CFE agenda 101220 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment 4 Proposed Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act Resolution The EAB is strongly recommending that you do NOT pass this resolution. Here is why. First,the US needs a comprehensive climate program, such as a Green New Deal', or other of the many proposals now out.Z A correctly designed carbon tax, fee and dividend, or market trading program could be one small part of a comprehensive climate strategy(economically these are all similar, so we'll just refer to them collectively as a carbon price). But a carbon price is far less than half a loaf. If Carrboro is to pass a resolution advocating for national climate policy, we should start out of the box with policy on the scale that is truly needed.We should not, as the politicians we vote for too often do, compromise with ourselves before we even begin. All experience suggests that carbon price program is nowhere near adequate to the need to get rid of carbon emissions in the US, because it is politically impossible to set a price high enough3, or to create a program free of loopholes. Politically, a carbon fee has generally been put forth by "centrist" national political leaders as THE policy that will solve the problem. Because they see it this way, the bills they endorse typically eliminate the ability of the federal government to regulate carbon emissions in any other way.And if the bill passes, they will consider themselves done and have no interest in further legislation. This particular bill is a perfect example. It requires the poison pill of a "regulatory pause" on a lot of carbon regulation for 10 years.That means the EPA,for example, might NOT be able to affect permits for pipelines such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline; might NOT be able to regulate fracking; and might NOT be able to mandate that coal and natural gas pipelines operate cleanly, if at all. It would also very clearly preclude a simple, clear national clean energy standard, such as many states have,to require utilities to use a lot more renewable energy. The assumption is that a carbon price will cause all of this goodness to happen. But that is not true. The carbon prices set by this bill—and indeed, set by every single carbon market so far devised—are not high enough to achieve the necessary carbon reductions. It is extremely difficult politically to pass a program that does set a high enough price.THIS IS WHY NATIONAL POLITICIANS BEHOLDEN TO FOSSIL FULEL INTERESTS LIKE THIS POLICY. It allows them to look like they are taking climate action seriously, while still satisfying their funders. For example, Europe's market failed to set a high enough price on carbon, and the Northeast States market does not hit he mark either.4 According to the Congressional Research Service,the Northeast 'https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL z Examples: https://www.dncclimate.org/the-platform and https://medium.com/@green stimulus now/a-green- stimulus-to-rebuild-our-economy-le7030ald9ee.Also see https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/climate-change and https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/. 3 https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17584376/carbon-tax-congress-republicans-cost- economy 4 https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/28/14741384/rggi-explained