Bipartisan legislation to place a $15-a-ton tax on any good or service that uses carbon, especially fossil fuels — and returning the proceeds as a “dividend” to every taxpayer — has been re-introduced in Congress as a disincentive for consumption of climate-disrupting fossil fuels.
And, while there are no co-sponsors for the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act from New England, or even the Northeast, there is support from a Citizens’ Climate Lobby with Pioneer Valley and Franklin-Berkshire chapters.
The bill, first introduced in November by Reps. Ted Deutch and Charlie Crist, both D-Fla.; Francis Rooney, R-Fla.; John Delaney, D-Md., and Dave Trott, R-Mich., would increase the fee on coal, oil and gas by $10 every year, and would be allocated in equal shares every month for return in the form of dividends, with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 90 percent by 2050 in this country. (Delaney is now a presidential candidate. Trott did not see re-election.)
The new bill, H.R. 763, was filed by Deutch, Rooney and Crist, along with Reps. Anna Eshoo, Scott Peters and Judy Chu, all D-Calif., and Dan Lapinski, D-Ill. It has also been co-sponsored by Democrats Dean Phillips of Minnesota and Henry Johnson of Georgia. But, it has not yet received the backing of any members of the Massachusetts delegation — or for that matter, the New England or even the Northeast delegations.
With a revenue-neutral, market-based approach, the legislation has failed to win the backing of more liberal members of Congress, who favor direct investment in clean-energy solutions, according to one Capitol Hill observer.
Among supporters of the measure is Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and former Democratic National Committee chair.
A spokesman for Citizens Climate Lobby said that volunteers are just circulating the newly reintroduced bill to representatives to co-sponsor the legislation, which CCL Ashfield Chapter leader Richard Prée said was introduced in November, because it was seen as very important for it to be a bipartisan effort.
“Polling shows that more and more Americans are making the connection between climate change and disasters that claim lives and property,” CLC Executive Director Mark Reynolds said in a written statement as the legislation billed as “a bipartisan climate solution” was introduced last week. “As public pressure increases for Congress to take action, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act provides a solution that is both effective and family friendly.”
Unlike the French fuel tax late last year that led to “Yellow Vest” protests against the Macron government, the proposal would return collected fees allocated in equal monthly shares to people after program costs are paid.
“It’s everyone’s environment,” said Prée, “so it should come back to everyone for whatever they want to do with that money, in a equal shares. … Then all of a sudden, all businesses would make that turn toward a green-energy economy.”
In Canada, where the Trudeau government has introduced a national carbon tax this month with rebates flowing back to the people, there have been claims that it could lead to a recession, but economists disagree.
The U.S. proposal, which is projected to reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by at least 40 percent in the next 12 years, while creating 2.1 million new jobs through economic growth spurred by the fees flowing back to the people, has gotten a boost from editorials in The Boston Globe and The Chicago Tribune, while a Jan. 16 letter in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and 43 other leading economists backs the market-based, revenue-neutral approach to add stability to the economy.
“A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary,” the economists wrote, calling climate change a “serious problem … (requiring) immediate national action.”
Signed by nearly every Republican and Democratic chair of the Council of Economic Advisers since the 1970s, the letter continues, “The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in ‘carbon dividends’ than they pay in increased energy prices.”
When Congressional Republicans last July floated a resolution opposing any carbon tax, Democratic Rep. Richard Neal of Springfield — who now chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee — spoke out against the measure, which was ultimately defeated, saying, “If you want to debate a carbon tax, let’s hold some hearings. Let’s find out what it would mean for the economy. Let’s find out what the impact would be if we have fossil fuel emissions reduced. If you want to have this debate, then let’s have a real debate through hearings.”
Prée said the $15-per-ton fee would translate to about an 11-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline.
“That’s not going to kill you, and you’ll get some pocket money,” estimated at $16 to $24 per month in the first year. Over the first year, the fee would rise from $15 to $25 per ton of carbon. And if the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions haven’t been cut 40 percent by 2030 — by which time the per-ton fee would be approaching $100 — the $10 annual increase in carbon fees would be stepped up.
“The idea is, it would start at $15 a ton and would go up $10 predictably, so that businesses and households could plan,” said Pree, who taught at Smith Vocational Technical School, where his students participated in Northeast Sustainable Energy Association’s Tour de Sol. “The ‘fossil fuels solution’ is no longer going to be a solution. It’s been powering the economy for years, but it’s not a reasonable use of energy, because it doesn’t take into account the damage it does to the environment.”
Visit: www.energyinnovationact.org