Is a carbon tax dead in the water?

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

I've just watched Dr. Natalia Shakhova's long interview this month, following the winter expedition to the ESAS. The results are scarier than ever. She is candid about geoengineering being just plain silly. AMEG appears to have wiped any references to geoengineering from their site – I suspect on her advice. Two of their members, John Nissen and David Wasdell question the Government and IPCC panel in Westminster London 2014 in a rough cell phone video. It's on  the AMEG Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ArcticMethaneEmergencyGroup, so I can't link to the video here. They question the IPCC work group's failure to highlight the urgency of the condition of the Arctic sea ice. The panel's answer is essentially 'risk management': 'Economic sensitivity' and low-income populations' potential social unrest from carbon pricing is a scarier risk to the governments of the world than climate sensitivity.

The Shakhova videos are linked on the AMEG Facebook page and also in Vergent's topic here, "This is not good". http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,484.0.html

Jame's Hansen's latest post winds up with his request:

How can we make the next President understand what is needed before he or she is elected? We must get the concept of a carbon fee with 100% of the funds going to the public into the political conversation. The dividend can be described as a rebate or clean energy credit. Citizens Climate Lobby, which I have written about earlier, is growing rapidly, but needs to get bigger and more visible. Consider joining or starting a local chapter.The immediate ask is that you call your local Congress person on 23 June to express support for climate solutions and specifically for the simple honest fee - and - dividend approach.
The next day several hundred CCL members will be visiting Congress people at their offices in Washington. Calls from constituents on the preceding day could make their visits more effective.
Information to help you make the call is available at
https://www.facebook.com/events/509857082475399/
Jim Hansen

From the Citizens Climate Lobby site after this event:
'“When people like former Treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz, both Republicans, start talking about the extreme risk of taking no action on global warming, it increases the pressure on Congress to come up with solutions,” said Mark Reynolds, CCL executive director. “Members of Congress and their staff were listening to our proposal in a way they hadn’t before, and the Risky Business report certainly helped to pique their interest.'

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/press-release-june-27-2014/

[JayW]

I know it's only a handful of states in the northeast, but it's something, and hopefully leads to more.
Snippet from http://www.rggi.org/

Welcome
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

I find the website kind of confusing. It seems to be a cap-and-trade system. Sounds good on the surface, but the argument against this has always been that the system would be gamed.

James Hansen has campaigned for a clear-cut fee-and-rebate system. FF producers and importers pay, residents get an even share, gaining most the more they reduce their footprints. However, it seems highly unlikely this will be implemented, especially globally enough to get us where we need to be. Also it's probably skewed to the educated who can control their footprints.

The IPCC working group panel in London took the position recently that globally governments are in 'risk management' mode, meaning social unrest among low income populations in the face of carbon pricing is a worse risk than increasingly extreme climate change impacts.

[TerryM]

Lynn
I think that the scheme in BC is going over quite well. Not sure that the poor are being hit particularly hard with part of the tax burden being paid by big polluters.
Terry

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

The British Columbia revenue-neutral carbon tax is based on the following principles:

    All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.
    The tax rate started low and increases gradually – Starting at a low rate gave individuals and businesses time to make adjustments and respects decisions made prior to the announcement of the tax.
    Low-income individuals and families are protected – A refundable Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit is designed to help offset the carbon tax paid by low-income individuals and families.
    The tax has the broadest possible base – Virtually all emissions from fuel combustion in B.C. captured in Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report are taxed, with no exemptions except those required for integration with other climate action policies in the future and for efficient administration.
    The tax will be integrated with other measures – The carbon tax will not, on its own, meet B.C.’s emission-reduction targets, but it is a key element in the strategy. The carbon tax and complementary measures such as a “cap and trade” system will be integrated as these other measures are designed and implemented.

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

Terry, you became a hero member with that post. Thanks for the alert.