“Unless we take bold action to reverse climate, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: Where were they? Why didn’t the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth, lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community was sure would come?”
These are the words of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders throwing down the gauntlet on the U.S. government’s continued inaction on what many people consider to be the most pressing issue of our time. The statement was made on the occasion of a bill that Sanders introduced, along with California Senator Barbara Boxer: the Climate Protection of 2013.
The bill proposes a fee and dividend structure which is different from either a cap and trade plan, or a carbon tax. Basically, the plan would tax carbon-emitting fossil fuels at their sources such as coal mines or oil wells with a fee of $20 per ton of CO2 equivalent. The price of the fee would increase by 5.6 percent per year for ten years. But unlike an ordinary tax, 60 percent of the money raised by this levy would be distributed to the American people, to offset the additional charges they would incur at the gas pump or on their utility bill. The rebates could run into hundreds of dollars per year per person. The remaining 40 percent would be used to “fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.” These funds will be provided to Weatherization Assistance Program, ARPA-E, the production tax credit and investment tax credit, manufacturing for clean energy technologies, worker training, and other programs needed for the transition to a clean energy future.
Of course, climate-deniers rushed to object. Heartland Institute’s Steve Stanek, said, “It would raise energy costs, forcing us to pay more for energy. Think of this as taking money out of our left pocket. Then the plan would refund some of the money back to us. Think of this as putting money in our right pocket. Shifting money from our left pocket to our right pocket does not leave us with more money.” Of course, what people like Stanek are apparently incapable of getting, is the fact that the point of this bill is not about leaving us “with more money.” There are, in fact, people, intelligent people, who are interested in other things besides getting more money, though I’d be surprised if someone like this knows anyone like that personally.
The bill is expected to raise $1.2 trillion over the decade and more importantly, Mr. Stanek, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent relative to 2005 levels. Along the way, it could also help reduce the deficit, not only by providing some government revenue but more importantly, by providing stimulus funds to the fast growing, job-creating green segment of our economy.
There is indeed a growing sentiment on the heels of President Obama’s State of the Union Address, where he came out forcefully, declaring that action is urgently needed. The bill is not expected to pass the Senate, never mind the backward-looking House. But the fact that it contains some new and innovative thinking could help to break the logjam that currently exists in Congress. This could lead to other ideas that could potentially gain support.
Original Article by RP Siegel at Triple Pundit
