Thread by @dana1981

For the @citizensclimate blog, I wrote about new @NatureClimate research showing that a carbon price + dividend reduces poverty & inequality, and that aggressive climate policy is good for the economy. A thread 🧵explaining why (1/11):
citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/ne…

The first study considers a hypothetical carbon price starting at $30/ton in 2015, rising about 5% or ~$2 per year, with 100% of the revenue returned equally to individual taxpayers. Not dissimilar from the Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend Act (2/11):
congress.gov/bill/117th-con…

The authors used their Nested Inequalities Climate Economy (NICE) model – modified from Nordhaus' famous DICE climate-econ model, but adding regional economic distribution data – to evaluate the impact on households in each income bracket from poorest to wealthiest 20% (3/11)

We know that poorer households spend a bigger proportion of their income on energy, so carbon pricing hits them hardest. But if revenue is returned as dividends, because they have the smallest overall carbon footprints, they receive a net income! (4/11)
citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impa…

As a result, the study found “climate action involves a synergy with poverty alleviation.” Specifically, a $50/ton carbon price + dividend would lift 1.6 million Americans (including 500,000 kids) out of poverty. A $20/ton price would alleviate poverty for 1 million (5/11)

I also used their results to estimate the total and child poverty alleviation in each state, which you can see on these maps. Note that these are my estimates based on the study's national poverty alleviation results (6/11)
datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YmGss/1/
datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YmGss/1/

This carbon price + dividend policy would have even bigger poverty-alleviating effects if implemented in China or India. And the authors found it would also reduce income inequality in the US by about 1% as measured by the Gini index (7/11)

The second @NatureClimate study considered, if we want to meet the Paris targets (which we do!), would it be better for the economy to cut emissions more gradually or to implement extremely aggressive climate policies this decade? (8/11)
nature.com/articles/s4155…

They found that bigger climate investments today would be more than recovered by a stronger economy in the second half of the century, and "would have benefits for the long-term GDP, even without considering the benefits of avoided impacts" (9/11)

We know from research by Shindell & others that climate policies yield big immediate health & economic benefits from clean air. But even without considering climate & health benefits, aggressive climate policy is best for the economy long-term (10/11)
yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/11/clean-…

This adds strength to the case for adding a #PriceOnCarbon to #BuildBackBetter. We won't meet our Paris targets without one, and resulting pollution cuts would yield a stronger economy and healthier Americans with fewer in poverty. Win-win-win! (11/11)
citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-…

Whoops, copied the same link twice. Here's the map for child poverty alleviation in each state:
datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QwfVZ/2/