Sad to finally meet this Angel on the day I find out he has passed away. Ted's life and legacy will continue to inspire those of us who are seeking authentic solutions to real problems in a very troubled world. One way we can honor Ted is to take the torch from his hand and carry it a little bit further down the road, whatever the path we find ourselves on.. Thanks Ted for shining the light of awareness from your soul so that we may have the opportunity to see the true path ahead. RIP Brother. You have earned it.
As a conservative that's disgusted with Trump's climate actions, I hope he listens to this because some great points are made. It benefits all. There'll be faults of course, there always is but this is definitely a strong and immediate solution
Read up about the Paris agreement, it's unenforcable and it benefits growing countries, like China and India. And you can't control those 2 industries' emissions.
A carbon fee and dividend plan is a bureaucratically lean, market-oriented, effective, bipartisan solution that is good for people, good for the environment, and good for the economy. A great example of this kind of bill is in the House of Representatives RIGHT NOW! It's called HR 763 The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. It includes an escalating carbon fee, a carbon dividend paid straight to every legal resident, a regulatory rollback, and a border adjustment, just like the idea described in this video. George Schultz (a key member of Halstead's group) is on the advisory board of the Citizens' Climate Lobby, a volunteer organization advocating as you read this comment for this very solution. Check the Citizens' Climate Lobby if you want to work on getting this legislation passed. They have chapters in every legislative district in the country.
What a fantastic argument. You won me, a liberal, over. However, you suggested that this is a plan that you put before Trump. I heard his speech. He didn't argue that he was pulling out of the Paris Commitment because he had a better solution. He has even implied several times that climate change isn't a real issue. It's a great plan, but it's DOA because we have a dimwit for a president.
I don't think it's the climate argument that's gonna win Trump over this plan. It's the imports via the Climate Domino effect. Yet ANOTHER way to screw over China. And even though I've got Chinese blood in me, lemme tell you China's government has made a lot of deliberate economic and political measures that has screwed over SEVERAL countries, including the US
This Carbon Dividend Plan would incentivize individuals and businesses to choose efficiency, conservation and renewables in every market transaction. I want my carbon dividend!
fundamentally, the key point here is the first point he made, which was that a capitalist market does not operate in a pro environment, pro ethics way. It always pursues the cheapest solution with prejudice. The solution here at its heart, is to somehow re-balance that market to force the self same competition that it currently enjoys to continue and to move in a greener direction. To take the arguments presented about other economies and trade drying up their interactions, misses the fundamental idea of the free market which is: if another business or economy sees they can do better, cheaper business in the US than their competitors by switching their production to more carbon neutral stances, then that business will win by doing so and pull the others along with it. Its that self balancing by competition that's the key here, and all this policy aims to do is add in a reasonable factor to the market price to enable competition to be shifted in that direction. Its very clever in its simplicity in my view. I support it wholeheartedly, but then what would I know, I'm a dirty liberal.
A carbon fee and dividend approach is exactly what we need. It has been shown to be effective, create jobs, promote economic growth, and protect consumers without growing government or burdening businesses with more regulations. Both sides of the political spectrum should get behind this.
There are not different "sides" of this issue, If you're alive you are on the side that needs to care about what kind of impact we have on the planet. Contrary to what movies like "WALL-E" suggest, we don't have a way of leaving this planet and getting our basic needs met.
Quit being a dumbass. If you had even an elementary understanding of geopolitics, macroeconomics, or science you'd know why there are different sides of the issue.
"Stupid is as stupid does" pretending there are different sides to this issue for the sake of macroeconomics is stupid. Also, science doesn't pretend, this is a partisan issue because it isn't. The so-called scientists who deny climate change are a ridiculously small minority. BTW the way you addressed me is cowardly because you are hiding behind a computer screen. I don't care and I even suspected someone would be belligerent but it is without debate that it is cowardly to disrespect someone online.
Excellent talk. Reminds me of my college days (mid 80s) studying Econ. We talked about 'externalities' then and pollution is chief among them. We all deserve clean air and clean water. Carbon pricing is long over due. And coupled with a 'dividend' it supports those most effected and most at risk. Now's the time to talk to your representatives about getting this legislated. Every call/email helps move the dial.
No. This is not a solution. It would be doomed from the outset. Adverse climate change correlates to fossil fuel consumption, period! This idea does not change fossil fuel consumption, indeed it gives a license to some firms to continue, or even increase their consumption.
Joseph Concordia I disagree, taxes are great for giving businesses incentives, such as reducing carbon footprint to pay less carbon tax/dividends. This tax/dividends would be no different. If you believe in the free market, then this will work.
Free market is a jargon term, not an economic principle. While classical economics treats supply/demand relationships to define an equilibrium, in the real world for all products other than those that have zero elasticity of demand markets are controlled by business strategies, practices, and management. With the principle business goal being to maximize profit, dominant producers will always exercise their skill to increase demand and command the desired price through innovative, or sometimes chicanery, measures. They are driven by financial motivation, not social altruism and depend on that for survival.. The only way to have balance in the greater universe of commerce as a whole is through prudent governmental regulation. It is government regulation that promotes a level playing field between producer and consumer. Without that the consumer lives at the will of the producer. That is true for the market at large. It applies equally to the energy sector as in all other areas. Prices are set by what the market will bear, not the cost of production. Product quality and usability is set by what customers will accept, not any intrinsic criteria for such factors. While some measures are taken, manufacturing operations employ methods to minimize cost, not to optimize social factors like, employee safety, environmental protection, or community enhancement. This extends even to the broader scope of universal basic human needs, such as those threatened by consequences of global warming. The energy industry, for the most part, has been an obstructionist on this issue, not an honest partner in finding a solution. I fear that would continue under this idea offered by Mr. Halstead.
Methinks thou protesteth too muchly. Look, we know it works: it's been working really well in BC, Canada for years now, and was also working really well in Gillard's Australia. It can work because it has worked and it does work and it is the obvious solution that should have been implemented many, many decades ago - i.e. the 1950s - but, Koch Industries and Exxon.
Just another tax. Won't help the environment, not one bit. Once a tax is in place, it will only go up and no one but bureaucrats benefit. Or, you could develop technology that's doesn't rely as much on fossil fuels and make it affordable. It's already out there, solar roofs and electric cars. That is the real wave of the future
Pops Smith Solar roofs and electric cars aren't enough to replace fossil fuels. First of all, electric cars rely on electric power sources (obviously) and if those power sources are dirty then nothing is done. Solar power has issues with intermittency, and in some areas with less solar input like the Northern latitudes it's just a terrible idea. Even if everyone has a battery in their house. Ultimately other renewable sources like hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind etc. need to be included. I would argue that a carbon tax does make sense for certain areas when their renewable choices will simply not become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, like nuclear, or when the time for costs to go down is not fast enough to meet targets.
It strikes me that the new element to this is the direct dividends to the public, as opposed to feeding the public coffers. The most interesting part of that is the the simple allocation of the same amount to everyone. I can't imagine that getting through the US congress in one piece LoL
I can't even imagine that such a transfer of money to individual citizens would ever be a net gain to the individual. The only benefit would accrue to the big energy industry that would have a license to pollute. That plus the obvious extrapolation of the idea over time meaning further adverse climate change from continuing usage of fossil fuels would degrade our quality of life, especially for those in economic classes that have no means to protect themselves.
@@josephconcordia3552 It would be a net gain for the bottom 70% of Americans and a net loss for the top 30%. The carbon tax would disincentivize carbon use. So no, you are wrong.
From a practical perspective, a system very much like this is already in place in deep-red Alaska (the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend system). It's one of the most popular things the state government does. This is the least-intrusive policy approach that I've seen that I would expect to actually have an effect on climate change.
A few questions: 1. How do you incentivise carbon emitters from not pushing the tax of carbon onto other companies and people, by rising the price of goods sold? 2. How much is the carbon dividend, because due to the 320 million people in the USA when you divide the cost beared by a few companies by every person in the USA you create a very low dividend for each person that may not actually cover the increase in price by fossil fuel companies. You bring up the 36 cents per gallon, but that's kinda strange since oil and gas companies don't actually set the specific prices at the gas station, plus this involves far more than gasoline. It involves the production of over 8,000 commodities as well as electricity, heating and transportation fuels. It involves natural gas, coal and oil. 3. What specific regulations would be rolled back, and would this only include fossil fuel regulations or also other alternative sources to incentivise production? 4. Whats stopping a country that does not have a carbon tax for border adjustments to simply increase tax on imports from that other country overall? Think in the mind of the current republican party. If the UK puts a tax on American carbon goods for a dividend to its citizen, what if Ol Donny doesn't like that and instead places a higher tariff on UK goods? Now UK US trade is relatively balanced, but we do in fact export more than import from them, so isn't it safe to say that a higher overall tariff will hurt the UK than a carbon tariff on the US will hurt the US?
How do companies increase in growth by paying higher liabilities? The entire purpose of the carbon tax is to push commercial interest away from fossil fuels so that we decrease our emissions. As for products perhaps you may want to think twice about your comment when you realize that fossil fuels are used in the production of: rubber, asphalt, concrete, cement, steel, synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon, paint, plastic, hydrogen, fertilizer, lubricants, food products, pesticides, PVC, cleaning supplies, other chemicals etc. The petrochemical industry is massive and utilized by nearly every single major industry on planet earth. How do you propose we make roads without asphalt, and more specifically bitumen? How do you propose we make fertilizer without ammonia? How do you propose we make industrial grade plastics without ethylene and propylene? How do you propose we make water resistant clothing without polyester or without nylon? How do you propose we make detergent without Dodecyldimethylamine oxide or Polyethylene glycol? How do you propose we make wind turbine blades without polyester, vinyl, polyether ether ketone, polyurethane, polypropylene, and polyacrylonitrile? These are just a very small amount of the products I worry we wont be able to make without fossil fuels, and life would be extremely different if we didn't have them.
I don't have time to address all of the things you listed in a rigorous way, but I'll try to say something about them points 2 and 3 can be answered by reading the book they put out and checking the numbers for yourself. " How do you incentivise carbon emitters from not pushing the tax of carbon onto other companies and people, by rising the price of goods sold?" The answer is that you don't. The purpose of this plan is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels people consume and to incentivize bushiness to invest in and develop non carbon emitting sources of energy. If companies increase prices to consumers they will buy less, which reduces carbon emissions. If companies increase there prices they will not be able to make up the difference because there will be a decrease in demand on top of the tax. Even if there is no decrease in demand, companies will still be incentivized to use alternative energy sources to reduce the amount of tax they pay. This will not eliminate fossil fuels it will reduce them gradually, and they will be replaced. All of the items you listed in your second post we can afford to use less of and it is possible to produce them or alternatives with things other then fossil fuels, many of the alternatives to the things you listed already exist, there is just no incentive to switch to them because they may cost more, but the purpose of this plan is to shift the balance so those alternatives are the less expansive options. "Whats stopping a country that does not have a carbon tax for border adjustments to simply increase tax on imports from that other country overall?" Again the answer is nothing. If the Uk taxes imports from America, American consumers will have to pay more for UK products, if Trump responds by putting a tariff on them then Americans will sell less products to the UK because the increased prize will reduce the amount of goods they buy from America. If America puts a tariff on anything then American people have to pay more for that good, that's how tariff's work both parties suffer from tariff's which is why they are so hated by economist. They do not cancel each other out they stack on one another. After a while the American people will get fed up over Trump making them pay more money for UK goods just out of spite and he will have to get rid of it or they will elect someone who will.
+Tree Face in Bizarro Land If you increase prices, then you decrease demand for a product, but what if there is no competition to replace that product. Yes in the current environment we have renewables, but it will take time to replace natural gas production per unit with renewables. During this time consumers don't really have another option other than pay a higher price of the current energy being produced. This scenario is even more relevant with petroleum production. A carbon tax will not immediately revert all consumers over to EVs, in fact even with a higher price used petroleum based vehicles will be cheaper than EVs, thus continuing petroleum's hold on the transportation market, but with a higher cost. In certain scenarios some companies may move more towards alternative energy, but this is not true with every company. For example Exxon Mobil primarily focuses on production of fuel instead of electricity. The cost of tax is not equal or greater than the cost it would take to create a new division for primarily electricity generation, so there is no economic incentive to move this company towards alternative energy. Also this company has in fact invested hundreds of millions of dollars into alternative energy due to the expected decrease in supply of oil only to incur a net loss in the production of algae based biofuel. Needless to say these major companies would be skeptical to lunge into alternative energy. Perhaps the American people will get fed up more than the British, but at this point considering the political tensions of both countries its hard to say. Also the American people, actually don't really have any power for at least 2 years. We cant necessarily change congress's mind on a response to the UK tariff if that was implemented. Also if you haven't been watching Trump also hasn't given too much of a f@ck about what the American people really think. If that were true, then he wouldn't have left the Paris Accord at all. Polls show at least a 60% majority of American people favoring the accord.
"If you increase prices, then you decrease demand for a product, but what if there is no competition to replace that product." You are making the assumption that the product needs to be replaced, I know from my own personal life experience that I can in fact reduce the amount of gas I use on a weekly bases, I choose not to largely because I have the money and am lazy, if gas got taxed more it would be more expensive and instead of buying a new car I would just reduce the amount I use it by various means including not going out for frivolous activates, walking to the mail box, carpooling to school etc. None of the products you are listing will be eliminated they will just be more expensive so they will have to be used less wastefully and be supplemented by those other products that do in fact exist. Water resistant clothing, you don't need to buy a new one, use your old one, keep it in better condition buy a used one. Roads can be made without asphalt, we don't need some super technology to do it. There are ways of cutting the use of these items businesses can reduce the amount of plastic they use. He made it clear that this is a gradual process, its not as drastic a change as your making it out to be. The companies that do not adapt to the change like potentially Exxon, will suffer and possibly be out competed by there competitors, business fail and Exxon will inevitably cease to exist, company's are not immortal. Evolution and economics are similar those that adapt will survive and those that don't will die. The fact that Exxon is skeptical of investing in alternative energy is all the more reason to incentivize them to do so. " Also the American people, actually don't really have any power for at least 2 years. We cant necessarily change congress's mind on a response to the UK tariff if that was implemented. " This is a hypothetical, the UK has not done anything, this guy is still hoping that Trump himself implements this. This is not a 2 year or screw it type of plan, politics is a life long fight and 2 years is nothing. If other countries start doing it in the next few years, like Germany which seems like they would be all for this type of thing, or possibly China then maybe when Trump is either gone or the congress is not on his side we could make something happen. "Trump also hasn't given too much of a f@ck about what the American people really think." I disagree I think he is doing what he thinks the American people want he is just incorrect about what people want because the only people he talks to is his supporters. However he wants to give people tax breaks, in essence give them money, and this plan also gives them money, and when people get wind of that idea I think his supporters might turn him on to the idea. The point of this idea is to appeal to republicans, by giving them this dividend which could work, people like money. Anything is possible we have to try something.
+Tree Face in Bizzarro land Not everyone can necessarily decrease consumption demand, be nice if we could- our nation already produces by far the most waste per capita and consumes the most per capita. However we consistently increase in consumption demand trend, despite all of our technology, because even as we increase in our technology we increase in the amount of energy we need to produce all the technology we have just created. This is actually the primary reason why I do not believe in such proposals as the SolutionsProject which assumes a massive decrease in consumption due to EVs, but completely disregards electricity consumption demand. We can and should decrease consumption, but youll find that task to be much harder than you first thought as we increase in population and technology. The fact is, the majority of people in this country- will not take steps as you have desired, and will instead choose to pay a higher price for energy they require to live their lives 24 hours a day. This is a historical and societal fact based on how our country has behaved with past and current energy crisis. We don't just stop using products, because quite frankly the demand is just too ridiculously high. Fossil fuels contribute 67% of electricity in this country and are responsible for 99.1% of all transportation in this country. That is extremely substantial, and not a statistic you can override with a simple walk to the mailbox. Do you know why Exxon Mobil is skeptical? Did it ever occur to you that they have already done it? Over the course of Exxon Mobil history even before when it was Esso, they have invested in solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuel, and nuclear and NONE OF IT is anywhere near economically productive as petroleum and natural gas. This is company that was created out of Standard Oil, so they've been around the block for quite a well. Theres a reason that their operative revenue is larger than some developing nations, because they make an effort to be one of the largest energy companies in the world. This is not an add for them, but you would be a fool to think that this company doesn't think about the future. In the 1970s they created a solar company, but sold it because they estimated that it wouldn't be profitable on large scale commercialization until 2012. Guess what, they hit the mark 40 years ahead of time nearly on the dot! The fact is unless there's some major political action; companies like Exxon Mobil, Saudi Aramco, Sinopec, and BP aren't going anywhere because theres enough supply and a strong enough technology to last several decades. EVs aren't going to takeover the market tomorrow, this year or in ten years- that's just a fact we have to stomache. There is no natural market incentive you can reasonably supply to convince the majority of the world to turn away from internal combustion, so for the time until then we have to deal with petroleum. This means these companies, while potentially hurting, aren't going anywhere. Who knows , maybe they'll switchover, but based solely on wind and solar value(which fyi wind turbine blades are actually made of petroleum in the USA) this is very unlikely to occur for at least a couple decades, which leads into a variety of future scenarios. if you can convince the majority of people to turn away from this and develop better technology at the same time Ill applaud you, but I'm very skeptical. Even energy sources I greatly support, I'm skeptical of because of human nature and seeing how everyday people respond to changes in energy. Less than ten years ago there was a major movement to move towards cleaner fuel by the power of corn. Remember E85? What happened? The price of corn rose as a result and we switched back to regular gasoline. We even included countless subsidies and tax credits, but it couldn't survive and green technology couldn't outcompete petroleum. I am interested though as to what materials you would make roads of without asphalt, or more specifically without any petroleum based products?
This is so compelling. Halstead has clearly explained a national policy solution to reducing carbon emissions that will have a "domino effect" and bring countries around the world on board with a similar policy. Brilliant!
Multiple economic studies have looked at plans like this and found they would benefit the economy as a whole. This makes it far superior to a regulatory approach. The plan is simple and transparent. This makes it superior to the complex cap-and-trade systems we have seen in operation-plans that always include a regulatory approach and always are subject to loopholes, exceptions, and qualifications that reduce effectiveness. Even for climate skeptics, this is a pretty cheap and highly effective insurance policy. The clean air and saved lives are an extra bonus.
Of all the climate change solutions that have been proposed, this conservative plan is definitely "Most Likely to Succeed." It is simple and logical, and in the process of saving the world's climate it will generate all kinds of other benefits: reducing the power of undemocratic oil-producing nations; encouraging investment in clean technologies; leveling the international competitive playing field so that carbon cheaters can't win; eliminating regulations that restrict business growth; and boosting the economy but putting the dividend in the hands of people who are very likely to spend it. Once the dividend checks start arriving in mailboxes it will be very hard to stop. I'm looking forward to getting mine!
This is an important step towards energy freedom. i salute Mr. Halstead and his conservative partners for stepping up to bring the right and left together. I know most people can't see this dramatic climate problem and don't think it affects them. But the extreme weather events will get worse and the scarcity of water will continue until our national security is threatened. If we take action NOW, we can't stop global warming, carbon lasts a long time in the atmosphere and the oceans, but we can flatten it's progress and adapt to a new reality for a livable world. Thank you to the Climate Leadership Council for their outstanding, courageous leadership on this issue.
This is an excellent, well thought out proposal. It addresses every concern I've ever heard about taking aggressive action to combat global warming. Market based, limited government, protects the poor and middle class, protects against carbon "leakage", enlists other countries, simple, and politically viable. I don't see any case against this proposal, maybe you could quibble with the exact price and rate of increase on the carbon fee, but the principle is sound. Contact your members of Congress. Let them know about this and your support for it.
Great talk Ted. I agree that a carbon fee & dividend is the start to solving the climate crisis. It is not the entire answer as we also need to reduce the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere. More important benefits to your proposed solution that you did not mention (for political reasons or just time?) are increased health and reduced health related costs due to less pollution, a boost to alternative energy market led by consumer demand (not the government picking winners), and an improved economy because of increased jobs for alternative energy systems. Solar is one of the fasted growing industries and largest long term job creators in our country right now. There have been at least three separate economic studies showing this type of proposal works. Let's all push congress! Everyone reading this, ask your representative to join the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus!
In this scenario who pays the tax? Everyone, or just companies? And how do you measure the use of carbon by a person/company in order to know how much to tax them?
Everyone pays the taxes but because companies use more carbon they will ultimately pay more. The way you determine a persons carbon use is largely based off of what they buy, its essentially a sales tax. They add up how much gas you buy, they will tax you a certain amount per gallon.
Read the actual bill for details. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjZgKrtocDpAhUBXM0KHTSKD1wQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.congress.gov%2Fbill%2F116th-congress%2Fhouse-bill%2F763&usg=AOvVaw3fT-f-7t7yuV4uFvm_bo7J
This is a proposal that is effective and fair because it deals with the whole economy, whereas regulations only target one industry. It is fair to citizens because the dividend more than balances the increased cost of goods and fuel for the lowest 70%, and has minimal effect on the others. It meets conservative principles of less government and less intervention in the market. It is a golden opportunity for conservatives to claim the mantle of leadership on an issue that has very broad popular support.
I'm a moderate just looking for people to actually take sensible action on this issue. The Clean Power Plan was the best solution that could be done without Congressional authorization, but it still was not good. This though, this is a great solution for solving the largest issue of our time! Let's implement this Congress. I'm 29, the consequences are happening now and will only increase over the course of my life. I want a better world, and this plan will get us there!
Thank you so much Ted Halstead. Your talk so clearly and simply informs us about this climate solution plan and gives hope that it's possible to bring together people from both sides of the aisle to address this crisis of our planet that we are all involved in. I have hope and confidence that it will be implemented.
This is a great idea! It all boils down to incentives. If a tax on carbon corrects the market so the price of things reflect the true cost to society of producing that item, then people's purchase decisions will automatically steer them towards more environmentally friendly purchases. The corrected market will create an incentive for people and businesses to invest time and money into inventing and bringing to market new, clean-energy technology that will not only benefit our economy and people, but the environment to boot. And - with the carbon dividend giving people more money in their pocket to spend- the economy will be stimulated, creating new opportunities and jobs. What is not to love?
This gives me hope for bipartisan negotiations that could result in an environmental policy that would bring economic and health benefits, even if not all the policy makers believe the science on climate change.
This climate solution will create a win-win situation for all stakeholders... it's rational, apolitical and with a long-term perspective: something the political class in the developed world should sit up and take notice to.
What I love about this plan is that not only would we have meaningful climate action, but 223 MILLION low and middle income Americans would receive an extra $2000 a year in dividends. Climate justice and climate action from one simple plan would be a huge win for us all.
We need a climate change solution that is acceptable across the political spectrum. And we need it yesterday. A carbon fee and dividend approach is our best shot. I am optimistic that this can happen right here in America very soon.
I was lucky enough to hear him speak in person and it was inspiring. He has a plan that both conservatives and liberals can get behind. I hope he gets a groundswell of support behind him. We all need to engage on this issue; our kids deserve it.
Wonderful presentation! Framing this proposed climate mitigation method as one that any country can choose will hopefully spur us here in the United States to be the first to lead with this most effective and hopeful solution.
The intentions are good but it seems like an over simplistic solution (presented in a trendy way) to a very complex issue with much more ramifications. - For example this policy only concerns the air pollution and carbon and energy use like fuel, not other kinds of pollution like water pollution by intensive farming or soil pollution by pesticides or the pollution of the oceans. - The idea of carbon dividends to compensate for social issues of capitalism is good but at no point you talk of investing some of that money for depollution or research in more ecological production methods or to finance companies or non-profit organization in "eco-friendly" activities. - The idea of ending all environmental regulations as a counterpart for businesses is just plain dangerous, this would just mean they can pollute as much as they want as long as they pay for it and remove all sense of responsibility. - Even if the consumption of natural or rare resources is paid for, that won't replace them, it doesn't really solve the issue, it just creates a compensation. Those are just a few flaws of this plan but again it's a very simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem. Also it can't really be called a conservative or republican way since its base principles of carbon tax and dividend consist in more state intervention in the market.
This plan is only meant to help with the air pollution part of the problem. And, according to this plan the government would keep none of the money received. It would all go back to American citizens as a 'dividend'. So, there would be no money for the government to invest in anything - according to this plan at least.
I also think that only half of the money should be invested into this dividends and the other half into research in more ecological technology. The other aspects of a climate solution can be handled with other policies, but for the air pollution part this is the best solution. I have thought about a similar solution for some time now (the same thing actually but instead of dividends investions in research) and was very surprised that this guy had kind of the same I had. (sorry if my English is bad, I'm not a native English speaker)
Air pollution is the most urgent and serious pollution we are dealing with the day, so of course this plan focuses on that. Also, the speaker did not say to eliminate all regulations; he merely said to eliminate the regulations that would become unnecessary if the carbon tax goes into action
Economic theory would be that having the carbon tax would reduce the need for Government funded research. Production that relies heavily on carbon would become less and less price competitive and producers would have to find ways to produce with less carbon to keep their consumers or go out of business. In terms of rare resources, this is only reducing carbon emission, so it doesn't factor all other environmental concerns as you rightly point out. In terms of reducing carbon emissions, hopefully the price would keep up so that we don't pass catastrophic levels.
This is already being proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and has been for years. CCL has also been active in building the bipartisan caucus in Congress to formulate policies to address climate change. I commend him for recognizing that the cost of carbon should not be externalized, but born by those who emit carbon dioxide. The dividend also make the plan revenue neutral and counters arguments relative to social justice. Using the fee and dividend approach is the best way of mustering the power of the free market in helping to solve the threat of anthropogenic induced climate change.
This is a plan we can agree upon, plain and simple. A steadily rising price on GHG will hasten our transition to clean energy; the dividend to each household will especially help low and middle income households weather the increased costs. Similar plans are being proposed by the left on the West Coast - SB775, and by the right on the East Coast - the Climate Leadership Council's "Carbon Dividends Plan". Time is of the essence. Let's ACT NOW!
There is a fundamental issue with that: How people in country B get aware of the dividends people in country A get? Ask an American how the Chinese tax works, ask a Chinese how the French social protection works, ask a French how the German retirement plan works.... you won't get any proper answer, because people are not aware of what is happening in other countries. The domino effect cited there is a beautiful utopia.
The best solutions are also sometimes the most simple. I was pessimistic and ready to find something wrong with this solution, but I couldn't. It makes sense and it's practical. Certain products are already taxed higher because they are harmful to our health. Why should carbon be any different? Plus, returning that money to the average family will stimulate the economy through increased spending.
Before signing on with any carbon tax, someone should endeavor to prove causation rather than correlation of carbon emissions and global temperature data.
Many 1000's of scientists have worked on understanding climate change over the last 30 years. Their work is peer reviewed and is readily available for anyone to read. Global temperature rise is unequivocally proven to be anthropogenic. If you want to ignore that huge body of evidence and carry on believing that it's not related to our consumtion of fossil fuels, clearing of rainforests etc then that's your choice. It something we'll all like to believe because it would make life a lot easier if we didn't have to change. But don't confuse beliefs with facts. The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you choose to believe it.
Did he count in the extreme rise in prices for *everything produced* in all "country A's" ? You as a consumer will get only a fraction back of what each compony will need to spend and restructure the cost towards the margins. In other words - you may lose entrepreneurs to other less strict countries. The import won't be as damaging as paying for the taxed production.
MetallicReg isn't he saying the import would be taxed to the same level as if it had been produced from scratch in USA? I suppose you'd need some legislation preventing businesses passing on the cost of this tax to the consumer. And it encourages production lines towards clean energy sources to mitigate tax. Sure an offshore business has the advantage of shipping to other countries, but I can't see a mass migration. If it helps only the USA get a hold of its emissions then that is a global success.
domhamai This is to most degree irrelevant. A high import tax would primarily hurt the growth because there isn't nearly anything that is produced in one country alone. This would limit the buying power of the consumers and the possibilities for the height of the taxes. Even with import corrections - companies would have it easier to produce abroad and collect higher revenue everywhere else first instead of a costly "carbon-corrected" production and have benefits only inside the participants bubble. Such a system is really complicated to translate into a real globalized world. The same goes with a basic income that is funded by vat increases. The people won't buy anything with a 45% higher price, if they have a choice. It works, if everyone joins from the get go. But if you look at the huge discrepancies in economic power, this isn't likely to be soon. In Europe there is already a precursor of such carbon taxing (carbon emission certificates). And the reality turned into a sort of huge satire where wealthy countries buy those certificates from less wealthy ones to justify overboard production without limits (and stagnate the development of those that need it or drive them into denial of the whole system). _____________ Under the line, I am completely with you on your conclusion: If US (as nearly a third of the global problem) manages its energy cycles, this would be a major win for everybody and a good example for near future problem regions like India.
Just trying to really understand this... 1a. How does taxing companies that use carbon-based power encourage less carbon emissions? Say their taxes triple. What's to stop them from passing on the increase to the products they sell and continuing on at the same emission level? What incentive do companies have to lower their emissions except to be taxed less? 1b. If companies DID start reducing emissions, what alternative forms of energy will they use to produce the same amount of product? Where does the money to install this technology come from? There are no programs in this concept to develop alternative energy sources, which is a hindrance to companies to want to change. RE::why spend money on change when you can just make people pay more? 4. What's to prevent country B from raising import taxes right back? Sounds a lot like a death spiral of all countries just charging more for all imports. How do you get other countries except America to join in on the plan, when all but 3 countries in the world are already part of a different climate deal? Why tax countries without the same plan even if their emissions are going down more or are already lower than ours? It sounds like, "we started it, so EVERYONE has to do the same thing or you're going to get penalized."
The carbon dividends plan is simple and it would work. It will eventually lower carbon emissions to 10% of 1990's emission level. It will not wreck the economy, and in fact some parts of the country and the lowest earning 70% of the country will come out slightly ahead. Let's do this. We can make it happen. There is a similar plan being advanced by Citizens Climate Lobby called carbon fee and dividend. A plan like this is our best hope to mitigate climate change.
I love to see that alternative solutions to climate change are actively being sought after. My main concern with this proposal is that, as I understand it (I may very well have misunderstood), carbon dividends resulting from carbon taxes would be evenly distributed amongst U.S. citizens. This creates the same issue that Ted Halstead eluded to, which he referred to as the "geopolitical barrier" (1:48). He states, "Under the current rules of global trade, countries have a strong incentive to free ride off of the emissions reductions of other nations in stead of strengthening their own programs." It seems to me as though this would just transfer the obstacle from an international scale to an individual or household scale. An even distribution of dividends would result in PEOPLE having a strong incentive to free ride off of others' emissions reductions rather than making their own efforts. This would work if the dividends were distributed based off of how much carbon was being used by each individual or house hold. Less emissions=more dividends.
Dividends are spread evenly (in each country). Extra costs coming from the tax are not. So when the consumer or producer lowers their emissions, they save money.
The core problem with trying to reduce CO2 production is that our primary energy supply is fossil fuels. It's little wonder why. It's cheap, highly portable, and energy dense in both weight and volume. If you are really going to drop CO2 levels without destroying everyone's economy, you have to replace fossil fuels with something that is cheap, highly portable, and energy dense in both weight and volume. Fail that and people will fight your effort tooth and nail because people hate being poor. Fortunately, Thorium and fusion reactors are showing great promise in terms of cheap energy, even if they end up failing at portability.
No deregulation until and unless (a) the evidence basis for the effectiveness any implemented countermeasure is established and (b) evidence from simulation results indicates we can reasonably expect the countermeasure to continue to function without the regulation. Why? We have already lived through the consequences of deregulating financial markets (2008) and dysregulating the function of public health institutions (2020). When it comes to climate change, failures of this sort are not an option.
There's probably something that I don't understand here but maybe some of you can explain. If carbon taxes are returned to 223 milion (or whatever the number was) Americans wouldn't they have an interest in supporting fossil fuel emitting companies? They more the companies emit the more money they get?
This sounds good but what happens when a country relies on exports? The additional cost of a carbon tax has to cause higher prices for goods, which means that they can no longer compete with overseas manufacturers and the export market will be gone.
The Plan sounds great - Though if carbon emissions will be decreasing through the carbon tax, at one point the dividends will too, even if we higher the tax, right?
Agreed. And thanks for the cite, The22726. My only point was that cattle as cattle produce methane biologically, not CO2. But that's not a favor. Methane is 20+ times worse. Add the CO2 used in the production of cattle for beef, ranging from fertalizer and pesticides, running equipment, transportation and refrigeration, and eating beef is a big deal. scholar.google.com/scholar?q=greenhouse+gas+production+by+cattle
STFU troll John Black. Of course CO2 is needed. No one has ever said otherwise. And LMAO you call me a denier? You're the one in another comment here denying it. And I called you out there to provide evidence. You're so fake. You've proved you're a troll. My work is done. We're done.
Ok Johnie. I get it now. You want a job on El Trumpo's staff. You've proven you can lie with the best of them there. Go for it! Your talents are wasted here.
I didn't quite get how the fourth pillar would work. I mean, does taxing imports from country B mean you are enforcing taxes paid by country B? Is the assumption that country B will just pay the tax because they have no other choice? Can anyone help clarify that part for me?
Wow, a plan that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and grows the economy--a plan that the oil companies, climate scientists, and economists all support, and that is proposed by conservatives! What an opportunity! I think we should all share this talk with our friends and call our Congressperson to support it!
I am willing to go along with this plan because it would do more good than bad. We must reduce CO2 pollution but this plan ideally would be expanded to also address other forms of greenhouse gas pollution. I do not like the elimination of tort liability for oil companies that have been defrauding their investors and funding climate deniers. Ultimately, I do believe that the overarching goal of creating a carbon dividend will do the most to cut CO2 pollution so this does what we most need.
Borjn Lomborg says differently on carbon tax. He states that carbon tax will only work if its global and economically carbon tax will only prevent 3cents of climate change costs where investing in nonexisting green technology will prevent 11 dollars of climate change costs.
Definitely a great idea to share and promote! A carbon tax with the money going back to the citizens is probably the best first and most important step to take to stop our addiction to dirty fossil fuels which adds do much carbon (CO2) to our atmosphere, adding invisible layers of blankets trapping heat. Thanks Ted Halstead and the CLC for the idea. Now each of us can ask our representatives to join the Climate Solutions Caucus and begin the litigation needed for America to lead the world in this effort!
If youre reducing the amount of carbon, then some other form has to take its place. Now this is the real debate that Ive been looking for years, but it would be wise to at least acknowledge some viewpoint in which this organization plans on replacing fossil fuels. Do we invest solely in renewable development? Do we take on a diversified energy portfolio of many alternative sources? Do we support investing in a larger nuclear industry and include the commercialization of Generation IV Nuclear? How do we push EVs to gain more market power over internal combustion vehicles? Do we start to support international energy agreements for alternative sources? What estimated capacity do we support each sector to contribute in the next 20 and 40 years?
I see the incentive. After all, here in Maryland, a state bill was passed this year that will give a tax credit for home owners and businesses to install personal generators(the kind that store excess power from the grid, not the gasoline powered ones) in their houses and buildings, effectively taking a significant step forward to decentralizing the state power grid.
In this country, there can be no durable solution to anything without bipartisan support. This is an emergency, and the marketplace is an amazing tool. Why would we NOT do this?
The only reason I could see companies wanting this tax is because is would cost them less money than complying with the regulations. With fracking running rampant as it is I don't know if I want deregulation.
I am so excited to see Republicans taking the lead on climate change! It gives me hope that we Americans can come together beyond our partisan differences to solve this problem which threatens our human future.
First misstep is ever labeling any plan proposal as belonging to one party versus another. Folks stuck in echo chambers on either side of the aisle will be reluctant toward any partisan plan that isn't coming from their own party. As with any silver bullet solution, I'd like to hear an expert opinion on what the flaws with this plan are.
It sounds like a concrete plan, but there must be following regulations. When a country tax both domestic factories and imports, the goods price might fluctuate up. Will the carbon dividends for the 70% citizens be able to cover up the fluctuation? In the end it's highly possible that still those 70% are paying the bill.
The problem here is that large multi nationals will continue to emit carbon as they always have, passing along the additional cost of taxation as an increase in cost to consumers. He states the average consumer would receive a dividend higher than the aggregate cost of taxation. How much higher? If business and conservative economists are on board you can be sure the net economic gain will be theirs and not the average consumers. Hiding increased costs in food prices etc. amounts to a higher tax on average citizens while easing the burden of real reform on the powers that be.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
We did it boys, the final boss. Ted himself.
this comment deserves so many more likes
I came here specifically to make this comment, only to realize someone’s beat me.
I just got off their official website looking for speakers named Ted, just so I could find this video...from a guy named Ted.
Dude, Ted finally talked!
Took them long enough. Finally Ted talks
Ted himself has spoken
Sad to finally meet this Angel on the day I find out he has passed away. Ted's life and legacy will continue to inspire those of us who are seeking authentic solutions to real problems in a very troubled world. One way we can honor Ted is to take the torch from his hand and carry it a little bit further down the road, whatever the path we find ourselves on.. Thanks Ted for shining the light of awareness from your soul so that we may have the opportunity to see the true path ahead. RIP Brother. You have earned it.
For anyone wondering, he died by a fall of 30 meters when hiking
@@nmen4435 that's so sad! :( His legacy lives on...
As a conservative that's disgusted with Trump's climate actions, I hope he listens to this because some great points are made. It benefits all. There'll be faults of course, there always is but this is definitely a strong and immediate solution
Read up about the Paris agreement, it's unenforcable and it benefits growing countries, like China and India. And you can't control those 2 industries' emissions.
Yep, the US should pay billions while the rest of the world pays nothing.
Makes sense!
krninja22 did you even watch the video?
Niklas, I'm talking about the Paris agreement.
Well, the Paris deal was bull crap whether you are in favor of reform or not.
A carbon fee and dividend plan is a bureaucratically lean, market-oriented, effective, bipartisan solution that is good for people, good for the environment, and good for the economy. A great example of this kind of bill is in the House of Representatives RIGHT NOW! It's called HR 763 The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. It includes an escalating carbon fee, a carbon dividend paid straight to every legal resident, a regulatory rollback, and a border adjustment, just like the idea described in this video. George Schultz (a key member of Halstead's group) is on the advisory board of the Citizens' Climate Lobby, a volunteer organization advocating as you read this comment for this very solution. Check the Citizens' Climate Lobby if you want to work on getting this legislation passed. They have chapters in every legislative district in the country.
What a fantastic argument. You won me, a liberal, over. However, you suggested that this is a plan that you put before Trump. I heard his speech. He didn't argue that he was pulling out of the Paris Commitment because he had a better solution. He has even implied several times that climate change isn't a real issue. It's a great plan, but it's DOA because we have a dimwit for a president.
I don't think it's the climate argument that's gonna win Trump over this plan. It's the imports via the Climate Domino effect. Yet ANOTHER way to screw over China. And even though I've got Chinese blood in me, lemme tell you China's government has made a lot of deliberate economic and political measures that has screwed over SEVERAL countries, including the US
This Carbon Dividend Plan would incentivize individuals and businesses to choose efficiency, conservation and renewables in every market transaction. I want my carbon dividend!
Here in Canada we have been receiving carbon tax dividends for years. It works !
danceswithcritters duck Canada and your tyrannical leader
u jus jealous.
since when ? I don't get any payout
LeGioNoFZioN It's provincially based. BC has the best set up currently, I believe.
ah so Ontarians aren't included got it
fundamentally, the key point here is the first point he made, which was that a capitalist market does not operate in a pro environment, pro ethics way. It always pursues the cheapest solution with prejudice. The solution here at its heart, is to somehow re-balance that market to force the self same competition that it currently enjoys to continue and to move in a greener direction. To take the arguments presented about other economies and trade drying up their interactions, misses the fundamental idea of the free market which is: if another business or economy sees they can do better, cheaper business in the US than their competitors by switching their production to more carbon neutral stances, then that business will win by doing so and pull the others along with it. Its that self balancing by competition that's the key here, and all this policy aims to do is add in a reasonable factor to the market price to enable competition to be shifted in that direction. Its very clever in its simplicity in my view. I support it wholeheartedly, but then what would I know, I'm a dirty liberal.
A carbon fee and dividend approach is exactly what we need. It has been shown to be effective, create jobs, promote economic growth, and protect consumers without growing government or burdening businesses with more regulations. Both sides of the political spectrum should get behind this.
I searched all the TED talk speakers and this is the only speaker named Ted. TED himself, the final boss, has finally arrived to the TED Talk.
There are not different "sides" of this issue, If you're alive you are on the side that needs to care about what kind of impact we have on the planet. Contrary to what movies like "WALL-E" suggest, we don't have a way of leaving this planet and getting our basic needs met.
Quit being a dumbass. If you had even an elementary understanding of geopolitics, macroeconomics, or science you'd know why there are different sides of the issue.
"Stupid is as stupid does" pretending there are different sides to this issue for the sake of macroeconomics is stupid.
Also, science doesn't pretend, this is a partisan issue because it isn't. The so-called scientists who deny climate change are a ridiculously small minority.
BTW the way you addressed me is cowardly because you are hiding behind a computer screen. I don't care and I even suspected someone would be belligerent but it is without debate that it is cowardly to disrespect someone online.
Climate solutions don't have to be a partisan issue. Let's agree that we want to make the best world for our descendants.
Excellent talk. Reminds me of my college days (mid 80s) studying Econ. We talked about 'externalities' then and pollution is chief among them. We all deserve clean air and clean water. Carbon pricing is long over due. And coupled with a 'dividend' it supports those most effected and most at risk. Now's the time to talk to your representatives about getting this legislated. Every call/email helps move the dial.
and if you want to remove subsidies on clean energy then please do the same from fossil fuels. I'm all for an equal playing field.
This is honestly one of the best solution I have heard
No. This is not a solution. It would be doomed from the outset. Adverse climate change correlates to fossil fuel consumption, period! This idea does not change fossil fuel consumption, indeed it gives a license to some firms to continue, or even increase their consumption.
Joseph Concordia I disagree, taxes are great for giving businesses incentives, such as reducing carbon footprint to pay less carbon tax/dividends. This tax/dividends would be no different. If you believe in the free market, then this will work.
Free market is a jargon term, not an economic principle. While classical economics treats supply/demand relationships to define an equilibrium, in the real world for all products other than those that have zero elasticity of demand markets are controlled by business strategies, practices, and management. With the principle business goal being to maximize profit, dominant producers will always exercise their skill to increase demand and command the desired price through innovative, or sometimes chicanery, measures. They are driven by financial motivation, not social altruism and depend on that for survival.. The only way to have balance in the greater universe of commerce as a whole is through prudent governmental regulation. It is government regulation that promotes a level playing field between producer and consumer. Without that the consumer lives at the will of the producer. That is true for the market at large. It applies equally to the energy sector as in all other areas. Prices are set by what the market will bear, not the cost of production. Product quality and usability is set by what customers will accept, not any intrinsic criteria for such factors. While some measures are taken, manufacturing operations employ methods to minimize cost, not to optimize social factors like, employee safety, environmental protection, or community enhancement. This extends even to the broader scope of universal basic human needs, such as those threatened by consequences of global warming. The energy industry, for the most part, has been an obstructionist on this issue, not an honest partner in finding a solution. I fear that would continue under this idea offered by Mr. Halstead.
Methinks thou protesteth too muchly.
Look, we know it works: it's been working really well in BC, Canada for years now, and was also working really well in Gillard's Australia.
It can work because it has worked and it does work and it is the obvious solution that should have been implemented many, many decades ago - i.e. the 1950s - but,
Koch Industries and Exxon.
solutions*
The comments may be full of pessimism, but I am excited to see this plan in motion!
terminallyCapricious(o: me too
Just another tax. Won't help the environment, not one bit. Once a tax is in place, it will only go up and no one but bureaucrats benefit. Or, you could develop technology that's doesn't rely as much on fossil fuels and make it affordable. It's already out there, solar roofs and electric cars. That is the real wave of the future
Pops Smith Solar roofs and electric cars aren't enough to replace fossil fuels. First of all, electric cars rely on electric power sources (obviously) and if those power sources are dirty then nothing is done. Solar power has issues with intermittency, and in some areas with less solar input like the Northern latitudes it's just a terrible idea. Even if everyone has a battery in their house. Ultimately other renewable sources like hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind etc. need to be included. I would argue that a carbon tax does make sense for certain areas when their renewable choices will simply not become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, like nuclear, or when the time for costs to go down is not fast enough to meet targets.
I'd actually like to know how the heck a Senator wouldn't want this plan.
It strikes me that the new element to this is the direct dividends to the public, as opposed to feeding the public coffers. The most interesting part of that is the the simple allocation of the same amount to everyone. I can't imagine that getting through the US congress in one piece LoL
I can't even imagine that such a transfer of money to individual citizens would ever be a net gain to the individual. The only benefit would accrue to the big energy industry that would have a license to pollute. That plus the obvious extrapolation of the idea over time meaning further adverse climate change from continuing usage of fossil fuels would degrade our quality of life, especially for those in economic classes that have no means to protect themselves.
@@josephconcordia3552 It would be a net gain for the bottom 70% of Americans and a net loss for the top 30%. The carbon tax would disincentivize carbon use. So no, you are wrong.
I can't fucking believe I was assigned to watch this for a class
From a practical perspective, a system very much like this is already in place in deep-red Alaska (the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend system). It's one of the most popular things the state government does.
This is the least-intrusive policy approach that I've seen that I would expect to actually have an effect on climate change.
A few questions:
1. How do you incentivise carbon emitters from not pushing the tax of carbon onto other companies and people, by rising the price of goods sold?
2. How much is the carbon dividend, because due to the 320 million people in the USA when you divide the cost beared by a few companies by every person in the USA you create a very low dividend for each person that may not actually cover the increase in price by fossil fuel companies. You bring up the 36 cents per gallon, but that's kinda strange since oil and gas companies don't actually set the specific prices at the gas station, plus this involves far more than gasoline. It involves the production of over 8,000 commodities as well as electricity, heating and transportation fuels. It involves natural gas, coal and oil.
3. What specific regulations would be rolled back, and would this only include fossil fuel regulations or also other alternative sources to incentivise production?
4. Whats stopping a country that does not have a carbon tax for border adjustments to simply increase tax on imports from that other country overall? Think in the mind of the current republican party. If the UK puts a tax on American carbon goods for a dividend to its citizen, what if Ol Donny doesn't like that and instead places a higher tariff on UK goods? Now UK US trade is relatively balanced, but we do in fact export more than import from them, so isn't it safe to say that a higher overall tariff will hurt the UK than a carbon tariff on the US will hurt the US?
How do companies increase in growth by paying higher liabilities? The entire purpose of the carbon tax is to push commercial interest away from fossil fuels so that we decrease our emissions.
As for products perhaps you may want to think twice about your comment when you realize that fossil fuels are used in the production of:
rubber, asphalt, concrete, cement, steel, synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon, paint, plastic, hydrogen, fertilizer, lubricants, food products, pesticides, PVC, cleaning supplies, other chemicals etc. The petrochemical industry is massive and utilized by nearly every single major industry on planet earth.
How do you propose we make roads without asphalt, and more specifically bitumen?
How do you propose we make fertilizer without ammonia?
How do you propose we make industrial grade plastics without ethylene and propylene?
How do you propose we make water resistant clothing without polyester or without nylon?
How do you propose we make detergent without Dodecyldimethylamine oxide or Polyethylene glycol?
How do you propose we make wind turbine blades without polyester, vinyl, polyether ether ketone, polyurethane, polypropylene, and polyacrylonitrile?
These are just a very small amount of the products I worry we wont be able to make without fossil fuels, and life would be extremely different if we didn't have them.
I don't have time to address all of the things you listed in a rigorous way, but I'll try to say something about them points 2 and 3 can be answered by reading the book they put out and checking the numbers for yourself.
" How do you incentivise carbon emitters from not pushing the tax of carbon onto other companies and people, by rising the price of goods sold?"
The answer is that you don't. The purpose of this plan is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels people consume and to incentivize bushiness to invest in and develop non carbon emitting sources of energy. If companies increase prices to consumers they will buy less, which reduces carbon emissions. If companies increase there prices they will not be able to make up the difference because there will be a decrease in demand on top of the tax. Even if there is no decrease in demand, companies will still be incentivized to use alternative energy sources to reduce the amount of tax they pay.
This will not eliminate fossil fuels it will reduce them gradually, and they will be replaced. All of the items you listed in your second post we can afford to use less of and it is possible to produce them or alternatives with things other then fossil fuels, many of the alternatives to the things you listed already exist, there is just no incentive to switch to them because they may cost more, but the purpose of this plan is to shift the balance so those alternatives are the less expansive options.
"Whats stopping a country that does not have a carbon tax for border adjustments to simply increase tax on imports from that other country overall?"
Again the answer is nothing. If the Uk taxes imports from America, American consumers will have to pay more for UK products, if Trump responds by putting a tariff on them then Americans will sell less products to the UK because the increased prize will reduce the amount of goods they buy from America. If America puts a tariff on anything then American people have to pay more for that good, that's how tariff's work both parties suffer from tariff's which is why they are so hated by economist. They do not cancel each other out they stack on one another. After a while the American people will get fed up over Trump making them pay more money for UK goods just out of spite and he will have to get rid of it or they will elect someone who will.
+Tree Face in Bizarro Land
If you increase prices, then you decrease demand for a product, but what if there is no competition to replace that product. Yes in the current environment we have renewables, but it will take time to replace natural gas production per unit with renewables. During this time consumers don't really have another option other than pay a higher price of the current energy being produced. This scenario is even more relevant with petroleum production. A carbon tax will not immediately revert all consumers over to EVs, in fact even with a higher price used petroleum based vehicles will be cheaper than EVs, thus continuing petroleum's hold on the transportation market, but with a higher cost.
In certain scenarios some companies may move more towards alternative energy, but this is not true with every company. For example Exxon Mobil primarily focuses on production of fuel instead of electricity. The cost of tax is not equal or greater than the cost it would take to create a new division for primarily electricity generation, so there is no economic incentive to move this company towards alternative energy. Also this company has in fact invested hundreds of millions of dollars into alternative energy due to the expected decrease in supply of oil only to incur a net loss in the production of algae based biofuel. Needless to say these major companies would be skeptical to lunge into alternative energy.
Perhaps the American people will get fed up more than the British, but at this point considering the political tensions of both countries its hard to say. Also the American people, actually don't really have any power for at least 2 years. We cant necessarily change congress's mind on a response to the UK tariff if that was implemented. Also if you haven't been watching Trump also hasn't given too much of a f@ck about what the American people really think. If that were true, then he wouldn't have left the Paris Accord at all. Polls show at least a 60% majority of American people favoring the accord.
"If you increase prices, then you decrease demand for a product, but what if there is no competition to replace that product."
You are making the assumption that the product needs to be replaced, I know from my own personal life experience that I can in fact reduce the amount of gas I use on a weekly bases, I choose not to largely because I have the money and am lazy, if gas got taxed more it would be more expensive and instead of buying a new car I would just reduce the amount I use it by various means including not going out for frivolous activates, walking to the mail box, carpooling to school etc. None of the products you are listing will be eliminated they will just be more expensive so they will have to be used less wastefully and be supplemented by those other products that do in fact exist. Water resistant clothing, you don't need to buy a new one, use your old one, keep it in better condition buy a used one. Roads can be made without asphalt, we don't need some super technology to do it. There are ways of cutting the use of these items businesses can reduce the amount of plastic they use. He made it clear that this is a gradual process, its not as drastic a change as your making it out to be.
The companies that do not adapt to the change like potentially Exxon, will suffer and possibly be out competed by there competitors, business fail and Exxon will inevitably cease to exist, company's are not immortal. Evolution and economics are similar those that adapt will survive and those that don't will die. The fact that Exxon is skeptical of investing in alternative energy is all the more reason to incentivize them to do so.
" Also the American people, actually don't really have any power for at least 2 years. We cant necessarily change congress's mind on a response to the UK tariff if that was implemented. "
This is a hypothetical, the UK has not done anything, this guy is still hoping that Trump himself implements this. This is not a 2 year or screw it type of plan, politics is a life long fight and 2 years is nothing. If other countries start doing it in the next few years, like Germany which seems like they would be all for this type of thing, or possibly China then maybe when Trump is either gone or the congress is not on his side we could make something happen.
"Trump also hasn't given too much of a f@ck about what the American people really think."
I disagree I think he is doing what he thinks the American people want he is just incorrect about what people want because the only people he talks to is his supporters. However he wants to give people tax breaks, in essence give them money, and this plan also gives them money, and when people get wind of that idea I think his supporters might turn him on to the idea. The point of this idea is to appeal to republicans, by giving them this dividend which could work, people like money. Anything is possible we have to try something.
+Tree Face in Bizzarro land Not everyone can necessarily decrease consumption demand, be nice if we could- our nation already produces by far the most waste per capita and consumes the most per capita. However we consistently increase in consumption demand trend, despite all of our technology, because even as we increase in our technology we increase in the amount of energy we need to produce all the technology we have just created. This is actually the primary reason why I do not believe in such proposals as the SolutionsProject which assumes a massive decrease in consumption due to EVs, but completely disregards electricity consumption demand.
We can and should decrease consumption, but youll find that task to be much harder than you first thought as we increase in population and technology. The fact is, the majority of people in this country- will not take steps as you have desired, and will instead choose to pay a higher price for energy they require to live their lives 24 hours a day. This is a historical and societal fact based on how our country has behaved with past and current energy crisis. We don't just stop using products, because quite frankly the demand is just too ridiculously high. Fossil fuels contribute 67% of electricity in this country and are responsible for 99.1% of all transportation in this country. That is extremely substantial, and not a statistic you can override with a simple walk to the mailbox.
Do you know why Exxon Mobil is skeptical? Did it ever occur to you that they have already done it? Over the course of Exxon Mobil history even before when it was Esso, they have invested in solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuel, and nuclear and NONE OF IT is anywhere near economically productive as petroleum and natural gas. This is company that was created out of Standard Oil, so they've been around the block for quite a well. Theres a reason that their operative revenue is larger than some developing nations, because they make an effort to be one of the largest energy companies in the world. This is not an add for them, but you would be a fool to think that this company doesn't think about the future. In the 1970s they created a solar company, but sold it because they estimated that it wouldn't be profitable on large scale commercialization until 2012. Guess what, they hit the mark 40 years ahead of time nearly on the dot! The fact is unless there's some major political action; companies like Exxon Mobil, Saudi Aramco, Sinopec, and BP aren't going anywhere because theres enough supply and a strong enough technology to last several decades. EVs aren't going to takeover the market tomorrow, this year or in ten years- that's just a fact we have to stomache. There is no natural market incentive you can reasonably supply to convince the majority of the world to turn away from internal combustion, so for the time until then we have to deal with petroleum. This means these companies, while potentially hurting, aren't going anywhere.
Who knows , maybe they'll switchover, but based solely on wind and solar value(which fyi wind turbine blades are actually made of petroleum in the USA) this is very unlikely to occur for at least a couple decades, which leads into a variety of future scenarios.
if you can convince the majority of people to turn away from this and develop better technology at the same time Ill applaud you, but I'm very skeptical. Even energy sources I greatly support, I'm skeptical of because of human nature and seeing how everyday people respond to changes in energy. Less than ten years ago there was a major movement to move towards cleaner fuel by the power of corn. Remember E85? What happened? The price of corn rose as a result and we switched back to regular gasoline. We even included countless subsidies and tax credits, but it couldn't survive and green technology couldn't outcompete petroleum.
I am interested though as to what materials you would make roads of without asphalt, or more specifically without any petroleum based products?
This is so compelling. Halstead has clearly explained a national policy solution to reducing carbon emissions that will have a "domino effect" and bring countries around the world on board with a similar policy. Brilliant!
Multiple economic studies have looked at plans like this and found they would benefit the economy as a whole. This makes it far superior to a regulatory approach. The plan is simple and transparent. This makes it superior to the complex cap-and-trade systems we have seen in operation-plans that always include a regulatory approach and always are subject to loopholes, exceptions, and qualifications that reduce effectiveness. Even for climate skeptics, this is a pretty cheap and highly effective insurance policy. The clean air and saved lives are an extra bonus.
Of all the climate change solutions that have been proposed, this conservative plan is definitely "Most Likely to Succeed." It is simple and logical, and in the process of saving the world's climate it will generate all kinds of other benefits: reducing the power of undemocratic oil-producing nations; encouraging investment in clean technologies; leveling the international competitive playing field so that carbon cheaters can't win; eliminating regulations that restrict business growth; and boosting the economy but putting the dividend in the hands of people who are very likely to spend it. Once the dividend checks start arriving in mailboxes it will be very hard to stop. I'm looking forward to getting mine!
in the morden world where the climate is a major threat to humanity, this is a powerful solution
This is brilliant. Just what we need! Thanks Ted for forming this powerful plan and coalition.
This is an important step towards energy freedom. i salute Mr. Halstead and his conservative partners for stepping up to bring the right and left together. I know most people can't see this dramatic climate problem and don't think it affects them. But the extreme weather events will get worse and the scarcity of water will continue until our national security is threatened. If we take action NOW, we can't stop global warming, carbon lasts a long time in the atmosphere and the oceans, but we can flatten it's progress and adapt to a new reality for a livable world. Thank you to the Climate Leadership Council for their outstanding, courageous leadership on this issue.
I think this presentation was excellent. I also believe the carbon dividend proposal is sensible and will make a difference if enacted by Congress.
This is an excellent, well thought out proposal. It addresses every concern I've ever heard about taking aggressive action to combat global warming. Market based, limited government, protects the poor and middle class, protects against carbon "leakage", enlists other countries, simple, and politically viable. I don't see any case against this proposal, maybe you could quibble with the exact price and rate of increase on the carbon fee, but the principle is sound.
Contact your members of Congress. Let them know about this and your support for it.
The case 'against' it is to be found replete in the comments on this video; Fools who clearly understood nothing and oppose it out of pure ignorance.
Great talk Ted. I agree that a carbon fee & dividend is the start to solving the climate crisis. It is not the entire answer as we also need to reduce the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere. More important benefits to your proposed solution that you did not mention (for political reasons or just time?) are increased health and reduced health related costs due to less pollution, a boost to alternative energy market led by consumer demand (not the government picking winners), and an improved economy because of increased jobs for alternative energy systems. Solar is one of the fasted growing industries and largest long term job creators in our country right now. There have been at least three separate economic studies showing this type of proposal works. Let's all push congress! Everyone reading this, ask your representative to join the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus!
In this scenario who pays the tax? Everyone, or just companies? And how do you measure the use of carbon by a person/company in order to know how much to tax them?
Everyone pays the taxes but because companies use more carbon they will ultimately pay more. The way you determine a persons carbon use is largely based off of what they buy, its essentially a sales tax. They add up how much gas you buy, they will tax you a certain amount per gallon.
Read the actual bill for details. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjZgKrtocDpAhUBXM0KHTSKD1wQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.congress.gov%2Fbill%2F116th-congress%2Fhouse-bill%2F763&usg=AOvVaw3fT-f-7t7yuV4uFvm_bo7J
This is a proposal that is effective and fair because it deals with the whole economy, whereas regulations only target one industry. It is fair to citizens because the dividend more than balances the increased cost of goods and fuel for the lowest 70%, and has minimal effect on the others. It meets conservative principles of less government and less intervention in the market. It is a golden opportunity for conservatives to claim the mantle of leadership on an issue that has very broad popular support.
I'm a moderate just looking for people to actually take sensible action on this issue. The Clean Power Plan was the best solution that could be done without Congressional authorization, but it still was not good. This though, this is a great solution for solving the largest issue of our time! Let's implement this Congress. I'm 29, the consequences are happening now and will only increase over the course of my life. I want a better world, and this plan will get us there!
Thank you so much Ted Halstead. Your talk so clearly and simply informs us about this climate solution plan and gives hope that it's possible to bring together people from both sides of the aisle to address this crisis of our planet that we are all involved in. I have hope and confidence that it will be implemented.
This is a great idea! It all boils down to incentives. If a tax on carbon corrects the market so the price of things reflect the true cost to society of producing that item, then people's purchase decisions will automatically steer them towards more environmentally friendly purchases. The corrected market will create an incentive for people and businesses to invest time and money into inventing and bringing to market new, clean-energy technology that will not only benefit our economy and people, but the environment to boot. And - with the carbon dividend giving people more money in their pocket to spend- the economy will be stimulated, creating new opportunities and jobs. What is not to love?
honestly, this is a genius work
This gives me hope for bipartisan negotiations that could result in an environmental policy that would bring economic and health benefits, even if not all the policy makers believe the science on climate change.
I'm an Independent and think this is a great plan that both parties should agree on!
This climate solution will create a win-win situation for all stakeholders... it's rational, apolitical and with a long-term perspective: something the political class in the developed world should sit up and take notice to.
What I love about this plan is that not only would we have meaningful climate action, but 223 MILLION low and middle income Americans would receive an extra $2000 a year in dividends. Climate justice and climate action from one simple plan would be a huge win for us all.
We need a climate change solution that is acceptable across the political spectrum. And we need it yesterday. A carbon fee and dividend approach is our best shot. I am optimistic that this can happen right here in America very soon.
I was lucky enough to hear him speak in person and it was inspiring. He has a plan that both conservatives and liberals can get behind. I hope he gets a groundswell of support behind him. We all need to engage on this issue; our kids deserve it.
Democrat in VA checking in--5 minutes tuned in & I already know that common sense will yield common interest. Great ideas & well done, Sir! 👏
Wonderful presentation! Framing this proposed climate mitigation method as one that any country can choose will hopefully spur us here in the United States to be the first to lead with this most effective and hopeful solution.
The intentions are good but it seems like an over simplistic solution (presented in a trendy way) to a very complex issue with much more ramifications.
- For example this policy only concerns the air pollution and carbon and energy use like fuel, not other kinds of pollution like water pollution by intensive farming or soil pollution by pesticides or the pollution of the oceans.
- The idea of carbon dividends to compensate for social issues of capitalism is good but at no point you talk of investing some of that money for depollution or research in more ecological production methods or to finance companies or non-profit organization in "eco-friendly" activities.
- The idea of ending all environmental regulations as a counterpart for businesses is just plain dangerous, this would just mean they can pollute as much as they want as long as they pay for it and remove all sense of responsibility.
- Even if the consumption of natural or rare resources is paid for, that won't replace them, it doesn't really solve the issue, it just creates a compensation.
Those are just a few flaws of this plan but again it's a very simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem.
Also it can't really be called a conservative or republican way since its base principles of carbon tax and dividend consist in more state intervention in the market.
This plan is only meant to help with the air pollution part of the problem. And, according to this plan the government would keep none of the money received. It would all go back to American citizens as a 'dividend'. So, there would be no money for the government to invest in anything - according to this plan at least.
I also think that only half of the money should be invested into this dividends and the other half into research in more ecological technology. The other aspects of a climate solution can be handled with other policies, but for the air pollution part this is the best solution. I have thought about a similar solution for some time now (the same thing actually but instead of dividends investions in research) and was very surprised that this guy had kind of the same I had.
(sorry if my English is bad, I'm not a native English speaker)
Air pollution is the most urgent and serious pollution we are dealing with the day, so of course this plan focuses on that. Also, the speaker did not say to eliminate all regulations; he merely said to eliminate the regulations that would become unnecessary if the carbon tax goes into action
Economic theory would be that having the carbon tax would reduce the need for Government funded research. Production that relies heavily on carbon would become less and less price competitive and producers would have to find ways to produce with less carbon to keep their consumers or go out of business.
In terms of rare resources, this is only reducing carbon emission, so it doesn't factor all other environmental concerns as you rightly point out. In terms of reducing carbon emissions, hopefully the price would keep up so that we don't pass catastrophic levels.
It's a scam.
The only thing you need to hear about this proposal is 'roll back regulations'.
This is the smartest plan to save the climate I've ever seen. Tip my hat to Ted Halstead. America, listen to this guy.
This is a great solution. Keep up the good work!
Congratulations, you have finally come up with a solution.
This is already being proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and has been for years. CCL has also been active in building the bipartisan caucus in Congress to formulate policies to address climate change. I commend him for recognizing that the cost of carbon should not be externalized, but born by those who emit carbon dioxide. The dividend also make the plan revenue neutral and counters arguments relative to social justice. Using the fee and dividend approach is the best way of mustering the power of the free market in helping to solve the threat of anthropogenic induced climate change.
This is a plan we can agree upon, plain and simple. A steadily rising price on GHG will hasten our transition to clean energy; the dividend to each household will especially help low and middle income households weather the increased costs. Similar plans are being proposed by the left on the West Coast - SB775, and by the right on the East Coast - the Climate Leadership Council's "Carbon Dividends Plan". Time is of the essence. Let's ACT NOW!
This was a really new way of thinking about the issue of climate change! I really think this is a way that all sides can truly win!
There is a fundamental issue with that: How people in country B get aware of the dividends people in country A get? Ask an American how the Chinese tax works, ask a Chinese how the French social protection works, ask a French how the German retirement plan works.... you won't get any proper answer, because people are not aware of what is happening in other countries. The domino effect cited there is a beautiful utopia.
The best solutions are also sometimes the most simple. I was pessimistic and ready to find something wrong with this solution, but I couldn't. It makes sense and it's practical. Certain products are already taxed higher because they are harmful to our health. Why should carbon be any different? Plus, returning that money to the average family will stimulate the economy through increased spending.
Before signing on with any carbon tax, someone should endeavor to prove causation rather than correlation of carbon emissions and global temperature data.
Many 1000's of scientists have worked on understanding climate change over the last 30 years. Their work is peer reviewed and is readily available for anyone to read. Global temperature rise is unequivocally proven to be anthropogenic. If you want to ignore that huge body of evidence and carry on believing that it's not related to our consumtion of fossil fuels, clearing of rainforests etc then that's your choice. It something we'll all like to believe because it would make life a lot easier if we didn't have to change. But don't confuse beliefs with facts. The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you choose to believe it.
Did he count in the extreme rise in prices for *everything produced* in all "country A's" ?
You as a consumer will get only a fraction back of what each compony will need to spend and restructure the cost towards the margins.
In other words - you may lose entrepreneurs to other less strict countries. The import won't be as damaging as paying for the taxed production.
MetallicReg isn't he saying the import would be taxed to the same level as if it had been produced from scratch in USA? I suppose you'd need some legislation preventing businesses passing on the cost of this tax to the consumer. And it encourages production lines towards clean energy sources to mitigate tax. Sure an offshore business has the advantage of shipping to other countries, but I can't see a mass migration. If it helps only the USA get a hold of its emissions then that is a global success.
domhamai This is to most degree irrelevant. A high import tax would primarily hurt the growth because there isn't nearly anything that is produced in one country alone. This would limit the buying power of the consumers and the possibilities for the height of the taxes.
Even with import corrections - companies would have it easier to produce abroad and collect higher revenue everywhere else first instead of a costly "carbon-corrected" production and have benefits only inside the participants bubble.
Such a system is really complicated to translate into a real globalized world. The same goes with a basic income that is funded by vat increases. The people won't buy anything with a 45% higher price, if they have a choice.
It works, if everyone joins from the get go. But if you look at the huge discrepancies in economic power, this isn't likely to be soon.
In Europe there is already a precursor of such carbon taxing (carbon emission certificates). And the reality turned into a sort of huge satire where wealthy countries buy those certificates from less wealthy ones to justify overboard production without limits (and stagnate the development of those that need it or drive them into denial of the whole system).
_____________
Under the line, I am completely with you on your conclusion: If US (as nearly a third of the global problem) manages its energy cycles, this would be a major win for everybody and a good example for near future problem regions like India.
Just trying to really understand this...
1a. How does taxing companies that use carbon-based power encourage less carbon emissions? Say their taxes triple. What's to stop them from passing on the increase to the products they sell and continuing on at the same emission level? What incentive do companies have to lower their emissions except to be taxed less?
1b. If companies DID start reducing emissions, what alternative forms of energy will they use to produce the same amount of product? Where does the money to install this technology come from? There are no programs in this concept to develop alternative energy sources, which is a hindrance to companies to want to change. RE::why spend money on change when you can just make people pay more?
4. What's to prevent country B from raising import taxes right back? Sounds a lot like a death spiral of all countries just charging more for all imports. How do you get other countries except America to join in on the plan, when all but 3 countries in the world are already part of a different climate deal? Why tax countries without the same plan even if their emissions are going down more or are already lower than ours? It sounds like, "we started it, so EVERYONE has to do the same thing or you're going to get penalized."
I love it! It is a win, win, win solution.
The carbon dividends plan is simple and it would work. It will eventually lower carbon emissions to 10% of 1990's emission level. It will not wreck the economy, and in fact some parts of the country and the lowest earning 70% of the country will come out slightly ahead. Let's do this. We can make it happen. There is a similar plan being advanced by Citizens Climate Lobby called carbon fee and dividend. A plan like this is our best hope to mitigate climate change.
This is an excellent idea. Carbon dividends makes a lot of sense!
That's a lovely idea but as Ferengi rule of acquisition number one states
'Once you have they money NEVER GIVE IT BACK' ;)
the* money
I love to see that alternative solutions to climate change are actively being sought after. My main concern with this proposal is that, as I understand it (I may very well have misunderstood), carbon dividends resulting from carbon taxes would be evenly distributed amongst U.S. citizens. This creates the same issue that Ted Halstead eluded to, which he referred to as the "geopolitical barrier" (1:48). He states, "Under the current rules of global trade, countries have a strong incentive to free ride off of the emissions reductions of other nations in stead of strengthening their own programs."
It seems to me as though this would just transfer the obstacle from an international scale to an individual or household scale. An even distribution of dividends would result in PEOPLE having a strong incentive to free ride off of others' emissions reductions rather than making their own efforts. This would work if the dividends were distributed based off of how much carbon was being used by each individual or house hold. Less emissions=more dividends.
Dividends are spread evenly (in each country). Extra costs coming from the tax are not. So when the consumer or producer lowers their emissions, they save money.
The core problem with trying to reduce CO2 production is that our primary energy supply is fossil fuels. It's little wonder why. It's cheap, highly portable, and energy dense in both weight and volume. If you are really going to drop CO2 levels without destroying everyone's economy, you have to replace fossil fuels with something that is cheap, highly portable, and energy dense in both weight and volume. Fail that and people will fight your effort tooth and nail because people hate being poor. Fortunately, Thorium and fusion reactors are showing great promise in terms of cheap energy, even if they end up failing at portability.
No deregulation until and unless (a) the evidence basis for the effectiveness any implemented countermeasure is established and (b) evidence from simulation results indicates we can reasonably expect the countermeasure to continue to function without the regulation.
Why? We have already lived through the consequences of deregulating financial markets (2008) and dysregulating the function of public health institutions (2020). When it comes to climate change, failures of this sort are not an option.
There's probably something that I don't understand here but maybe some of you can explain. If carbon taxes are returned to 223 milion (or whatever the number was) Americans wouldn't they have an interest in supporting fossil fuel emitting companies? They more the companies emit the more money they get?
This is a win-win-win way forward. Hearing this I have renewed hope in human ingenuity. Also in the future of the planet I call home.
The important thing is that the dividend must be equal for everyone. And it should probably include children. Nappies aren't carbon neutral.
This sounds good but what happens when a country relies on exports? The additional cost of a carbon tax has to cause higher prices for goods, which means that they can no longer compete with overseas manufacturers and the export market will be gone.
The Plan sounds great - Though if carbon emissions will be decreasing through the carbon tax, at one point the dividends will too, even if we higher the tax, right?
Yes. The dividends will go down, say in a decade, but the benefits will be paying off for all of us. We will have turned the corner!
Exellent presentation and viable solution
What about Cattle?
Good point. Though technically the cattle generate methane. Still, there's all the other systems that support that industry and they create CO2.
Agreed. And thanks for the cite, The22726. My only point was that cattle as cattle produce methane biologically, not CO2. But that's not a favor. Methane is 20+ times worse.
Add the CO2 used in the production of cattle for beef, ranging from fertalizer and pesticides, running equipment, transportation and refrigeration, and eating beef is a big deal.
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=greenhouse+gas+production+by+cattle
STFU troll John Black. Of course CO2 is needed. No one has ever said otherwise. And LMAO you call me a denier? You're the one in another comment here denying it. And I called you out there to provide evidence. You're so fake. You've proved you're a troll. My work is done. We're done.
Scientists have created slabs of meat artificially. In the next 50 years, there should be no reason to have livestock.
Ok Johnie. I get it now. You want a job on El Trumpo's staff. You've proven you can lie with the best of them there. Go for it! Your talents are wasted here.
I didn't quite get how the fourth pillar would work. I mean, does taxing imports from country B mean you are enforcing taxes paid by country B? Is the assumption that country B will just pay the tax because they have no other choice? Can anyone help clarify that part for me?
What a great plan for which no Republican in congress would vote.
Great idea! A market-based solution to stimulate the economy, grow new industries, create more jobs AND stabilize the climate, all at the same time!
Excellent talk with a great solution for everyone. Let's get this going !
Wow, a plan that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and grows the economy--a plan that the oil companies, climate scientists, and economists all support, and that is proposed by conservatives! What an opportunity! I think we should all share this talk with our friends and call our Congressperson to support it!
Awesome plan. I think we could go even further and reward people / businesses based on their carbon footprint.
The plan automatically rewards people and businesses for low carbon footprint. No one in government will be picking the winners and the losers.
So great to hear a logical and attainable plan put forth by a Republican. Thank you!
I am willing to go along with this plan because it would do more good than bad. We must reduce CO2 pollution but this plan ideally would be expanded to also address other forms of greenhouse gas pollution. I do not like the elimination of tort liability for oil companies that have been defrauding their investors and funding climate deniers. Ultimately, I do believe that the overarching goal of creating a carbon dividend will do the most to cut CO2 pollution so this does what we most need.
Borjn Lomborg says differently on carbon tax. He states that carbon tax will only work if its global and economically carbon tax will only prevent 3cents of climate change costs where investing in nonexisting green technology will prevent 11 dollars of climate change costs.
If a Republican supported this plan, I may actually vote for them. Too bad none of them have proposed it yet.
Definitely a great idea to share and promote! A carbon tax with the money going back to the citizens is probably the best first and most important step to take to stop our addiction to dirty fossil fuels which adds do much carbon (CO2) to our atmosphere, adding invisible layers of blankets trapping heat. Thanks Ted Halstead and the CLC for the idea. Now each of us can ask our representatives to join the Climate Solutions Caucus and begin the litigation needed for America to lead the world in this effort!
If youre reducing the amount of carbon, then some other form has to take its place. Now this is the real debate that Ive been looking for years, but it would be wise to at least acknowledge some viewpoint in which this organization plans on replacing fossil fuels.
Do we invest solely in renewable development?
Do we take on a diversified energy portfolio of many alternative sources?
Do we support investing in a larger nuclear industry and include the commercialization of Generation IV Nuclear?
How do we push EVs to gain more market power over internal combustion vehicles?
Do we start to support international energy agreements for alternative sources?
What estimated capacity do we support each sector to contribute in the next 20 and 40 years?
I see the incentive. After all, here in Maryland, a state bill was passed this year that will give a tax credit for home owners and businesses to install personal generators(the kind that store excess power from the grid, not the gasoline powered ones) in their houses and buildings, effectively taking a significant step forward to decentralizing the state power grid.
In this country, there can be no durable solution to anything without bipartisan support. This is an emergency, and the marketplace is an amazing tool. Why would we NOT do this?
Sensible policy proposal. Much simpler than cap and trade, and the dividend keeps poor people from being hit so hard.
This is now official Canadian policy, in place and operational!
The only reason I could see companies wanting this tax is because is would cost them less money than complying with the regulations. With fracking running rampant as it is I don't know if I want deregulation.
After so so long, Ted finally talks after thousands upon thousands of years of slumber. He is here. TED. IS. TALKING.
Lets have Ted as the entire earths first president
I am so excited to see Republicans taking the lead on climate change! It gives me hope that we Americans can come together beyond our partisan differences to solve this problem which threatens our human future.
Let's unleash the power of the free market to solve climate change!
First misstep is ever labeling any plan proposal as belonging to one party versus another. Folks stuck in echo chambers on either side of the aisle will be reluctant toward any partisan plan that isn't coming from their own party. As with any silver bullet solution, I'd like to hear an expert opinion on what the flaws with this plan are.
I want to help make ideas like this happen.
It sounds like a concrete plan, but there must be following regulations. When a country tax both domestic factories and imports, the goods price might fluctuate up. Will the carbon dividends for the 70% citizens be able to cover up the fluctuation? In the end it's highly possible that still those 70% are paying the bill.
I am a liberal and I will 100% get behind this if it moves forward.
This makes sense I hope it works out.
This is a good compromise. We will (in my opinion) be healing the Earth, and help balance out our debt.
The problem here is that large multi nationals will continue to emit carbon as they always have, passing along the additional cost of taxation as an increase in cost to consumers. He states the average consumer would receive a dividend higher than the aggregate cost of taxation. How much higher? If business and conservative economists are on board you can be sure the net economic gain will be theirs and not the average consumers. Hiding increased costs in food prices etc. amounts to a higher tax on average citizens while easing the burden of real reform on the powers that be.