SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Cap & Dividend: A Clear Winner
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a bill today that is a much
better approach to reducing climate change than the cap and trade bill
circulating in the Senate. Her bill, which she co-sponsored with
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), uses cap and dividend to reduce climate emissions and avoids the pitfalls and boom-and-bust cycles inherent in carbon trading. (Peter Barnes proposed this idea in YES!
Dec 12, 2009
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a bill today that is a much
better approach to reducing climate change than the cap and trade bill
circulating in the Senate. Her bill, which she co-sponsored with
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), uses cap and dividend to reduce climate emissions and avoids the pitfalls and boom-and-bust cycles inherent in carbon trading. (Peter Barnes proposed this idea in YES! Magazine in 2001).
Why is this a better idea?
First, polluters would pay for the right to pollute; they would buy
carbon emissions permits at an auction, instead of getting the majority
of them for free. This sends the right market signal-emit carbon, and
you'll have to pay.
Carbon permits would be required at the point where fossil fuel
energy enters the economy. The number of greenhouse gas emissions
allowances is reduced regularly by amounts that businesses can plan
for. There are no offsets-these would be real reductions in climate
changing emissions.
Second, American families strained by the poor economy would
benefit. Each person would get an equal share of the proceeds from the
auction. It works like the oil trust funds in Alaska, where each
resident gets about $1,300 per year for their share of the state's oil
royalties. As long as our economy remains dependent on fossil fuels,
prices for energy and energy-intensive products will rise. But the
rebate will offset those price increases-Cantwell says it will mean
most families are in about the same place financially. Those who buy
carbon-free energy, drive energy efficient cars, or buy products
produced locally with little fossil fuels will come out ahead, though,
while those who drive gas guzzlers will pay more through the higher
price of fuel. So it sends the right signal to consumers, too.
Politically, it should go over much better than cap and trade.
Who wouldn't like to get a check in the mail each month that represents
your share of the carbon auction revenues? Three quarters of the
revenues would be distributed equally to all Americans. The other
quarter will go to clean energy research
and development, for projects that reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions, and for aid to communities and workers who need special help
making the transition to a clean energy economy.
And here's the frosting on the cake. Instead of cap and trade, which
would set up a massive Wall Street system of buying and selling carbon,
this auction is for energy producers and importers, only-not brokers
and speculators.
What's not to like? This is a far better proposal than the cap and
trade proposals that has Wall Street salivating. One caveat, though.
Carbon reductions proposed in the bill are probably not enough to avert dangerous climate change.
But if there is flexibility to step up the reductions as the science
get firmer and the public backing grows, this approach could be just
right.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This article was written for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Sarah Van Gelder
Sarah van Gelder writes "How We Rise" on Substack (howwerise.substack.com) and recently completed a zine, “Community As Strategy,” available free at https://open.substack.com/pub/howwerise/p/community-as-strategy-10-ways-to. She is founding editor of YES! Magazine.
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a bill today that is a much
better approach to reducing climate change than the cap and trade bill
circulating in the Senate. Her bill, which she co-sponsored with
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), uses cap and dividend to reduce climate emissions and avoids the pitfalls and boom-and-bust cycles inherent in carbon trading. (Peter Barnes proposed this idea in YES! Magazine in 2001).
Why is this a better idea?
First, polluters would pay for the right to pollute; they would buy
carbon emissions permits at an auction, instead of getting the majority
of them for free. This sends the right market signal-emit carbon, and
you'll have to pay.
Carbon permits would be required at the point where fossil fuel
energy enters the economy. The number of greenhouse gas emissions
allowances is reduced regularly by amounts that businesses can plan
for. There are no offsets-these would be real reductions in climate
changing emissions.
Second, American families strained by the poor economy would
benefit. Each person would get an equal share of the proceeds from the
auction. It works like the oil trust funds in Alaska, where each
resident gets about $1,300 per year for their share of the state's oil
royalties. As long as our economy remains dependent on fossil fuels,
prices for energy and energy-intensive products will rise. But the
rebate will offset those price increases-Cantwell says it will mean
most families are in about the same place financially. Those who buy
carbon-free energy, drive energy efficient cars, or buy products
produced locally with little fossil fuels will come out ahead, though,
while those who drive gas guzzlers will pay more through the higher
price of fuel. So it sends the right signal to consumers, too.
Politically, it should go over much better than cap and trade.
Who wouldn't like to get a check in the mail each month that represents
your share of the carbon auction revenues? Three quarters of the
revenues would be distributed equally to all Americans. The other
quarter will go to clean energy research
and development, for projects that reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions, and for aid to communities and workers who need special help
making the transition to a clean energy economy.
And here's the frosting on the cake. Instead of cap and trade, which
would set up a massive Wall Street system of buying and selling carbon,
this auction is for energy producers and importers, only-not brokers
and speculators.
What's not to like? This is a far better proposal than the cap and
trade proposals that has Wall Street salivating. One caveat, though.
Carbon reductions proposed in the bill are probably not enough to avert dangerous climate change.
But if there is flexibility to step up the reductions as the science
get firmer and the public backing grows, this approach could be just
right.
Sarah Van Gelder
Sarah van Gelder writes "How We Rise" on Substack (howwerise.substack.com) and recently completed a zine, “Community As Strategy,” available free at https://open.substack.com/pub/howwerise/p/community-as-strategy-10-ways-to. She is founding editor of YES! Magazine.
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a bill today that is a much
better approach to reducing climate change than the cap and trade bill
circulating in the Senate. Her bill, which she co-sponsored with
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), uses cap and dividend to reduce climate emissions and avoids the pitfalls and boom-and-bust cycles inherent in carbon trading. (Peter Barnes proposed this idea in YES! Magazine in 2001).
Why is this a better idea?
First, polluters would pay for the right to pollute; they would buy
carbon emissions permits at an auction, instead of getting the majority
of them for free. This sends the right market signal-emit carbon, and
you'll have to pay.
Carbon permits would be required at the point where fossil fuel
energy enters the economy. The number of greenhouse gas emissions
allowances is reduced regularly by amounts that businesses can plan
for. There are no offsets-these would be real reductions in climate
changing emissions.
Second, American families strained by the poor economy would
benefit. Each person would get an equal share of the proceeds from the
auction. It works like the oil trust funds in Alaska, where each
resident gets about $1,300 per year for their share of the state's oil
royalties. As long as our economy remains dependent on fossil fuels,
prices for energy and energy-intensive products will rise. But the
rebate will offset those price increases-Cantwell says it will mean
most families are in about the same place financially. Those who buy
carbon-free energy, drive energy efficient cars, or buy products
produced locally with little fossil fuels will come out ahead, though,
while those who drive gas guzzlers will pay more through the higher
price of fuel. So it sends the right signal to consumers, too.
Politically, it should go over much better than cap and trade.
Who wouldn't like to get a check in the mail each month that represents
your share of the carbon auction revenues? Three quarters of the
revenues would be distributed equally to all Americans. The other
quarter will go to clean energy research
and development, for projects that reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions, and for aid to communities and workers who need special help
making the transition to a clean energy economy.
And here's the frosting on the cake. Instead of cap and trade, which
would set up a massive Wall Street system of buying and selling carbon,
this auction is for energy producers and importers, only-not brokers
and speculators.
What's not to like? This is a far better proposal than the cap and
trade proposals that has Wall Street salivating. One caveat, though.
Carbon reductions proposed in the bill are probably not enough to avert dangerous climate change.
But if there is flexibility to step up the reductions as the science
get firmer and the public backing grows, this approach could be just
right.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.