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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)