Compiled and edited by Ted Glick, CCAN National Campaign Coordinator

May 17, 2012

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance the policy known as “cap and dividend,” first introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in December, 2009. Learn more at http://www.supportclearact.org. Since that time, this bipartisan approach has continued to attract interest and coverage. CCAN continues to produce and distribute this periodic newsletter to keep the clean energy community updated on those developments.  

Click here to view past Cap and Dividend Policy Updates.

 

In This Issue:

#1  James Hansen in NY Times: Game Over for the Climate

#2  Bloomberg: Australia predicts close to $25 billion in carbon tax revenue

#3  Robin Hahnel:  Radicals and Reformers: Part 1: Climate Change

#4  James K. Boyce at UCLA symposium: Cap-and-trade as property creation

#5  Michael W. Howard: A Cap on Carbon and a Basic Income

 

# 1  James Hansen in NY Times: Game Over for the Climate

“We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.”
For the full article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1

#2 Bloomberg: Australia predicts close to $25 billion in carbon tax revenue

“Australia expects to raise A$24.7 billion ($24.8 billion) in four years from the carbon tax coming into effect July 1, as the government seeks to reduce emissions and spur investment in cleaner energy. ‘The carbon price will transform our economy by decoupling economic growth from growth in pollution,’ Greg Combet, Australia’s climate change minister, said in a statement accompanying the budget. The levy will apply to about 500 of the nation’s largest polluters who pump out some 60 percent of Australia’s emissions, Combet said.”
For the full article go to: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/australia-predicts-a-24-7-billion-carbon-revenue.html

#3  Robin Hahnel:  Radicals and Reformers: Part 1: Climate Change

“Tax and dividend is fine. Using any of the tax to reduce deficits is BAD because we don’t need to reduce deficits right now. That is a myth that is strangling economic policy and preventing us from launching needed fiscal stimulus to get out of the recession. Better to use 25% to subsidize renewable energy production and energy conservation programs, as the Cantwell Collins Bill did, after using 75% as a rebate (dividend) to households. Cantwell Collins was a cap and dividend bill, rather than a tax and dividend bill. But the permits required were all upstream, so essentially it was the same thing. I’m not opposed to doing a cap — auction — dividend approach in order not to have to fight the anti-any-tax lobby. That was what Cantwell Collins did, and they did it that way for that reason.”
For the full article and comments go to: http://www.zcommunications.org/radicals-and-reformers-part-1-climate-change-by-robin-hahnel

#4  James K. Boyce at UCLA symposium: Cap-and-trade as property creation

The case for dividends:

• Moral: the air (including its capacity to safely absorb GHGs) belongs to the people.
• Legal: compensation to the people for use of their resources meets the Sinclair ‘nexus’ test.
• Economic: keeps the resource rent in California; and taxation of dividends as personal income keeps the state ‘whole’.
• Political: sustains voter support for [California law] AB32 even as fuel prices rise.”

For the full presentation go to: http://www.law.ucla.edu/centers-programs/environmental-law/Documents/Boyce%20-%20UCLA%20talk%20-%20Apr%202012.pdf%20

#5  Michael W. Howard: A Cap on Carbon and a Basic Income

“The Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) can be seen as a successful example of a universal basic income. . . A basic income funded in this way is a natural resource dividend. The natural resource, in this case Alaska’s oil, is owned equally by every resident, and every resident gets an equal share of the returns on the wealth generated by the resource. . . Of the possible resource bases for a basic income at the federal level in the United States, one of the most promising is the atmosphere we all share, which, treated as a common sink, is becoming dangerously polluted with greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Limitation of this pollution through the auction of a fixed number of carbon permits will generate large revenues, and each of us might lay claim to an equal share of these revenues in the form of dividends, an idea popularized by Peter Barnes.”
For the full article go to: www.usbig.net/papers/Carbon%20DividendAlaskalong5-11.doc

 

CCAN encourages readers of the Cap and Dividend Policy Update to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included. Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org. To find out more about CCAN go to www.chesapeakeclimate.org