Discussion U.S. Carbon Price 2014

"Just add a carbon tax like Canada did and raise it each year." Are you kidding me? America is one step (if Republicans control the Senate in 2014) away from going toward opposite direction. I mean they want to get rid of existing regulations and dismantle EPA. Majority of Republicans think that climate change is a hoax. And the bipartisan democrats (with a few exceptions) don't want to deal with environmental problems. So how are you going to "just add" carbon tax?

An upcoming morning seminar potentially of interest to any of our CoLab community based in DC: A Discussion of the Independent Risk Assessment for Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States (http://www.rff.org/Events/Pages/A-Discussion-of-the-Independent-Risk-Assessment-for-Risky-Business-The-Economic-Risks-of-Climate-Change-in-the-United-State.aspx) RFF Seminar Date June 26, 2014 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. EDT Location RFF First Floor Conference Center 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 Registration for in-person attendance is required. To RSVP for this event, please visit RFF's event registration page. How much economic risk does the nation face from the impacts of climate change? The Risky Business initiative—a project of Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Office of Hank Paulson, and Next Generation—works to answer that question. Using the best information available, the initiative outlines the range of climate futures that the United States might expect in major economic sectors and by geographic region. It also examines the likelihood of these futures and the potential economic consequences for American businesses and households. The initiative does not advocate any particular policy, industry, or personal response to climate change but instead seeks to provide government, finance, business, and household decisionmakers with the information necessary to make their own risk management decisions. At this RFF seminar, Trevor Houser, lead author of the independent risk assessment supporting the Risky Business initiative, and his colleagues will present an overview of the methods, data, original research, and key findings in the assessment. A panel of experts will then offer additional perspectives. Agenda ​​​​ 8:30 a.m. Light breakfast available​ ​9:00 a.m. ​Welcome Phil Sharp, President, Resources for the Future ​9:10 a.m. ​Overview of Risky Business Trevor Houser, Partner, The Rhodium Group and Technical Lead, Independent Risk Assessment for Risky Business Robert Kopp, Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Associate Director, Rutgers Energy Institute, Rutgers University Solomon Hsiang, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley ​9:40 a.m. ​Panel Discussion: A Technical Review James Stock, Member, Council of Economic Advisers; and Harold Hitchings Burbank Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University Adele Morris, Fellow and Policy Director, Climate and Energy Economics, The Brookings Institution ​10:15 a.m. ​Q&A 10:30​ a.m. Adjourn

Ultimately, nearly all humans want the best for humanity and the future of our planet. So why the polarisation of opinion around climate change? I think, what Nowak and Rand’s research demonstrates, is that participants in an economy aren’t only afraid of not getting their fair share of resources, which is true, but there is a deeper question of trust. In the case of climate change, do we trust that the opposition want the best for humanity and the future of the planet. Without this trust we think that the opinions of others are all biased to suit personal-agendas and consequently need to be fought, exacerbating the polarisation. That’s paranoia! An example of this can be found in the phrase “dirty oil”. It pays no respect to those who are of the opinion that oil has given civilisation so much. It says “to hell with you and your industry”. For democracy to work in favour of climate change, the public will have to understand the issue. My guess is that 99% of the world population do not even understand what “a price on carbon” means, yet alone all its intricacies and variants. We can not wait for democracy to act on climate change. It is for those deeply involved in climate and energy to find middle ground. There are only a few of us, and it is now our responsibility to have trust in the humanity of those who oppose us.

My Proposal is https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/planId/1307707 The only 1 thing I fear is technical problem . My proposal has some images , and I really hope no technical problem when Climate CoLab send my proposal to Judge . Only technical problem .

News Item: http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/cap-and-trade-in-practice-barriers-and-opportunities-for-industrial-emissions-reductions-in-california/ Last week CPI released a report Cap and Trade in Practice — a report that contributes to the dialogue around the practical implementation of California's Cap and Trade Program by taking an on-the-ground look at how firms make abatement decisions under the program, given the broad array of factors that go into business' financial decision-making. The report discusses barriers and opportunities for industrial emissions reductions under the Cap and Trade Program, focusing on the cement industry as a case study. Based on financial modeling and stakeholder interviews, they found: The Cap and Trade Program is making a difference in how firms in the cement industry approach abatement decisions — they are exploring opportunities to reduce emissions and factoring the carbon price into their financial analysis. However, the impact of the carbon price on a decision to abate emissions also depends on a range of other factors. In most cases, the carbon price is not the most important factor in making an emissions reduction decision financially attractive. Under the Cap and Trade Program, California will meet its emissions reduction target as long as the cap is enforced. But policymakers can reduce the cost of meeting the target by taking further action to lower barriers to low-cost or cost-saving abatement options. AB32 already takes this approach through sector-specific complementary policies, but policymakers can do more. An op-ed in Sacramento's Capitol Weekly discusses in brief our findings and message for policymakers: http://capitolweekly.net/cap-trade-working-bet/

A brilliant, elegant, and simple (not easy - but simple) solution to the problem of climate change. For doubters, please see how well this is already working in British Columbia: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/. Economists across the country, both left and right, agree that this free-market approach, in which the social costs of fossil fuels are at last internalized, could have a dramatic impact in reducing GHG in our atmosphere. We don't need to wait for a technological solution or the infrastructure to roll it out; using our economy, we can shape behavior. Driving up the cost of fossil fuels while driving down other taxes so that people's overall tax burden/cost of living remains unchanged or simply rebating the revenue is an obvious win-win.

From ClimateWire: Californians show strong support for laws on climate, but higher energy prices could weaken it Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, July 24, 2014 Californians overwhelmingly favor state laws aimed at limiting climate change. But that support would drop notably if the rules start to hurt wallets, an opinion poll released today said. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that 76 percent of Golden State voters back the 2011 law requiring that one-third of California's electricity come from renewable resources by 2020. The share of those endorsing it would tumble to 46 percent if electricity bills climb as a result, however. Similarly, 76 percent of adults surveyed endorsed a state law that next year will force oil companies to join the state's cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. Fuel refiners will have to either make gas and diesel with lower emissions or buy permits covering that pollution. Petroleum companies and their backers insist it will force drivers to pay more at the pump and have launched a campaign alerting residents to the pending change. The PPIC poll showed that support for fuels as part of cap and trade would fall to 39 percent if it costs motorists more to fill up their vehicles. "Californians want to see government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but their strong support for clean energy policies diminishes if they have to pay higher electricity bills or gas prices," said Mark Baldassare, PPIC's president and CEO. PPIC annually conducts a statewide survey of Californians attitudes on environmental issues. In the latest inquiry, it talked to 1,705 adult residents July 8-15. The poll has a 3.7-percentage-point margin of error. The poll asked questions about climate change, drought, water use in general, hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone XL pipeline and a number of other issues. The results have come shortly after the state Water Resources Control Board allowed $500-per-day fines for wasting water. The poll also shows how voters are feeling about the state's cap-and-trade system in the same year that the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown (D) approved a spending plan for revenues generated by the program. Cap and trade an unknown to many California voters expressed support for the state's approach on climate, with 65 percent saying that the state is right to act on its own without waiting for the federal government. About two-thirds of Californians supported the state's climate law, A.B. 32, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Strong majorities have backed the law since the survey first asked about it in July 2006, PPIC said, "but a partisan divide has emerged on the question." Most Democrats, Republicans and independents favored the law in 2006, PPIC said. Since then, support for it has risen to 81 percent from 67 percent among Democrats, while it's dropped to 39 percent from 68 percent among Republicans. Among independents, it's dipped slightly, to 62 percent from 68 percent. The poll showed, however, that a large segment of voters aren't very knowledgeable about specific policies under the climate law. Asked about the state's cap-and-trade program, 55 percent of people said that they had heard "nothing at all" about the system, which limits carbon emissions and requires businesses to cut their pollution or buy permits for it. Another 32 percent said they had heard a little, and 13 percent answered that they had heard a lot about the policy. People then were read a description of the program. Afterward, 51 percent of all adults said they favored it, and 40 percent opposed it. However, among likely voters, half opposed it and 43 percent favored it. They were asked about the plan for spending state revenues generated by cap-and-trade auctions. Brown's office and top state lawmakers in June reached agreement on a package that carved up $870 million that the state expects to see in fiscal 2014-15 from its sales of greenhouse gas pollution permits to businesses. The pact also set up a plan for fiscal 2015-16 and beyond, when the program is estimated to bring in up to $5 billion annually (ClimateWire, June 13). For the coming fiscal year, the pact dedicated $250 million to high-speed rail, $200 million to low-carbon transportation, $130 million to "affordable housing and sustainable communities" and smaller amounts to items that include weatherization projects, energy efficiency for water, sustainable forests and waste diversion. In the poll, 59 percent of California adults favored that plan and 35 percent opposed it. Among likely voters, support was 51 percent and disagreement 44 percent. 'Framing' of questions disliked Green groups criticized how the questions were asked about the renewable power mandate and the cap-and-trade program. "It's a terribly framed question. It's the oil industry frame" that gas prices will go up when fuels are added to cap and trade, said Susan Frank, director of the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy. The oil industry and its allies are the ones promoting the idea that bringing fuels into cap and trade will trigger higher fuel prices, she said. "Most people, when asked that question, are going to say of course they don't want to pay more," she said, adding, "At the end of the day, you'd be better off consulting the Magic 8 Ball what [fuel] prices are going to be in January." The questions also fail to talk about the benefits of cap and trade and the renewable power mandate, said Frank and Tim O'Connor, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. "If you ask the average person if they want to spend more money, they're likely going to say no," O'Connor said, "but if you ask that person, would they like to keep their kid from having an asthma attack and going to the hospital," the person would say yes. A spokesman for Fed Up at the Pump, the oil industry-supported group fighting bringing fuels into cap and trade, declined to comment, saying that the alliance needed to first read through the PPIC survey questions and results. That website tells people, "Starting Jan. 1, 2015, Californians will pay an additional 16 cents or more per gallon of gas as a result of a state agency-mandated gas fee -- a 'hidden tax' -- that was created by the Brown Administration without consumer input or legislative review. "Help us put a halt to this gas hike before it starts. Let's tell Governor Brown to 'BACK OFF!'" A.B. 32 was passed by the state's Legislature. It allowed the state's Air Resources Board to decide on the policies for lowering the state's carbon emissions. That agency opted for cap and trade after a lengthy public discussion on options. Carbon tax garners support The poll asked about a carbon tax. Fifty-eight percent of Californians backed imposing "a carbon tax on companies for their greenhouse gas emissions," while 33 percent opposed it. Support was 71 percent among Democrats, 59 percent among independents and 34 percent among Republicans. It did not ask voters to compare a carbon tax with any other climate policy. Frank challenged the wording of that question, saying a carbon tax would likely be on fuels, not on businesses. "My guess is that the level of support would change dramatically if people knew that they were the ones paying for it," Frank said. O'Connor said that there are many ways to do a carbon tax. What was talked about earlier this year, he noted, was a levy on fuels. Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D), who at the time was the chamber's leader, proposed levying a carbon tax on motor fuels and in exchange exempting them from cap and trade. He ultimately dropped the measure. The poll delved into state voters' beliefs on climate change. Forty percent said that they were very concerned about global warming, 34 percent said they were "somewhat concerned" and 15 percent said they were "not concerned at all." California voters largely feel that climate change already is underway, with 62 percent agreeing that "the effects of global warming have begun to happen." Twelve percent on the timing said that warming would affect future generations. Another 12 percent said it would never happen. The poll asked voters for their views on the impacts from climate change. In terms of the potential for more severe droughts, 64 percent said they were very concerned and 23 percent said they were somewhat concerned. More severe wildfires had 61 percent very concerned and 25 percent somewhat concerned. Asked about more severe heat waves, 44 percent were very concerned and 29 were somewhat concerned, while 15 percent were "not too concerned" and 12 percent were "not concerned at all." Asked what's behind the current drought in California, 38 percent said that it was mostly a result of global warming, while 51 percent said it was mostly an effect of natural weather patterns. The poll asked about hydraulic fracturing. Half of likely voters were opposed to the increased use of "fracking" for oil and natural gas extraction, while 40 percent favored it. But asked about the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada to refineries in Texas, 58 percent of likely voters said that they favored building it. Thirty-four percent opposed it.

Noel et. al., Thanks for the UMICH link. On the issue of 'how to use the tax': In general, as the global warming issue is...well...global, it is important to view any proposal in terms of: How can the proposal be propagated globally? Pricing carbon is a profoundly complex issue and becomes even more so when the issue of carbon negative bio-fuels are factored into the math/projections. In that, it is in the environmental best interest of a nation (and the international community of nations) to produce/use as much carbon negative bio-fuels as possible as that scenario is a fast/equitable path to climate stability. The expected broad economic stimulus that such increased fuel use would generate would clearly be a highly convenient byproduct. (This is the opposite of the FF paradigm.) Thus, using the carbon tax funds to fast-track carbon negative fuel development/production expansion (the IMBECS Protocol provides one path) would be a form of a force multiplier for the carbon tax. There is no apparent (to me) reason why all nations could not follow the US lead on this type of strategy and thus the carbon negative fuel STEM/strategy can be easily and relatively quickly scaled to global dimensions. I hope this has not come across as completely incoherent:) Best regards, Michael

FYI: new MIT Study: Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Pay for Itself http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824 Summary from DOE EERE weekly newsletter: A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that when addressing climate change, the savings on health care spending and other costs related to illness can potentially offset the costs of cutting harmful emissions from sources such as power plants and vehicles. In the study published in Nature Climate Change, MIT researchers compared the health benefits to the economic costs of three potential climate policies: a clean-energy standard, a transportation policy, and a cap-and-trade program. The three scenarios were designed to resemble previously proposed U.S. climate policies at the federal level. The researchers found that savings from avoided health problems could recoup 26% of the cost to implement a potential transportation policy, but up to 10.5 times the cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program. The difference depended largely on the costs of the policies, as the savings—in the form of avoided medical care and saved sick days—remained roughly constant. Policies aimed at specific sources of air pollution, such as power plants and vehicles, did not lead to substantially larger benefits than cheaper policies across three scenarios.

Carbon fee measure on Sen. Whitehouse agenda A carbon fee would bring in a “significant” amount to the federal government, according to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who said Tuesday he’ll look to introduce legislation on the subject next month, The Hill reports. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/222123-sen-whitehouse-to-push-carbon-price-bill?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10545