the results are estimates which no one is going to be held to ... the results will depend on how emissions change as well as changes in the economy that no one can possibly foresee, and no one will be sued for being a few dollars off!
I am particularly interested in the perception that $14 a month is 'uninspiring.' It's not the first time I've heard a reaction like this. In a way, it's puzzling, because it's like I walked up to you on the street and said "Here's $14! Come back to this spot every month on this date for a year, and I'll give you another $14!" Would you say, "No, that's not enough. Go away!"?
Why is it then that a $14 'net benefit' seems puny? Is it because it's so easy to confuse 'net benefit' with 'Dividend'? In other words, when pitching the CF&D to a member of the public, even if you try to explain it, they will perceive the $14 as the money they would receive each month, rather than the difference between their Dividend and the increased energy costs they pay?
This is not a criticism of the perception but an attempt to understand it, and think of how to overcome it.
I like Rick's question and think we might re-frame the question/response.
Our goal is to create an effective policy that treats people fairly and protects those who are least able to afford the increased inflationary costs. Our goal is not to create a climate policy that redistributes wealth in the United States or creates a guaranteed minimum income program.
I suggest always framing this that both of these people will not be harmed by our policy. Our policy will be effective, and both of these people will not see increased costs not covered by their dividend. In fact, both of them are expected to end up a little ahead.
Prior to a meeting of our county Interfaith Climate Coalition, I ran some “what if’s”, changing parameters in the county. I tried different incomes (high, med, low) & residence type in the same zip code. Then I ran similar comparisons for different parts of the county, number of cars, dependents. Now I need to compile it into a spreadsheet to drive a presentation.
Now here’s something I have yet to run: I come from a family of 12, we have an average of 4 kids each, they in turn have 2 kids. I have all their addresses and figure most for two cars living in single-family homes. That leaves me with income, which I’ll just estimate based on what I know they & spouse do. It’s an ambitious project but I think it might to a good parlor trick.
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