A climate bill the people can support

“They say a carbon tax is too politically sensitive. … I disagree with this assessment. I believe the American people want climate policy to be transparent, honest and effective.”

Though I couldn’t have said it better myself, most folks would be surprised to learn the source of this quote. It comes not from the director of Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but from the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson.

And while the policies and practices of ExxonMobil, in my view, leave much to be desired, Tillerson’s comments cut through the posturing and politics that envelop efforts to enact legislation that will reduce greenhouse gases and produce new jobs in the green-energy economy.

Too bad his words haven’t been taken to heart on Capitol Hill.

In a last-ditch effort to revive climate legislation from the ashes of cap and trade, three senators have come up with a proposal that divides carbon emitters into three sectors — utilities, transportation and manufacturing.

In this approach — offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — utilities would come under a carbon cap with a yet-to-be-determined system for allocating permits. Fuels for transportation would be taxed directly. Carbon limits for manufacturers would be phased in at a later date, with details to be negotiated.

I admire the hard work and commitment these senators have invested to come up with a solution on climate and energy, but if we’re looking for something that is “transparent, honest and effective,” this isn’t it.

In crafting a compromise they feel could attract the necessary votes, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have devised a plan that appeals to the divergent sectors of corporate America.

I have a better idea: How about a proposal that appeals to the American people?

Does $6,000 annually for a family of four sound appealing?

That’s how much money would eventually be returned to households under an approach known as carbon fee and dividend.

Here’s how it works:

Place a steadily-increasing fee on coal, oil and gas at the source — the mine, the well, the port of entry. As the fee rises, investors and industries can calculate the point at which renewable energy will be competitive with — if not cheaper than — fossil fuels. This triggers an explosion in the development and production of clean power from wind, solar and other sources. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs will emerge as America enters into the clean energy economy. A simple fee on fossil fuels gives us a transparent, honest and — most importantly — predictable price on carbon-based energy. With such a price signal in place, I’m betting that big corporations like ExxonMobil — with hundreds of billions of dollars in profits at their disposal — will jump headlong into the emerging clean-energy market.

But wait. Won’t energy costs go up? Who pays for that?

That’s where the dividend comes in. As revenue is generated from the carbon fee — we’re talking a lot of revenue — it’s given back to all households equally in the form of a monthly payment. The vast majority of Americans would receive more from the carbon dividend than they would pay for increased energy costs.

How much money are we talking about? When the fee reaches $115 per ton of CO2, it’s estimated that the dividend share would be about $2,000 a year. If you give children a half share — up to two children per household — a family of four would get $6,000 a year. The better they are at reducing their energy use, the more money stays in their pocket, money that can be spent on other goods and services that stimulates our economy.

Perhaps the best economic benefit of the carbon fee and dividend is that it will reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is causing catastrophic climate change. The savings from averting this disastrous rendezvous with Mother Nature is incalculable.

There are some who have doubts as to what the scientists tell us about the warming of our planet and its causes. The way I see it, though, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by shifting to clean energy. And the fastest way to do that is to put a price on carbon and give the money back to the people.

Marshall Saunders of Coronado, Calif., is founder and president of Citizens Climate Lobby. For information about the organization’s Whidbey Island chapter, contact Jim Hyde at whidbeycll@gmail.com or 360-321-4747.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

bar graph, pie chart and diagrams isolated on white, 3d illustration
Editorial: Don’t let state’s budget numbers intimidate you

With budget discussions starting soon, a new website explains the basics of state’s budget crisis.

Comment: Trump can go only as far as the courts will allow

Most of Trump’s executive orders are likely to face court challenges, setting the limits of presidential power.

Comment: Civil service needs reform; Trump means only to gut it

It’s too difficult to hire and fire federal workers. A grand bargain is possible, but that’s not what Trump seeks.

Saunders: U.S. Iron Dome isn’t feasible now, but it could be

Trump is correct to order a plan for a system that would protect the nation from missile strikes.

Harrop: Trump has no sense of damage from tariff threats

Even if ultimately averted, a trade war with Canada and Mexico could drive both from U.S. exports.

Curtains act as doors for a handful of classrooms at Glenwood Elementary on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 in Lake Stevens, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Schools’ building needs point to election reform

Construction funding requests in Arlington and Lake Stevens show need for a change to bond elections.

FILE- In this Nov. 14, 2017, file photo Jaìme Ceja operates a forklift while loading boxes of Red Delicious apples on to a trailer during his shift in an orchard in Tieton, Wash. Cherry and apple growers in Washington state are worried their exports to China will be hurt by a trade war that escalated on Monday when that country raised import duties on a $3 billion list of products. (Shawn Gust/Yakima Herald-Republic via AP, File)
Editorial: Trade war would harm state’s consumers, jobs

Trump’s threat of tariffs to win non-trade concessions complicates talks, says a state trade advocate.

A press operator grabs a Herald newspaper to check over as the papers roll off the press in March 2022 in Everett. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald file photo)
Editorial: Push back news desert with journalism support

A bill in the state Senate would tax big tech to support a hiring fund for local news outlets.

A young man carries water past the destroyed buildings of a neighborhood in the Gaza Strip, Feb. 2, 2025. President Donald Trump’s proposal to “own” the Gaza Strip and transfer its population elsewhere has stirred condemnation and sarcasm, but it addresses a real and serious challenge: the future of Gaza as a secure, peaceful, even prosperous place. (Saher Alghorra/The New York Times)
Comment: ‘Homeland’ means exactly that to Gazans

Palestinians have long resisted resettlement. Trump’s plan to ‘clean out’ Gaza changes nothing.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Feb. 9

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Rent stabilization can keep more from losing homes

Thank you to The Herald Editorial Board for its editorial, regarding rent… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.