Thread by @ccbecker271

I am seeing a lot of either/or and flat out misinformation about two proposals to address climate change: Carbon Fee and Dividend and a Green New Deal. Here's a thread with my thoughts.

First, let me make it clear that I support both. I started the Citizens Climate Lobby chapter in my city, which is still going strong though I have moved on to chairing the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 campaign in my city.

I also went to Washington, DC, on December 9-10 to get arrested in front of Steny Hoyer's office and spent six hours handcuffed at a police warehouse to support a Green New Deal.

Climate change is an enormous problem - the largest challenge in human history. No single proposal can possibly address it all and completely decarbonize the economy. We need both Carbon Fee and Dividend and a Green New Deal.

First we must say no to the energy we don't want -- fossil fuels. Putting a price on carbon is central to that. 40 countries have a price on carbon. If done correctly, a price on carbon can significantly reduce emissions. vox.com/energy-and-env…

Things I like about the current Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal in congress: It puts a price on carbon. The tax is paid by the fossil fuel corporations and returned to all households in equal shares. See the full act here - energyinnovationact.org

That will help low and middle income households pay the higher prices that will happen as goods created with fossil fuels get more expensive. Regional Economic Modeling Institute says low and middle income households will get more in the dividend than they pay in higher prices.

Things I don't like about the current Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal: The price on carbon starts too low. However, it does go up by $10 every year. That will help.

What I really don't like is it prohibits federal agencies from regulating carbon emissions for 10 years. However, that is conditional on emissions actually staying on track to go down 40% in 12 years. If emissions don't go down, regulatory power over carbon is restored.

No other regulations over car mileage standards, sulfur emissions, gas flaring and leaks, or anything else is affected.

Carbon taxes are used by dozens of countries and subnational regions around the world to deal with the external costs of carbon to our environment. It is a way to incentivize the transition off of fossil fuels. carbontax.org/where-carbon-i…

However, saying no to the energy we don't want is not enough. Even if the currently proposal works, that is only 40% in 12 years. We also have to say yes to the energy we do want. That's where the Green New Deal comes in.

Unlike the Ready for 100 program that I work on which is aimed at cities, the Green New Deal is aimed at Congress. However, both are about transitioning to a clean energy economy powered by wind, solar, and other renewables.

We know that such a transition would create millions of good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. It would make us energy independent while cleaning our environment and improving public health. There is no downside.
scientificamerican.com/article/renewa…

The fastest-growing jobs in the country are wind turbine service technician and solar panel installer, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why would we not want those jobs in our country and in our cities and states?
bls.gov/ooh/fastest-gr…

But like a carbon tax, renewable energy can be done right or it can be done wrong. Wrong: Having it all done by large corporations that keep the profits. Right: A mix of large facilities and small generation such as community and rooftop solar.

Energy efficiency is also important because the less energy we use, the less we have to transition to renewables - plus it saves money.

So in sum: We must say no to the energy we don't want by enacting a carbon tax. The fairest carbon tax is one that takes money from polluters and returns it to the people. But we must also say yes to what we do want: a clean energy economy powered by renewables.

If we only say no to the energy we don't want, it's not enough, and it doesn't necessarily get us to a transition to renewables. Fossil fuel corps could just pay the tax and keep polluting.

But if we only say yes to the energy we do want, we could and would backslide. Fossil fuels are comfortable, and they are in every aspect of our society. Making them cost more will help ensure we move off of them.

That's why we need both Carbon Fee and Dividend and the Green New Deal. They aren't mutually exclusive. We don't need to choose. We need BOTH.

So now that I've clicked Tweet on this megathread, I remembered a few things that I left out. First, here is the draft text for the Green New Deal.
docs.google.com/document/d/1jx…

As you can see, it does not itself set out a specific climate policy, but that doesn't mean it's not specific. It would create a House Select Committee for a Green New Deal that would take a year to hammer out what a Green New Deal would look like in practice.

It does set specific goals and requirements that the plan created by the committee would have to meet. The committee would have to create a plan on the scope and scale the climate crisis requires.

Sadly, @NancyPelosi and @TheDemocrats have opted for a weaker committee that doesn't have these requirements and does allow members who take contributions from the fossil fuel industry. That needs to change.

We will need to ask any candidate we are considering supporting to sign the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. It's the only way to ensure they will be free to create the climate legislation we need. nofossilfuelmoney.org

Regarding carbon fee and dividend, I also wanted to mention it is not a GOP climate plan. It does have some Republican co-sponsors, on board after years of citizen lobbying, but it has more Democratic co-sponsors.

Carbon Fee and Dividend is also supported by several important climate scientists such as @KHayhoe and @DrJamesHansen. It is not a proposal created by climate deniers but it does seek support from both parties.

Finally, I want to acknowledge some people whose tweets I have been reading about this. Thanks for the insights @drvox @KateAronoff @EricHolthaus @evanlweber @BrianEttling @ClimateReality @YaleClimateComm @david_turnbull @Joshua_D_May @fightdenial @kennyfromkansas @CelloMomOnCars

And also of course some major climate thinkers @MichaelEMann @billmckibben @joshfoxfilm @NaomiAKlein and probably others I can't think of at the moment!