,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
We need to have a calm discussion about a carbon fee.
(1) I support a fee, NOT a tax. With a fee, 100% goes back to the people
(2) Such a fee is progressive, NOT regressive, and would be popular
(3) This would just be one step among many. Could be *part* of a Green New Deal.
(1) I support a fee, NOT a tax. With a fee, 100% goes back to the people
(2) Such a fee is progressive, NOT regressive, and would be popular
(3) This would just be one step among many. Could be *part* of a Green New Deal.
(4) Big Oil supports a specific carbon tax proposal that is rolled together with a release of liability for them, now and forever. I do NOT support any such thing! We can have just the carbon fee, without such any such disastrous release. (hint: SUE THE BASTARDS)
(5) It's hard to project how a particular price trajectory maps to future emissions b/c it's hard to model. REMI has a model that projects 40% CO2 emissions reduction in the US after 12 years, with a fee that starts at $15 and ramps up $10 per year.
(5 cont'd) So start modestly, see how it goes, and reassess every 5 years. Any price will help, and anything that helps is good. And we'll learn as we go.
(6) I think a carbon fee would be an "action multiplier." It pervades the whole economy, at every scale.
(6) I think a carbon fee would be an "action multiplier." It pervades the whole economy, at every scale.
(6 cont'd) It would spur transition to renewables by making them relatively cheaper. It would spur transition to a low-fossil food system. It would make flying more expensive, spurring cultural shift away from flying.
(7) It would spur divestment, because the price signal would be predictable (modulo the 5-year reassessment - but at least a minimum price would be known). This would also make all that investment in brand new fossil fuel infrastructure a LOT less attractive - a VERY good thing.
(8) Let's just revisit why it's progressive, since too many progressives seem to think it isn't. Rich people use WAY more FF than low-income people. So they pay WAY more into the kitty. Which then gets divided equally. So low- and mid-income people better off than without the fee
(9) Revenue-neutrality (fee) as opposed to spending the revenue on projects (tax) is non-optional. With a tax, you get infighting for pork and a REGRESSIVE policy that brings out the yellow jackets🐝. With a fee, it's progressive, popular, sustainable, simple, and fair.
(10) It could lead to international cooperation, where the UN has failed miserably. (Sorry, but they have.) If a big market has a carbon fee, with the necessary border adjustments, other countries will have an incentive to have a fee of their own in order to trade freely.
(11) And most importantly, let's repeat a point made earlier. You could still do other stuff to mitigate climate breakdown! There's no law that says once you have fee & dividend, all other bets are off. Let's have WWII mobilization. And that could *include* fee & dividend.
(5 cont'd) BTW, that 40% reduction in 12 years? That's over every sector - all CO2 emissions. Not just electricity. That would put the US pretty near to the track the IPCC said humanity needs to be on for a chance to stay under 1.5°C. Not all the way there, but a big chunk.
