Hey everyone: Sorry for the late notice on this, but let's not meet on Thursday. Here's the news:
1) The Waxman-Markey time line continues to be hit by delays: Joe Romm at Climate Progress says that "now it is officially impossible to imagine a Senate vote before November. And I’d say it’s now at most 50-50 the vote isn’t until December or January."
2) Todd Myers is going to be meeting with some state legislators this month, and I'm going to try to do the same. If you have any connections or want to join the fun please let me know!
3) Last time I emailed out an invitation for thoughts on Waxman-Markey (and a heads-up that I was writing something about my own thoughts). Below are some excerpts from an email from David Oliver; I'd be happy to forward the entire email to anybody who wants it. And I can also email you a draft of an op-ed I'm working on, which (as it happens) overlaps quite strongly with David's thoughts. (The bottom line is that I think Congress should pass Waxman-Markey without the cap, and that we should keep working on a stronger form of carbon pricing.) Comments welcome, and of course I should remind everyone that the CarbonWA group as a group has no stance on Waxman-Markey but that individual members of the group are free to share their own opinions. (And if anybody else has opinions they want to share with the group please send them my way!)
4) I'm going to have trouble making meetings for the next few months because of my teaching commitments. So... hopefully we can get work done via email, and if anybody is gung-ho on meetings then let me know and we can go from there! :)
PS. I got a boost in the arm from reading Elizabeth Kolbert's plug for carbon taxes in the New Yorker. Check it out!
*********************
Dr. David W. Oliver
My background is PHD physics MIT, 33 years at GE R&D Center including managemnet positions and review of GE business strategies.
My knowledge and instincts both tell me that what is most vital in policy is a fixed long term price for fossil fuels. Any policy that results in price fluctuations will inhibit the industrial investment that must be made. Cap and Trade will enhance thosse fluctuations. Trade part will be subject to fraud without any possibility of monitoring and prosecution.
The Larson bill, ignored in congress and by many green organizations, could have worked.
Our congress will distort any legislation that is not driven by public demand and outrage into benefits for their districts and contributors. This is neither cynical nor critical. It is the basis of representative government. The reality is that US public is apathetic regarding climate change and the vested interests are among the most wealthy in the nation.
There is an extremely low probability that the Waxman bill can deliver the long term fixed fossil fuel price needed as it clears congress. It does not do so in present form.
*********************
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
August update (and no meeting this week)
Hey everyone: Sorry for the long silence since my last email, but things are moving rather slowly on the climate front because of health care and the Congressional recess coming up soon &etc. So:
1) Let's not meet this week, but let's pencil in our next meeting downtown on Th Sept 3 from 12-1pm. Agenda TBD, but one obvious centerpiece is how to move forward through the molasses. If anybody has thoughts they'd like to email out to the group please send them my way and I'll forward them along.
2) I'm hearing a lot about the Waxman-Markey bill getting pushed even further down the road, e.g., an email from Environmental Defense Fund says "the hoped-for September debate on climate will have to wait until at least October – and perhaps November or even December" and Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress says the Senate vote won't be "until at least November" and "I’d say it’s at least 50-50 the vote isn’t until December or January". (Recall that the international negotiations in Copenhagen are the first two weeks of December.) If the Washington State legislature is thinking of taking up WCI again in their next session, the timing will be tricky, e.g., because the environmental community will be putting together their top priorities in the fall. Depending on how the cards fall there may well be an opening for our proposal. (Yes it may seem that I'm grasping at straws, but so be it :)
3) Just a heads-up that I'm working on an op-ed or blog piece about my own thoughts on Waxman-Markey. If anybody objects because that would interfere with the neutrality of the CarbonWA group, please email me to let me know. On the other side of the spectrum, if any of you want to share your own opinions about Waxman-Markey with me and/or the rest of the group, that would be interesting too, so send them my way. (Please be clear about whether your thoughts are for public consumption &etc.)
1) Let's not meet this week, but let's pencil in our next meeting downtown on Th Sept 3 from 12-1pm. Agenda TBD, but one obvious centerpiece is how to move forward through the molasses. If anybody has thoughts they'd like to email out to the group please send them my way and I'll forward them along.
2) I'm hearing a lot about the Waxman-Markey bill getting pushed even further down the road, e.g., an email from Environmental Defense Fund says "the hoped-for September debate on climate will have to wait until at least October – and perhaps November or even December" and Joseph Romm of ClimateProgress says the Senate vote won't be "until at least November" and "I’d say it’s at least 50-50 the vote isn’t until December or January". (Recall that the international negotiations in Copenhagen are the first two weeks of December.) If the Washington State legislature is thinking of taking up WCI again in their next session, the timing will be tricky, e.g., because the environmental community will be putting together their top priorities in the fall. Depending on how the cards fall there may well be an opening for our proposal. (Yes it may seem that I'm grasping at straws, but so be it :)
3) Just a heads-up that I'm working on an op-ed or blog piece about my own thoughts on Waxman-Markey. If anybody objects because that would interfere with the neutrality of the CarbonWA group, please email me to let me know. On the other side of the spectrum, if any of you want to share your own opinions about Waxman-Markey with me and/or the rest of the group, that would be interesting too, so send them my way. (Please be clear about whether your thoughts are for public consumption &etc.)
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Notes from June 4 meeting
Below are notes from today's meeting, which was a good one, thanks everyone!
In attendance: Christy Nordstrom, Marshall Baker, Anne Engstrom, Anna Fahey, Dorothy Craig, Bruce Flory, Riley Morton, Catherine Carey, Yoram Bauman, Phil Mitchell.
* Anna Fahey (Communications Specialist from Sightline) shared with us public opinion research. (This material was sent out by Yoram via emai; Anna didn't want it posted on the web.) The Yale survey that Phil mentioned is here.
* Updates:
In attendance: Christy Nordstrom, Marshall Baker, Anne Engstrom, Anna Fahey, Dorothy Craig, Bruce Flory, Riley Morton, Catherine Carey, Yoram Bauman, Phil Mitchell.
* Anna Fahey (Communications Specialist from Sightline) shared with us public opinion research. (This material was sent out by Yoram via emai; Anna didn't want it posted on the web.) The Yale survey that Phil mentioned is here.
* Updates:
- The op-ed is finished (!) and Todd Myers and Bruce Flory are going to submit it to the Seattle Times tomorrow; a nearly-final draft was also sent out via email to avoid putting it on the web.
- The website is looking good but we need to work on the About Us page.
- There hasn't been much change on the policy front, but here's an updated spreadsheet (carbonwa8.xls) that is less busy than the previous version.
- On the legal front, Phil's got a contact who can hopefully help and Yoram is trying to set up a meeting with state constitutional law expert Hugh Spitzer.
- On the outreach front, Yoram gave a talk at WWU and some students and faculty were supportive.
- One piece of bad news is that signature-gathering pledges are only at 15,000; hopefully the op-ed piece &etc will help build momentum.
- And of course there are lots of rumors and opinions about the Waxman-Markey, the WCI, etc. (Following Greg Mankiw, I recommend these pieces voting Yes by Robert Stavins and No by Martin Feldstein.) Our niche is to be ready as a "Plan C" alternative if these measures fail. (Some members of our group want them to fail and some don't, so our job as a group is to walk the fine line of what-if, and I think the op-ed does a great job of doing that.)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Agenda for Th meeting downtown 12-1pm, June 4
Here's a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting, which as usual will be 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave:
12:00-12:05: Introductions
12:05-12:30: Anna Fahey, Communications Specialist from Sightline, will share her public opinion research on carbon taxes, willingness-to-pay, cap-and-trade &etc.
12:30-12:50: Updates on legal, policy, op-ed, website, signature-gathering pledges, and WCI/Waxman-Markey.
12:50-1:00: Next steps and next meeting (Th July 2, but maybe cancel or move to Mon July 6?)
PS #1: Last week I attended a UW law school conference on climate change and human rights, and the message I left with is that the niche we're trying to fill---what happens if WCI and Waxman-Markey don't pass?---is an important one. The attendees (including folks who have actually read all 900 pages of Waxman-Markey :) were not optimistic about the prospects of Waxman-Markey passing both houses of Congress before the next turn-over of the Senate (after the 2010 election), and it sounds like there's lots of concern that nothing substantial will happen at the international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, either. So that puts attention back on state- and regional-level action, which is exactly our niche.
PS #2: Phil Mitchell sent out the message below to his network last week, and I wanted to share it with all of you because it does a great job of staking out our position viz-a-viz enviros who want action on climate change. Enjoy, and hope to see you Thursday!
A ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax and replace it with a carbon tax.
I hope you got a chance to celebrate last week at the EPA hearings -- it was a blast. While we do have much to celebrate, we also have to keep our eyes on the prize: policy action that will actually work to halt global warming.
First, let me recap where we stand.
We've been trying to pass a regional cap on climate pollution (Western Climate Initiative). This past session our reps in Olympia had the chance to move it forward and failed to act. We will try again next year. I call that Plan A.
Then there's federal action. As you know, a massive climate bill is finally moving through Congress, but it's future is unclear. That's Plan B.
The question is, what should we do if state and federal action continues to stall? I'm inviting you to get involved in Plan C.
Plan C is a ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax (and replace the revenues with a carbon tax). This is a brilliant idea. It is a carbon tax with a difference -- it actually saves you money (if you own property), unless you're an energy hog that won't reduce your carbon footprint. If you don't own property and are low income, it raises enough revenue to provide you a rebate. And it actually has a chance of passing, because it targets the state property tax, which people hate.
And it will steadily reduce our emissions of global warming pollution. More details are below.
I think this is a great idea and should be our backup plan if Plans A and B go nowhere. I myself have committed to work on it -- if it's a go -- and I'm asking you to do the same.
Please write back to me and let me know if you'll pledge to gather signatures. We are building a coalition of partners, and having signature pledges from you will really help recruit additional partners.
The pledge is to gather 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. You won't do this in one afternoon (unless you get 10 friends to help), but it's doable. And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
Understand that we are committing to do this only if Plans A and B continue to go nowhere. This initiative is being led by Yoram Bauman, an economist who co-authored an excellent Sightline book on Tax Shifting. It is inspired by a successful carbon tax that was passed in British Columbia.
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!
Phil
Details
We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
Since the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce the risk from harmful carbon emissions, some may be concerned that revenue from a carbon tax would decrease over time and fail replace the property tax revenue needed to support our schools. The truth is that by increasing the tax at a slow but steady rate, we can maintain a stable revenue stream even as carbon emissions fall.
12:00-12:05: Introductions
12:05-12:30: Anna Fahey, Communications Specialist from Sightline, will share her public opinion research on carbon taxes, willingness-to-pay, cap-and-trade &etc.
12:30-12:50: Updates on legal, policy, op-ed, website, signature-gathering pledges, and WCI/Waxman-Markey.
12:50-1:00: Next steps and next meeting (Th July 2, but maybe cancel or move to Mon July 6?)
PS #1: Last week I attended a UW law school conference on climate change and human rights, and the message I left with is that the niche we're trying to fill---what happens if WCI and Waxman-Markey don't pass?---is an important one. The attendees (including folks who have actually read all 900 pages of Waxman-Markey :) were not optimistic about the prospects of Waxman-Markey passing both houses of Congress before the next turn-over of the Senate (after the 2010 election), and it sounds like there's lots of concern that nothing substantial will happen at the international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, either. So that puts attention back on state- and regional-level action, which is exactly our niche.
PS #2: Phil Mitchell sent out the message below to his network last week, and I wanted to share it with all of you because it does a great job of staking out our position viz-a-viz enviros who want action on climate change. Enjoy, and hope to see you Thursday!
A ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax and replace it with a carbon tax.
I hope you got a chance to celebrate last week at the EPA hearings -- it was a blast. While we do have much to celebrate, we also have to keep our eyes on the prize: policy action that will actually work to halt global warming.
First, let me recap where we stand.
We've been trying to pass a regional cap on climate pollution (Western Climate Initiative). This past session our reps in Olympia had the chance to move it forward and failed to act. We will try again next year. I call that Plan A.
Then there's federal action. As you know, a massive climate bill is finally moving through Congress, but it's future is unclear. That's Plan B.
The question is, what should we do if state and federal action continues to stall? I'm inviting you to get involved in Plan C.
Plan C is a ballot initiative to abolish the state property tax (and replace the revenues with a carbon tax). This is a brilliant idea. It is a carbon tax with a difference -- it actually saves you money (if you own property), unless you're an energy hog that won't reduce your carbon footprint. If you don't own property and are low income, it raises enough revenue to provide you a rebate. And it actually has a chance of passing, because it targets the state property tax, which people hate.
And it will steadily reduce our emissions of global warming pollution. More details are below.
I think this is a great idea and should be our backup plan if Plans A and B go nowhere. I myself have committed to work on it -- if it's a go -- and I'm asking you to do the same.
Please write back to me and let me know if you'll pledge to gather signatures. We are building a coalition of partners, and having signature pledges from you will really help recruit additional partners.
The pledge is to gather 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. You won't do this in one afternoon (unless you get 10 friends to help), but it's doable. And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
Understand that we are committing to do this only if Plans A and B continue to go nowhere. This initiative is being led by Yoram Bauman, an economist who co-authored an excellent Sightline book on Tax Shifting. It is inspired by a successful carbon tax that was passed in British Columbia.
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!
Phil
Details
We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
Since the whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce the risk from harmful carbon emissions, some may be concerned that revenue from a carbon tax would decrease over time and fail replace the property tax revenue needed to support our schools. The truth is that by increasing the tax at a slow but steady rate, we can maintain a stable revenue stream even as carbon emissions fall.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
FAQ: Business/household property tax split
The business/household split for property taxes is about 1/3 business, 2/3 household. Bruce tracked this down from the 2007 Legislative Guide to Washington State Property Taxes.
Richard Carson at UW on Monday
On Monday May 18, speaking about Carson, Louviere J., and Wei, E. (2008), "Structuring Australia’s Climate Change Plan: The Public’s Views", CenSoC Working Paper No. 08-002 (56k PDF).
Time: Mondy, May 18th from 11:30am-12:30pm
Location: Parrington Hall Forum (Room 309)
Time: Mondy, May 18th from 11:30am-12:30pm
Location: Parrington Hall Forum (Room 309)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Good news from B.C.
The B.C. carbon tax survived! See also this story with speculation about national implications.
PS. Bill sends along news that some Congressional Republicans have introduced carbon tax legislation.
PS. Bill sends along news that some Congressional Republicans have introduced carbon tax legislation.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Signature-gathering pledges: 10,000!
So we've got pledges for 10,000 signatures! That's a lot less than we need, but it's a start :)
At our next meeting (Th June 4 12-1pm) we should set up a target for the year. I'm thinking pledges for 100,000 signatures (i.e., about 110 people pledging 900 signatures) would be a good number to line up by January 2010. That's a lot of pledges---about 5 pledges of 900 signatures each week for the remainder of the year---and of course that's only a down-payment on the 241,153 valid signatures we'd need by early July 2010 to get on the November 2010 ballot. But I think 100,000 is a good number to target because (1) we'd get extra pledges as we go along in 2010, (2) it's a number that will hopefully help bring some bigger guns on-board, and (3) five 900-signature pledges each week seems daunting but potentially do-able :)
At our next meeting (Th June 4 12-1pm) we should set up a target for the year. I'm thinking pledges for 100,000 signatures (i.e., about 110 people pledging 900 signatures) would be a good number to line up by January 2010. That's a lot of pledges---about 5 pledges of 900 signatures each week for the remainder of the year---and of course that's only a down-payment on the 241,153 valid signatures we'd need by early July 2010 to get on the November 2010 ballot. But I think 100,000 is a good number to target because (1) we'd get extra pledges as we go along in 2010, (2) it's a number that will hopefully help bring some bigger guns on-board, and (3) five 900-signature pledges each week seems daunting but potentially do-able :)
Notes from meeting with WA Roundtable's Steve Mullin
I met today with Steve Mullin, head of WA Roundtable. Detailed notes are below, but the overall impression I got (not unexpected) was that neutrality was pretty much the most we could hope for, and in order to get that we'd need to look at impacts on Boeing, Microsoft, Weyerhaeuser, etc. Details:
- Climate change is not one of their priorities (taxes and education are).
- He expressed some personal preference for carbon taxes over cap-and-trade because of simplicity &etc, which reminded me of Puget Sound Energy's statement of "support for a carbon tax... [because it's] straightforward and transparent... A carbon tax would give the utility sector the cost certainty required to make prudent long-term resource planning decisions and achieve regulatory approval for recovering capital investments."
- He was interested in relative tax burdens on households v. business---claiming that the lack of a state income tax pushed the tax burden onto business---so I shared with him, e.g., Bruce's research on the property tax burden (and hence any property tax relief) being split about 60/40 between households and business.
- He was keen on reducing the B&O (business) tax burden.
- He worried about the impact of a carbon tax on Boeing. (His language was stronger than that :) But he also said that Boeing probably had a large property burden that they'd love to reduce. He gave me the name of a contact there and I've already emailed him.
- He also gave me a contact at Microsoft (I've emailed her too) and suggested that they might be receptive to a carbon tax.
- Because education is one of their priorities, we talked a bit about setting aside a chunk of money for education, but I didn't get a strong sense that this would make the proposal more attractive in their eyes.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Notes from May 7 meeting
In attendance: Bruce, Catherine, Dorothy, Jim, Yoram.
Policy: There wasn't much said either for or against the new spreadsheet (linked here). Bruce favors $50/ton over $30/ton but also recognizes that there might be political advantages to going with $30/ton, e.g., because that's what BC has done. Bruce also suggested increasing the low-income offset. (I'm still waiting to hear back from my friends at Resources for the Future who are running some numbers on that.)
Website: We agreed that (1) having an internal website (to use, e.g., for signature-gathering volunteers) was more important at the moment than having an external website, but we also agreed that we didn't need either one in order to start reaching out to potential signature-gathering volunteers. FYI, the draft website is here but it's still not ready to go public.
Outreach: We made minor modifications of the email (see below), and this afternoon I sent it out to some folks (including most of the people on the carbonWA email list :) Also Dorothy said she would take the idea back to her group (Citizens Climate Lobby) and Jim said he would spread the word with some colleagues, and also on his widely read e-newsletter when we get our ducks a little more in a row. Thanks to everyone for doing the same!
Next steps: Next meeting downtown is Thursday June 4, 12-1pm. If you want to get more involved between now and then (research/outreach/etc) just holler!
PS. Below is the email asking for signature-gathering volunteers.
Cheers,
yoram
Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:
* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)
* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad---36 hours goes by fast :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in gathering signatures for the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.
Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!
PS. Please do share this with friends who might be interested, and if you and/or they want to be on our once-a-week email list, the more the merrier :)
Regards,
yoram
Policy: There wasn't much said either for or against the new spreadsheet (linked here). Bruce favors $50/ton over $30/ton but also recognizes that there might be political advantages to going with $30/ton, e.g., because that's what BC has done. Bruce also suggested increasing the low-income offset. (I'm still waiting to hear back from my friends at Resources for the Future who are running some numbers on that.)
Website: We agreed that (1) having an internal website (to use, e.g., for signature-gathering volunteers) was more important at the moment than having an external website, but we also agreed that we didn't need either one in order to start reaching out to potential signature-gathering volunteers. FYI, the draft website is here but it's still not ready to go public.
Outreach: We made minor modifications of the email (see below), and this afternoon I sent it out to some folks (including most of the people on the carbonWA email list :) Also Dorothy said she would take the idea back to her group (Citizens Climate Lobby) and Jim said he would spread the word with some colleagues, and also on his widely read e-newsletter when we get our ducks a little more in a row. Thanks to everyone for doing the same!
Next steps: Next meeting downtown is Thursday June 4, 12-1pm. If you want to get more involved between now and then (research/outreach/etc) just holler!
PS. Below is the email asking for signature-gathering volunteers.
Cheers,
yoram
Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:
* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)
* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power, with the tax rate increasing over time; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad---36 hours goes by fast :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in gathering signatures for the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.
Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!
PS. Please do share this with friends who might be interested, and if you and/or they want to be on our once-a-week email list, the more the merrier :)
Regards,
yoram
Monday, May 4, 2009
Agenda for Th meeting downtown 12-1pm
Hey everyone: Here's a tentative agenda for Thursday's meeting, which is 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave downtown. Hope to see you there!
* Updates (5 minutes): News about WCI, federal action, stakeholder meetings, etc. FYI, here's my update in a nutshell: I've gotten a good response from some green energy Venture Capital folks and a UW student group (UW SEED), a less good response from some environmental groups---having lost the battle at the state level, they have apparently decided to join the battle at the federal level---and am looking forward to discussions in the next week or two with some social justice folks, with some folks connected to big business, and with economic researchers at RFF who are going to tell us about impacts on different income deciles.
* Policy (15 minutes): Here's an updated spreadsheet that includes stronger GHG targets (which makes our revenue estimates more conservative), a lower initial tax rate, and rate increases of inflation plus 5% annually: carbonwa7.xls. It hasn't changed that much from the previous version (carbonwa6.xls), and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, but my 2 cents are that the changes make it more stable in the long-run and more politically attractive in the short-run (e.g., by starting at $30 per ton rather than $50 per ton we can truthfully say that we're just mimicking the carbon tax already in place in British Columbia).
* Website (15 minutes): After a long delay I think we need to get cracking again on having a bare-bones but functional website, so let's talk about who our target audience is and what we need on the website and how to get it done.
* Outreach (15 minutes): I've drafted an email (copied below) to start drumming up support for signature-gathering, and I'm looking for feedback.
* Next steps (10 minutes): To-do list and next downtown meeting Th June 4 from 12-1pm.
Let me know if you have additions/corrections/suggestions for the meeting agenda, and if you can't make the meeting but want to chime in via email please do!
HERE'S THE DRAFT EMAIL (written from my perspective but not hard to modify):
Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:
* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)
* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. Some details are online at www.ourwebsite.org, and FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.
Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!
yoram
* Updates (5 minutes): News about WCI, federal action, stakeholder meetings, etc. FYI, here's my update in a nutshell: I've gotten a good response from some green energy Venture Capital folks and a UW student group (UW SEED), a less good response from some environmental groups---having lost the battle at the state level, they have apparently decided to join the battle at the federal level---and am looking forward to discussions in the next week or two with some social justice folks, with some folks connected to big business, and with economic researchers at RFF who are going to tell us about impacts on different income deciles.
* Policy (15 minutes): Here's an updated spreadsheet that includes stronger GHG targets (which makes our revenue estimates more conservative), a lower initial tax rate, and rate increases of inflation plus 5% annually: carbonwa7.xls. It hasn't changed that much from the previous version (carbonwa6.xls), and I look forward to hearing your thoughts, but my 2 cents are that the changes make it more stable in the long-run and more politically attractive in the short-run (e.g., by starting at $30 per ton rather than $50 per ton we can truthfully say that we're just mimicking the carbon tax already in place in British Columbia).
* Website (15 minutes): After a long delay I think we need to get cracking again on having a bare-bones but functional website, so let's talk about who our target audience is and what we need on the website and how to get it done.
* Outreach (15 minutes): I've drafted an email (copied below) to start drumming up support for signature-gathering, and I'm looking for feedback.
* Next steps (10 minutes): To-do list and next downtown meeting Th June 4 from 12-1pm.
Let me know if you have additions/corrections/suggestions for the meeting agenda, and if you can't make the meeting but want to chime in via email please do!
HERE'S THE DRAFT EMAIL (written from my perspective but not hard to modify):
Hi [Pat]: I hope you're enjoying this spring and summer, and I want you to keep enjoying it, but I'm writing to ask for some of your time next spring and summer, i.e., about 10 months from now. Here's the skinny:
* Climate change is not going away, so I'm part of a group that is determined to push a ballot measure here in Washington State if state and federal action continues to stall. Getting on the ballot in November 2010 would mean gathering signatures in February-June 2010, so I'm asking for your help to make that happen. (You'd also be helping one of my dreams come true: I've been serious enough about this that I've practiced over the past few years by personally gathered about 900 signatures each year for a ballot measure I support :)
* We're still working on the policy details, but the gist of it will be (1) imposing a carbon tax of $30-50 per ton of CO2, which amounts to about $0.30-$0.50 per gallon of gasoline or about $0.03-$0.05 per kWh of coal-fired power; (2) using the majority of the revenue to repeal the state portion of the property tax; and (3) using a smaller portion of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households and perhaps also reduce business taxes and/or increase funding for clean energy research and for K-12 math/science education. Some details are online at www.ourwebsite.org, and FYI this proposal is roughly similar to the award-winning carbon tax currently in effect in British Columbia.
* I am asking for you to commit to gathering 900 signatures between early February 2010 and late June 2010. This will not be super-easy, but it will also not be impossible: at an average signature-gathering rate of 25 signatures per hour (or 100 in a 4-hour shift), that means finding nine friends to join you for just a single 4-hour shift, or finding three friends to join you for three 4-hour shifts, or doing nine 4-hour shifts on your lonesome (which is mostly what I've done during my volunteer efforts these last few years, and it's really not that bad :). And of course we'll provide you with training and lists of good signature-gathering locations &etc... all we need is your time and enthusiasm!
* Just for the record, what I am really asking for is an _option_ on your time and enthusiasm: If federal or state action makes the ballot measure unnecessary, or if we fail to interest enough people in the ballot measure, you'll be free to devote your time and enthusiasm elsewhere. But we'd like to count on your participation IF we can drum up a critical mass of support and IF there is no state or federal action by early 2010.
Let me know if you have any questions, let me know if you're game, and thank you!
yoram
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Updates and Thursday May 7 meeting downtown
Hey folks: Now that I've mostly finished the cartoon book about economics I've been working on (including a section on carbon taxes!) I have lots of time and energy to work on this. Let me know about your availability too... there are lots of projects to work on :)
Status: For better or worse, the hypothetical scenario that our effort is based on seems to be coming true: the WA state legislature appears to have killed cap-and-trade for this year, and despite optimism from Sightline and others I have a hard time seeing serious federal action coming anytime soon. That leaves an opening for our proposal.
Our proposal: There are plenty of policy details to work out, but my belief is that there is general agreement about the major elements of our proposal, i.e., about having a mostly revenue-neutral carbon tax of $30+ per ton of CO2 (e.g., $0.30+ per gallon of gasoline), with revenue devoted to eliminating the state portion of the property tax, offsetting impacts on low-income households, and other features TBD (to be determined).
Next steps: I propose that we start committing to and working towards a 2010 ballot measure. In addition to continuing to get feedback on the proposal and work out policy details, I am going to start asking folks about their willingness to commit time and energy. (No need for money... yet :) So please think about your own constraints and abilities and what it would take to bring you and your friends and colleagues on board!
Next meeting: Thursday May 7, 12-1pm downtown. Agenda TBD.
Status: For better or worse, the hypothetical scenario that our effort is based on seems to be coming true: the WA state legislature appears to have killed cap-and-trade for this year, and despite optimism from Sightline and others I have a hard time seeing serious federal action coming anytime soon. That leaves an opening for our proposal.
Our proposal: There are plenty of policy details to work out, but my belief is that there is general agreement about the major elements of our proposal, i.e., about having a mostly revenue-neutral carbon tax of $30+ per ton of CO2 (e.g., $0.30+ per gallon of gasoline), with revenue devoted to eliminating the state portion of the property tax, offsetting impacts on low-income households, and other features TBD (to be determined).
Next steps: I propose that we start committing to and working towards a 2010 ballot measure. In addition to continuing to get feedback on the proposal and work out policy details, I am going to start asking folks about their willingness to commit time and energy. (No need for money... yet :) So please think about your own constraints and abilities and what it would take to bring you and your friends and colleagues on board!
Next meeting: Thursday May 7, 12-1pm downtown. Agenda TBD.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Updates and Thursday March 5 meeting downtown
1) Our very own Todd Myers has an op-ed in today's Seattle Times, "Create incentive to cut emissions with carbon price." (For the record, the piece is paired with a piece in yesterday's Times, "Cap-and-invest approach good for environment and economy" by Michael Butler of Cascadia Capital.)
2) Our next downtown meeting is Th March 5 12-1pm at the usual location (1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room). The agenda includes a WCI update and next steps on the spreadsheet and other updates below. I feel like we're building some momentum, so keep it up! One thing that everyone can do is try to get feedback on the proposal below from friends, local businesses, etc. (I've found that talking to local business owners is great fun! You'll certainly learn a lot about the tax burden on businesses :)
3) I've had valuable conversations with lots of different folks (see the list below), and this updated spreadsheet reflects the resulting proposal. In a nutshell, here's what the current proposal includes and how it differs from the last version:
PS. Here are some of the folks I've talked to lately. Many thanks to them for their feedback, and as always being on this list does not mean that any individual or group is supporting or endorsing anything.
2) Our next downtown meeting is Th March 5 12-1pm at the usual location (1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room). The agenda includes a WCI update and next steps on the spreadsheet and other updates below. I feel like we're building some momentum, so keep it up! One thing that everyone can do is try to get feedback on the proposal below from friends, local businesses, etc. (I've found that talking to local business owners is great fun! You'll certainly learn a lot about the tax burden on businesses :)
3) I've had valuable conversations with lots of different folks (see the list below), and this updated spreadsheet reflects the resulting proposal. In a nutshell, here's what the current proposal includes and how it differs from the last version:
- As before, impose a carbon tax of $50/ton of CO2 in 2010, with additional increases of $10/ton each year starting in 2015. This generates about $4.3 billion a year in 2010.
- As before, use $1.9 billion to replace the state portion of the property tax, leaving $2.4b.
- As before, set aside 10% of the revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, leaving $1.9b. (See number-crunching note about this below.)
- Instead of doubling the small business B&O tax credit, increase it 10-fold. This idea came from John Burbank of Economic Opportunity Institute, takes up "only" $260m, and means that the percentage of businesses who are exempt from B&O taxes goes up from 48% to 88%. (See details on the second sheet of the spreadsheet.)
- The Sarah Palin: Rebate local property taxes, for a total state/local property tax reduction of over 40% if all $1.7 billion goes here.
- The Van Jones: K-12 math/science education, higher ed clean energy research, green jobs, energy efficiency, etc.
- The Dick Cheney: Rebate state B&O taxes across the board, cutting state B&O taxes by over 50% if all $1.7 billion goes here.
PS. Here are some of the folks I've talked to lately. Many thanks to them for their feedback, and as always being on this list does not mean that any individual or group is supporting or endorsing anything.
- Clark Williams-Derry of Sightline Institute
- Michael Lazarus of Stockholm Environment Institute
- Jeff Chapman of WA Budget and Policy Center
- Doug Howell
- Dallas Burtraw of Resources for the Future (RFF, a DC-based environmental economics think-tank; Dallas has tentatively agreed to do some number-crunching for us on income-decile impacts, which is awesome)
- John Burbank and Marilyn Watkins of Economic Opportunity Institute
- Graham Evans of WA Clean Technology Alliance
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Notes from Feb 5 and next steps
Hey everyone: We had a small but productive meeting today; here's a summary and next steps!
In attendance: Yoram Bauman, Catherine Carey, Todd Myers
Update #1: WCI is still looking iffy (maybe 30% chance?) as far as the legislature goes, and our plan is still to be prepared to step in fast with a proposal if the WCI doesn't pass. That's a challenge because so many eyes are focused on the WCI, but I'm confident that we can make good progress in the next month or so.
Update #2: Bruce Flory tracked down some information on limitations on property tax growth (e.g., from Eyman initiatives); his whole email is below but the key message is that something in the 3.0-3.5% range is a good guess for annual property tax growth (in nominal terms), so our assumption of 4% is a good conservative assumption.
Policy: Todd Myers made a strong case that Assoc. of WA Business and other elements of the business community would be more attracted to a slimmed down proposal that focused on just three things: (1) eliminating the state property tax, (2) setting aside 10% of revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, and (3) rebating state B&O taxes. Getting business support would be amazing, so those ideas are reflected in the current spreadsheet. (If you want to compare with the previous version, there's a tab in the spreadsheet that has the old version.) However, it is also important to note that the policy discussion is still continuing (see below!) so if your favorite idea was left out then there's still hope for major changes, which I think are especially likely if the business community does not get behind this.
Next steps: In the next month we should all attempt to have one-on-one meetings with various stakeholders &etc to see (1) what they think, (2) what it would take to get their names attached to an op-ed supporting this, and (3) who else we should talk to. Todd is going to talk to the business community (and his other right-wing friends :). Yoram is going to talk to his contacts in the business and environmental and education and social justice communities, and everybody else should join in the fun. This is pretty time-sensitive stuff, so feedback via email to me would be best.
Overview: If we can get the voting public on board because of the elimination of the state property tax, the environmental community on board because of the carbon tax, the business community on board because of a hefty cut in B&O taxes, and the social justice community on board because of the offsets for low-income households, that would make one super-attractive package. Let's see if we can make it happen!
Next meeting: Th March 5, 12-1pm, same downtown location.
PS. Todd is also going to investigate the "tax creep" issue that was brought up by one Republican legislator who was concerned that local governments would respond to the elimination of the state property tax by just raising local property taxes.
PPS. Here's the property tax info, from Bruce Flory: OK, here's the scoop. The Eyman initiative that is operative is I-747. Although it passed in 2001, it was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in 2007 but then immediately reinstated by the legislature. It provides that property tax revenue from existing properties can increase by no more than 1% or the rate of inflation (as measured by the U.S. Implicit Price Deflator) - whichever is LESS - from the highest revenue over the prior 3 years. However, this restriction does not apply to new construction (anything requiring a building permit), "improvements" to property (e.g. the increase in value from subdividing a parcel even if it isn't built on), and a few odds and ends like the value of new wind turbines. Statewide, the value of new construction, improvements, etc., averages around $20.5 billion per year. With an average state property tax rate of about $1.75 per $1000, that works out to revenue of almost $36 million which is 2% of total annual revenue of $1.8 billion. This implies that the maximum increase in state property tax revenue is about 3% per year. This is confirmed by some figures I was able to get on actual and forecast increases in revenue from 2005 thru 2015. They are: 2005->2006: 3.4%, 2007: 3.8%, 2008: 3.6%, 2009: 3.1%, 2010: 0.0%, 2011: 3.1%, 2012: 3.2%, 2013: 3.2%, 2014: 3.2%, 2015: 3.1%. So I'm pretty comfortable using something in the low 3% range for our forecast of annual growth in NOMINAL state property tax revenue. For our purposes, using 4% would be very conservative. This of course assumes no change in the regulatory environment. My source for information on the I-747 limits is Kathy Beith in the Dept of Revenue Property Tax Division. My source for historical and forecast revenue growth is Valerie Torres, a tax policy specialist in the Research Division of the Dept of Revenue.
In attendance: Yoram Bauman, Catherine Carey, Todd Myers
Update #1: WCI is still looking iffy (maybe 30% chance?) as far as the legislature goes, and our plan is still to be prepared to step in fast with a proposal if the WCI doesn't pass. That's a challenge because so many eyes are focused on the WCI, but I'm confident that we can make good progress in the next month or so.
Update #2: Bruce Flory tracked down some information on limitations on property tax growth (e.g., from Eyman initiatives); his whole email is below but the key message is that something in the 3.0-3.5% range is a good guess for annual property tax growth (in nominal terms), so our assumption of 4% is a good conservative assumption.
Policy: Todd Myers made a strong case that Assoc. of WA Business and other elements of the business community would be more attracted to a slimmed down proposal that focused on just three things: (1) eliminating the state property tax, (2) setting aside 10% of revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, and (3) rebating state B&O taxes. Getting business support would be amazing, so those ideas are reflected in the current spreadsheet. (If you want to compare with the previous version, there's a tab in the spreadsheet that has the old version.) However, it is also important to note that the policy discussion is still continuing (see below!) so if your favorite idea was left out then there's still hope for major changes, which I think are especially likely if the business community does not get behind this.
Next steps: In the next month we should all attempt to have one-on-one meetings with various stakeholders &etc to see (1) what they think, (2) what it would take to get their names attached to an op-ed supporting this, and (3) who else we should talk to. Todd is going to talk to the business community (and his other right-wing friends :). Yoram is going to talk to his contacts in the business and environmental and education and social justice communities, and everybody else should join in the fun. This is pretty time-sensitive stuff, so feedback via email to me would be best.
Overview: If we can get the voting public on board because of the elimination of the state property tax, the environmental community on board because of the carbon tax, the business community on board because of a hefty cut in B&O taxes, and the social justice community on board because of the offsets for low-income households, that would make one super-attractive package. Let's see if we can make it happen!
Next meeting: Th March 5, 12-1pm, same downtown location.
PS. Todd is also going to investigate the "tax creep" issue that was brought up by one Republican legislator who was concerned that local governments would respond to the elimination of the state property tax by just raising local property taxes.
PPS. Here's the property tax info, from Bruce Flory: OK, here's the scoop. The Eyman initiative that is operative is I-747. Although it passed in 2001, it was actually overturned by the Supreme Court in 2007 but then immediately reinstated by the legislature. It provides that property tax revenue from existing properties can increase by no more than 1% or the rate of inflation (as measured by the U.S. Implicit Price Deflator) - whichever is LESS - from the highest revenue over the prior 3 years. However, this restriction does not apply to new construction (anything requiring a building permit), "improvements" to property (e.g. the increase in value from subdividing a parcel even if it isn't built on), and a few odds and ends like the value of new wind turbines. Statewide, the value of new construction, improvements, etc., averages around $20.5 billion per year. With an average state property tax rate of about $1.75 per $1000, that works out to revenue of almost $36 million which is 2% of total annual revenue of $1.8 billion. This implies that the maximum increase in state property tax revenue is about 3% per year. This is confirmed by some figures I was able to get on actual and forecast increases in revenue from 2005 thru 2015. They are: 2005->2006: 3.4%, 2007: 3.8%, 2008: 3.6%, 2009: 3.1%, 2010: 0.0%, 2011: 3.1%, 2012: 3.2%, 2013: 3.2%, 2014: 3.2%, 2015: 3.1%. So I'm pretty comfortable using something in the low 3% range for our forecast of annual growth in NOMINAL state property tax revenue. For our purposes, using 4% would be very conservative. This of course assumes no change in the regulatory environment. My source for information on the I-747 limits is Kathy Beith in the Dept of Revenue Property Tax Division. My source for historical and forecast revenue growth is Valerie Torres, a tax policy specialist in the Research Division of the Dept of Revenue.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Meeting downtown Th 12-1pm
Hey everyone: Our next meeting is this Thursday, Feb 5, 12-1pm, at the usual downtown location: 1402 3rd Ave, 5th floor conference room. In case of disaster call me: 206-351-5719.
Agenda:
12:00-12:10: Introductions and updates on the Western Climate Initative and other things (including Bruce's research on property tax limits). Just for the record, there are likely to be folks at the meeting who support WCI and folks at the meeting who oppose WCI. My preference is to continue to sidestep that question and instead focus our meeting on the possibility of carbon tax legislation in the event that WCI does not pass.
12:10-12:30: Policy details concerning this spreadsheet (now updated to include inflation-adjusted numbers!). In a nutshell, the current proposal is a carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2 [$0.50 per gallon of gasoline], rising by $10 per ton per year from 2015 on, with revenue going to (1) eliminate the state property tax, (2) offset impacts on low-income households, (3) fund clean energy R&D, and (4) reduce the B&O [business] tax.
12:30-12:50: Discuss strategy, e.g., at what point to try to publish an op-ed piece and how and when to reach out to social justice folks, enviros, business folks, and education folks.
12:50-12:55: Next steps and next downtown meetings Th March 5, Th April 2, Th May 7.
Agenda:
12:00-12:10: Introductions and updates on the Western Climate Initative and other things (including Bruce's research on property tax limits). Just for the record, there are likely to be folks at the meeting who support WCI and folks at the meeting who oppose WCI. My preference is to continue to sidestep that question and instead focus our meeting on the possibility of carbon tax legislation in the event that WCI does not pass.
12:10-12:30: Policy details concerning this spreadsheet (now updated to include inflation-adjusted numbers!). In a nutshell, the current proposal is a carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2 [$0.50 per gallon of gasoline], rising by $10 per ton per year from 2015 on, with revenue going to (1) eliminate the state property tax, (2) offset impacts on low-income households, (3) fund clean energy R&D, and (4) reduce the B&O [business] tax.
12:30-12:50: Discuss strategy, e.g., at what point to try to publish an op-ed piece and how and when to reach out to social justice folks, enviros, business folks, and education folks.
12:50-12:55: Next steps and next downtown meetings Th March 5, Th April 2, Th May 7.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Spreadsheet and updates
More later, but for now: Here's a draft spreadsheet based on the work that Bruce and I have been doing. It should be reasonably understandable, so let us know what you think!
PS. Here's an interesting news article. Unfortunately he doesn't clarify (in the last paragraph) if he wants a tax of $20 per ton of C or per ton of CO2.
ExxonMobil CEO Urges CO2 Tax, Not Cap-And-Trade Law
January 08, 2009: 03:11 PM ET
By Ian Talley of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Rex Tillerson on Thursday urged federal lawmakers to consider a "carbon tax" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cap-and-trade law such as the one Congress is drafting.
Marking a major milestone in the evolution of the oil firm's stance on the climate change issue, Tillerson's policy call comes as Democratic leaders prepare to move toward creating stringent cap-and-trade legislation.
"My greatest concern is that policy makers will attempt to mandate or ordain solutions that are doomed to fail," such as a cap-and-trade system, Tillerson said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.
"A carbon tax would be a more direct, transparent and more effective approach, " he said.
A carbon tax is a straight fee for emissions while a cap-and-trade system establishes economy-wide emission limits and a market for firms to buy and sell pollution allowances based on whether they were above or below their cap.
Only a few years ago, Exxon was a major financial supporter of climate change skeptics, though recently the firm's position had begun to recognize the political reality in Washington as Democrats' power rose, and the company started calling a carbon tax a more "reasonable" solution to cut emissions in the economy. Tillerson's comments represent the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon.
Exxon's public stance on a carbon tax comes as U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the strongest advocates for stringent climate change legislation and clean energy legislation in Congress, is expected to be named chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for drafting greenhouse gas laws.
The move - if ratified as expected later Thursday - will likely mean tougher greenhouse gas and clean energy policies out of the Energy and Commerce Committee than industry had forecast before a major shake-up in the panel late last year. Markey's play follows the successful November coup by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., for the chairmanship of the full Energy and Commerce Committee from more moderate Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It is widely believed to have been approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also backs tough cap-and- trade legislation.
Analysts say Markey in the post will help Waxman to more easily pass tough new cap-and-trade legislation that would cut greenhouse gases sooner, faster and across a wider spectrum of the economy than Dingell or Boucher would have preferred. At one time, Dingell had proposed a carbon tax. By forcing lawmakers and the public to quantify the economic impact of cutting greenhouse gases, analysts said the veteran automaker advocate attempted to make it less politically tenable to support stringent emissions reductions.
Tillerson said cap-and-trade systems "inevitably introduce unnecessary costs and complexity that undercut their effectiveness," calling it ultimately a " stealth tax." Taking advantage of the current economic crisis caused by a systemic problem failure in the financial houses, the Exxon CEO also raised the specter of more economic toil precipitated by a cap and trade. "This new Wall Street of emission brokers will take the emphasis away from the goal of reducing carbon emission and focus it's attention on price volatility," he said.
Tillerson said reductions and changes to other taxes, such as income or excise policies, could offset the carbon tax on the economy.
Although widely encouraged by economists - including within the Congressional Budget Office - who say it's a more efficient and direct approach to cutting emissions, the carbon tax has been largely shunned by most lawmakers as it's seen as politically unfeasible to pass. That may be why Exxon has joined the ranks of other heavy carbon emitters calling for a carbon tax, as it would reveal more transparently of the actual costs to the economy of putting a premium on greenhouse gas emissions.
Rising energy prices and a stumbling economy are thought to have played the biggest role in the embarrassing defeat of a climate change bill in the Senate last year. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., withdrew Sen. Barbara Boxer's bill from floor consideration after it was clear that a majority of Senators weren't going to support the estimated $7 trillion measure.
And the failing economy - along with a massive fight over how the income from auctioning emission allowances will be re-distributed between industries - is why many lawmakers have said final passage of climate change bill isn't likely this year.
Pressed by reporters to say what price level Tillerson thought carbon would need to be taxed to activate emission cuts, the oil chief said it would take at least $20 a ton. "It's a question of how much you think the economy is willing to take and how aggressive you want to be," he said.
-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires
PS. Here's an interesting news article. Unfortunately he doesn't clarify (in the last paragraph) if he wants a tax of $20 per ton of C or per ton of CO2.
ExxonMobil CEO Urges CO2 Tax, Not Cap-And-Trade Law
January 08, 2009: 03:11 PM ET
By Ian Talley of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Rex Tillerson on Thursday urged federal lawmakers to consider a "carbon tax" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cap-and-trade law such as the one Congress is drafting.
Marking a major milestone in the evolution of the oil firm's stance on the climate change issue, Tillerson's policy call comes as Democratic leaders prepare to move toward creating stringent cap-and-trade legislation.
"My greatest concern is that policy makers will attempt to mandate or ordain solutions that are doomed to fail," such as a cap-and-trade system, Tillerson said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.
"A carbon tax would be a more direct, transparent and more effective approach, " he said.
A carbon tax is a straight fee for emissions while a cap-and-trade system establishes economy-wide emission limits and a market for firms to buy and sell pollution allowances based on whether they were above or below their cap.
Only a few years ago, Exxon was a major financial supporter of climate change skeptics, though recently the firm's position had begun to recognize the political reality in Washington as Democrats' power rose, and the company started calling a carbon tax a more "reasonable" solution to cut emissions in the economy. Tillerson's comments represent the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon.
Exxon's public stance on a carbon tax comes as U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the strongest advocates for stringent climate change legislation and clean energy legislation in Congress, is expected to be named chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for drafting greenhouse gas laws.
The move - if ratified as expected later Thursday - will likely mean tougher greenhouse gas and clean energy policies out of the Energy and Commerce Committee than industry had forecast before a major shake-up in the panel late last year. Markey's play follows the successful November coup by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., for the chairmanship of the full Energy and Commerce Committee from more moderate Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It is widely believed to have been approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also backs tough cap-and- trade legislation.
Analysts say Markey in the post will help Waxman to more easily pass tough new cap-and-trade legislation that would cut greenhouse gases sooner, faster and across a wider spectrum of the economy than Dingell or Boucher would have preferred. At one time, Dingell had proposed a carbon tax. By forcing lawmakers and the public to quantify the economic impact of cutting greenhouse gases, analysts said the veteran automaker advocate attempted to make it less politically tenable to support stringent emissions reductions.
Tillerson said cap-and-trade systems "inevitably introduce unnecessary costs and complexity that undercut their effectiveness," calling it ultimately a " stealth tax." Taking advantage of the current economic crisis caused by a systemic problem failure in the financial houses, the Exxon CEO also raised the specter of more economic toil precipitated by a cap and trade. "This new Wall Street of emission brokers will take the emphasis away from the goal of reducing carbon emission and focus it's attention on price volatility," he said.
Tillerson said reductions and changes to other taxes, such as income or excise policies, could offset the carbon tax on the economy.
Although widely encouraged by economists - including within the Congressional Budget Office - who say it's a more efficient and direct approach to cutting emissions, the carbon tax has been largely shunned by most lawmakers as it's seen as politically unfeasible to pass. That may be why Exxon has joined the ranks of other heavy carbon emitters calling for a carbon tax, as it would reveal more transparently of the actual costs to the economy of putting a premium on greenhouse gas emissions.
Rising energy prices and a stumbling economy are thought to have played the biggest role in the embarrassing defeat of a climate change bill in the Senate last year. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., withdrew Sen. Barbara Boxer's bill from floor consideration after it was clear that a majority of Senators weren't going to support the estimated $7 trillion measure.
And the failing economy - along with a massive fight over how the income from auctioning emission allowances will be re-distributed between industries - is why many lawmakers have said final passage of climate change bill isn't likely this year.
Pressed by reporters to say what price level Tillerson thought carbon would need to be taxed to activate emission cuts, the oil chief said it would take at least $20 a ton. "It's a question of how much you think the economy is willing to take and how aggressive you want to be," he said.
-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Updates and Thursday Jan 8 meeting downtown
Happy New Year, everyone! Our next meeting is this Thursday, Jan 8, 12-1pm in the 5th floor conference room at 1402 3rd Ave. Sorry for the late notice.
Agenda
* 12:00-12:05: Updates (see also below) and introductions
* 12:05-12:40: Detailed discussion of the spreadsheet that Bruce drafted: BruceF.xls. Based on his prior work and a spreadsheet I posted last time, this spreadsheet should be a good focal point for continued discussions about tax rates, low-income rebate, spending options, and other policy issues.
* 12:40-12:55: Strategy for 2009: What are our goals and what are next steps? (For example, when would be a good time to start submitting op-ed pieces?)
* FYI, our next meeting downtown is Th Feb 5, 12-1pm.
Updates
* One recent article of interest is conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer's call for a revenue-neutral $1/gallon gas tax in this Weekly Standard cover story (he says he's an "agnostic" on anthropogenic climate change and mostly talks about how the gas tax would be good for national security reasons and to avoid more heavy-handed government policies like tighter CAFE fuel-economy standards). In advocating a policy in this direction, Krauthammer joins a fine group of conservatives that also includes speechwriter David Frum, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, and local Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Center.
* Another interesting read is this NY Times article ("In Obama's team, two camps on climate", Jan 2). The Obama camp's supposed opposition to carbon taxes should be a huge warning sign that he may not be all that keen on cap-and-trade either---remember that both policies will raise energy prices.
* Finally, yesterday's P-I article ("Eyman launches campaign for a tax-capping initiative", Jan 6) emphasizes the continued political attractiveness of targeting property taxes. The initiative Eyman filed is the "Lower Property Taxes Initiative" and it was only one of two initiatives that were filed to reduce property taxes.
* Oh, and one more: An article in the Seattle Times ("Governor favors mostly free permits for polluters", Dec 13). The title of the article pretty much says it all, but this is very bad news for anybody who wants sensible climate policy.
Agenda
* 12:00-12:05: Updates (see also below) and introductions
* 12:05-12:40: Detailed discussion of the spreadsheet that Bruce drafted: BruceF.xls. Based on his prior work and a spreadsheet I posted last time, this spreadsheet should be a good focal point for continued discussions about tax rates, low-income rebate, spending options, and other policy issues.
* 12:40-12:55: Strategy for 2009: What are our goals and what are next steps? (For example, when would be a good time to start submitting op-ed pieces?)
* FYI, our next meeting downtown is Th Feb 5, 12-1pm.
Updates
* One recent article of interest is conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer's call for a revenue-neutral $1/gallon gas tax in this Weekly Standard cover story (he says he's an "agnostic" on anthropogenic climate change and mostly talks about how the gas tax would be good for national security reasons and to avoid more heavy-handed government policies like tighter CAFE fuel-economy standards). In advocating a policy in this direction, Krauthammer joins a fine group of conservatives that also includes speechwriter David Frum, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, and local Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Center.
* Another interesting read is this NY Times article ("In Obama's team, two camps on climate", Jan 2). The Obama camp's supposed opposition to carbon taxes should be a huge warning sign that he may not be all that keen on cap-and-trade either---remember that both policies will raise energy prices.
* Finally, yesterday's P-I article ("Eyman launches campaign for a tax-capping initiative", Jan 6) emphasizes the continued political attractiveness of targeting property taxes. The initiative Eyman filed is the "Lower Property Taxes Initiative" and it was only one of two initiatives that were filed to reduce property taxes.
* Oh, and one more: An article in the Seattle Times ("Governor favors mostly free permits for polluters", Dec 13). The title of the article pretty much says it all, but this is very bad news for anybody who wants sensible climate policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)