@No2AGW @citizensclimate @mc2maven @GeoffreySupran @david_turnbull @Agent350 @drvox @climatecosts @mathsavage @corbett_jessica A few ideas:
1. Broad public opposition from public is not likely to be primary barrier, concentrated interest groups are. See theory or collective action problems (eg Macur Olson en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic…)
1. Broad public opposition from public is not likely to be primary barrier, concentrated interest groups are. See theory or collective action problems (eg Macur Olson en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic…)
@No2AGW @citizensclimate @mc2maven @GeoffreySupran @david_turnbull @Agent350 @drvox @climatecosts @mathsavage @corbett_jessica 2. Keep impacts on energy prices low to minimize opposition from general public (eg don't give them reason to organize against) and energy consuming (but not fossil dependent) businesses (likely to be better organized eg US Chamber of Commerce & National Assoc of Manufacturers)
@No2AGW @citizensclimate @mc2maven @GeoffreySupran @david_turnbull @Agent350 @drvox @climatecosts @mathsavage @corbett_jessica 3. Use revenues primarily to support clean energy -- subsidies for clean electricity, tax breaks for clean vehicles, grants for city electric bus purchases etc. Creates concentrated winners to support bill (and if enacted, strengthens them over time to keep it alive), and...
@No2AGW @citizensclimate @mc2maven @GeoffreySupran @david_turnbull @Agent350 @drvox @climatecosts @mathsavage @corbett_jessica ...and it increases environmental efficacy of the policy by driving additional carbon reduction above and beyond that achieved by carbon price.
@No2AGW @citizensclimate @mc2maven @GeoffreySupran @david_turnbull @Agent350 @drvox @climatecosts @mathsavage @corbett_jessica 4. Use smaller portions of revenues to ramp up clean energy RD&D spending. That along with deployment subsidies from 3. can drive down cost of climate solutions, multiplying the impact of both CO2 price and spending per 3 above.
