Highest Rated Comments

borisAtCCL89 karma

Danny: There’s been a radical shift. Five years ago it seemed impossible that you could get even a handful of Republicans to acknowledge that climate change is real and we should do something about it. Today, the minority leader in the House is saying climate change is important and something that we’re going to address.

There’s still a lot more progress to be made, of course. We need to get to a place where both Republicans and Democrats are supporting policies that reduce emissions in line with science-based targets. That’s part of why we’re bringing almost 100 conservative volunteers to Capitol Hill next week to lobby Republican offices to support this climate policy.

borisAtCCL71 karma

Danny: Hey guys, sorry that we weren't as clear as we could have been. CCL intentionally doesn't take a stance on nuclear or any other particular technology. We as an organization don't support or work against nuclear. We just want to price carbon and drive the market away from emissions, and the market will ultimately decide what that looks like in practice. We understand and respect that other orgs and activists take other approaches, but this is the one we take.

borisAtCCL69 karma

Danny: Yeah, because it works. It’s not a half measure. It’s the whole enchilada. Before President Obama went with the regulatory approach of the Clean Power Plan, he wanted a carbon price and he pushed one through the house (https://www.c2es.org/document/waxman-markey-short-summary/). It was a cap and trade bill, which has some political challenges. A carbon tax is more transparent, easier for people to understand, and doesn’t grow the government.

Also, this solution can play nice with others. There’s no reason we can’t implement a robust carbon price and also additional climate policies.

Jerry: Peer-reviewed analysis (https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act) makes clear that a carbon price would be effective in significantly reducing emissions. But they’re right that we should have priced carbon a long time ago - 30 years ago would have been better. So the very best thing we can do is get started as soon as possible.

Edit: fixed links

borisAtCCL52 karma

Jerry: The Resources for the Future model has roughly 40-45% emission reductions by 2030. Legislation itself mandates reductions of 90% (relative to 2016 emissions) by 2030. So this one policy gets us incredibly far, and politically, it can actually pass.

It’s likely that the other 10% of reductions we need will have to come from carbon removal technology, which has yet to be developed or be economically viable. A price on carbon will further incentivize the development of those technologies so we can close that gap.

Edit: added who was speaking

borisAtCCL51 karma

Danny: Speaking for a nonpartisan organization that doesn’t endorse candidates ;) I'd say what’s more important than any particular plan is how well that particular candidate can work with congress. No president is going to be able to do anything big enough without Congress passing something. So if a president can’t work with Congress and can’t get something through Congress, it doesn’t matter what their plan is.

Realistically, to get something through Congress, it will need to be bipartisan. Also, based on expert advice from the IPCC, carbon pricing as a necessary solution to really address climate change.

So for those reasons, we’re really interested in bipartisan carbon pricing legislation. There are a few bills in Congress right now that would put a price on carbon pollution and already have support from both Republicans and Democrats - the Energy Innovation Act (H.R. 763), the MARKET CHOICE Act (H.R. 4520), the SWAP Act (H.R. 4058), the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act (H.R. 3966).

The Energy Innovation Act is our favorite and has the most cosponsors by far - it has 77 representatives signed on.