Statement of Bob Perciasepe
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
February 8, 2017
On the carbon tax and dividend proposal released today by Republicans James Baker and George Shultz:
In a time of heightened polarization, it’s good to be reminded that there is bipartisan support for putting a price on carbon emissions. Giving businesses the incentive and the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions drives new investment in cutting-edge industries, creating jobs while helping the environment.
Over the long-term, carbon pricing is the best way to drive investment in clean energy and low carbon technologies. Many nations and 10 U.S. states already have carbon pricing, and it’s already working to reduce emissions efficiently and cost-effectively.
James Baker, George Shultz and other noted Republicans have proposed setting a fee on carbon emissions and returning the money to individuals, which is one of many potential ways to price carbon. Over the years, Senators McCain, Lieberman, Cantwell, Collins, Kerry and Graham led bipartisan efforts to establish a carbon price.
There is clearly a policy platform for bipartisan conversation that is both promising and overdue. We encourage those conversations and are eager to see them evolve into action. C2ES and the members of our Business Environmental Leadership Council have long championed market-based climate solutions. We look forward to continuing to work with policymakers and other stakeholders to set the stage toward the goal of an economy-wide price on carbon.
About C2ES: The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to forge practical solutions to climate change. Our mission is to advance strong policy and action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean energy, and strengthen resilience to climate impacts. Learn more at www.c2es.org.
Judging from the climate policy debate in Washington, one might conclude that carbon pricing is only a concept, or something being tried in Europe.
But in fact, 10 U.S. states (California and the Northeast states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) have carbon trading programs. That means more than a quarter of the U.S. population lives in a state with a price on carbon. And a growing number of nations and provinces around the globe are turning to carbon pricing to cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage energy innovation.
The discussion of a carbon tax continues. Conservatives met recently in Washington, D.C., to debate the mertis of a carbon taxt at an event hosted by the R Street Institute and the Heartland Institute, featuring representatives with opposing viewpoints from four conservative think tanks.
A 2013 C2ES brief found that a carbon tax was one way to put a price on carbon emissions, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and raise significant revenue for the federal government. A tax starting at about $16 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2014 and rising 4 percent over inflation per year would raise more than $1.1 trillion in the first 10 years, and more than $2.7 trillion over a 20-year period. This revenue could fund a wide range of things, including deficit reduction, a reduction in statutory corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 28 percent (often cited as a goal by both conservatives and liberals), and research and development into low-emitting technology. Importantly, such a carbon tax could also reduce CO2 emissions by 9.3 billion tons over 20 years.
I recently replied to a question on the National Journal blog: “How should Washington address climate change?"
You can ready other responses at the National Journal.
Here is my response: President Obama’s inaugural address placed climate change and clean energy where they truly belong – among the most profound challenges of our time. Our progress in addressing them over the next four years depends on how vigorously the president works to translate words into action, and whether there’s any willingness in Congress to join him in the effort.
Statement of Manik Roy
Vice President of Strategic Outreach, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
December 6, 2012
“Closing the door now on a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap would be a mistake. Our country faces huge fiscal challenges and can’t afford to take options for meeting those challenges off the table.
"One option would be to reduce taxes on things we want more of, like hard work and investment, and pay for those tax reductions with a tax on something we want less of: pollution.
"A revenue-neutral carbon tax swap could be designed to boost the economy, protect working families, and safeguard the environment.”
Contact: Laura Rehrmann, 703-516-0621, firstname.lastname@example.org
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan organization promoting strong policy and action to address the twin challenges of energy and climate change. Launched in November 2011, C2ES is the successor to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Learn more at www.c2es.org.
I recently replied to a question on the National Journal blog, “Is Washington ready for a carbon tax?”
You can read other responses at the National Journal.
Here is my response: If we’re going to get serious about reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change, the most efficient and effective policy is to put a price on carbon.
I recently replied to a question on the National Journal blog, "Do the results of the 2012 election pave the way for Washington to achieve bipartisan energy and environment policies?"
You can read other responses at the National Journal.
Here is my response: In his victory speech, President Barack Obama called for an America “that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” With mostly the same players who failed to pass any significant climate legislation returning to Washington, can we expect a different result?
Possibly -- and for two reasons.