By Guest Columnist JEFF JOSLIN, an airline captain who chairs the North Atlanta Citizens’ Climate Lobby
As the Paris climate talks begin this week (known as the “Conference of Parties” or COP 21) I am inspired and hopeful remembering the open hearted responses to the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris earlier this month. While terrorists’ bullets flew, Parisians were throwing open their doors and windows to the scared and wounded. The next day, the grief-stricken French comforted one another at memorials and services that sprang up around the City of Light.
The beauty of humanity is that we naturally respond to tragedy and life threatening danger with courage, love and disregard for ethnicity or political persuasion. It is in our DNA and practiced widely in our faith and civic practices. My hope is that the COP21 Negotiators and the 7 billion people they represent can open their hearts and minds in this same spirit as humanity strives for a collaborative agreement on climate change.
The world knows that 97 percent of climate scientists are convinced, based upon the evidence, that human-caused global warming is happening. We are swiftly approaching a tipping point that will push temperatures beyond a point that will unleash devastating ocean flooding, worsening storms and agricultural changes that threaten the stability of civilian populations. Locally, climatologists at the University of Georgia have identified coastal Georgia and metro Atlanta as vulnerable to adverse climate change impacts.
Scientists, military leaders and economists are largely in agreement over the danger to world stability. At present levels our emissions are more than double scientifically determined, safe levels. What’s lacking is a world-wide agreement that embodies that spirit we witness in the Parisians, the sincerity that cuts through differences and allows us to set political differences aside in a spirit of unselfish collaboration.
There are many reasons to be hopeful. The 5 largest emitters of greenhouse gases (China, United States, European Union, India and Russia) have all submitted plans to make drastic reductions in greenhouse gases. Renewable energy costs have declined dramatically and are becoming cost-competitive with polluting fossil fuel energy. Markets are responding to this crisis with cleaner and more sustainable manufacturing processes, better batteries, and other technological innovations that will continue to multiply as they become cost competitive.
The United States, the second largest emitter of climate-warming gases, can be a global leader on climate action. Despite making notable strides, our politicians are not sufficiently leading this process. The opportunity for bi-partisan efforts to put a price on the carbon emissions is greatly needed and would be a game changer solution both here and abroad.
There is a conservatively styled approach that holds great promise. This plan is called Carbon Fee and Dividend. It is sometimes referred to as the “Shultz Insurance Policy”, named after Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State who proposed an “insurance plan,” to address destruction of the ozone layer. Reagan agreed that insurance to back scientific findings was good policy.
By putting a steadily rising price on carbon pollutants and returning the fees monthly to Americans we can drastically reduce emissions while growing a sustainable economy that safely supports future generations. Border incentives built into the plan will protect American businesses and jobs while providing strong encouragement and leadership for other countries to employ this ground breaking strategy. Non-partisan Citizens’ Climate Lobby supports this plan as it is one of the swiftest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while growing jobs and the economy.
Climate change is real, it’s here and we can do something about it. Our descendants will look back on how we confront this challenge as the turning point in humanity’s evolution to a global view, one that values all lives and reaches for higher goals that truly benefit all of human kind. Let’s throw open our doors and windows, look at one another with love and say, “let’s work together on this – for the good of all.”
Yes, a “carbon fee and dividend” makes enormous sense!
This way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly dividend. That would cancel out any price spikes in dirty energy.
Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard School of Medicine).
It would rapidly lower emissions, as happened in BC Canada with a similar policy. BC lowered both emissions and taxes with their fees.
A study by respected Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9 million additional jobs in 20 years.
To those who reject the science: perhaps nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the dividend) in your pockets?
To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate change is worth it.
For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Why even bother with the paid deniers who thrive creating the delay of a false debate? IMO we must take action by supporting responsible adults, of either party, for Congress.
I to am optimistic…in spite of the Republicans continued intransigence on this issue. Hoping for a productive and successful week in Paris, for the benefit of mankind!
This guy and everyone who believes this BS are out of your
minds.”The world knows that 97
percent of climate scientists are convinced based upon the evidence, that
human-caused global warming is happening.”This is the basic lie you people use to scare Americans into believing
this hoax.Funny how the temps are not
warming.Funny how the ice at the Poles
is growing.However, this is reality
that does not fit the narrative.This is
why you all had to change the narrative from global warming to climate
change.This guy also fails to mention
how all of the scare talk – “We are swiftly approaching a tipping point
that will push temperatures beyond a point that will unleash devastating ocean
flooding, worsening storms and agricultural changes that threaten the stability
of civilian populations.”We have
heard this for decades.How long is
“swiftly”?A week?A year?2 years?They may tell you 50
-150 years because we all know none of us will be around then to find out!The 97% of “climate scientists” also use models.Models that are imputed with data that is
based on the outcome they want.And
then, of course, we have this – “Locally, climatologists at the University
of Georgia have identified coastal Georgia and metro Atlanta as vulnerable to
adverse climate change impacts.”Of
course you do.They work off grants and
without “evidence” they lose their funding.You all are so predictable.Recently Coca Cola paid “scientists millions
to say that soft drinks do not make people fat.Point is that you can get any result you want and now that global
warming/climate change is such a political hotbed and money making “religion”
you can get all of the negative or positive results you want.
I also find it amusing how China and Russia are joining this
joke conference and -“have all submitted plans to make drastic reductions
in greenhouse gases.”Right.If you believe that one you will believe that
the planet is warming.Oh sorry you
do! Their plans are to do nothing and of course,
as predicted, it is – “The United States, the second largest emitter of
climate-warming gases, can be a global leader on climate action”who is the real bad giuy.You can’t have an article on global warming
without bashing the USA which is the only country to buy into this BS hook line
and sinker.We all know the truth of the
movement.Bring down #1.The USA.Period.Funny how this “movement” basically started
to gain momentum right after the collapse of the USSR.Hummm.
Please do what you want.Drive your electric cars that use coal to produce electricity and those
horrible light bulbs that cost a fortune, and are worse for the environment
then the old bulbs.Do all you want but
please stop the communistic ways of forcing people to be like you.
Funny how we also never receive an opposing view on glob
warming on the Sparta Report.We can’t
have that!!
The only problem I see is that we don’t really know what the solution is. While reducing carbon emissions sounds good, what will the effects be? Show me the calculations. What will be the effect of planting more trees and how does that affect the calculations in in the previous question? 15,000 years ago, there were glaciers in Ohio, what caused them to advance and recede? Long ago Florida was underwater except for a ridge down the center if the state, what caused those waters to rise and recede?
It is is revenue neutral, a “carbon fee and dividend” makes enormous sense! Economists and scientists say it is the best solution.
This way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly dividend. That would cancel out any price spikes in dirty energy.
Polluters PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the damages they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard School of Medicine).
It would rapidly lower emissions, as happened in BC Canada with a similar policy. BC lowered both emissions and taxes with their fees.
A study by respected Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9 million additional jobs in 20 years, while reducing emissions much faster than regulations.
To those who reject the science: perhaps nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the dividend) in your pockets?
To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate change is worth it.
For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Why even bother with the paid deniers who thrive creating the delay of a false debate? IMO we must take action by supporting responsible adults, of either party, for Congress.
It is is revenue neutral, a “carbon fee and dividend” makes enormous
sense! Economists and scientists say it is the best solution.
This
way citizens would RECEIVE the carbon fees as a monthly dividend.
That would cancel out any price spikes in dirty energy.
Polluters
PAY the fees, so it holds fossil fuel corporations responsible for the
damages they cause, hundreds of billions of dollars per year (Harvard
School of Medicine).
It would rapidly lower emissions, as
happened in BC Canada with a similar policy. BC lowered both emissions
and taxes with their fees.
A study by respected Regional
Economic Modeling, Inc. found the dividends would help to create 2.9
million additional jobs in 20 years, while reducing emissions much
faster than regulations.
To those who reject the science: perhaps
nothing will change your mind. But what have you got against cleaner
air, less asthma in our kids, fewer heart attacks, and more money (the
dividend) in your pockets?
To those accepting the science: Any effort to limit the problem of climate change is worth it.
For example: the cost of sea level rise ALONE is so great that no effort to prevent it is unwarranted.
Why
even bother with the paid deniers who thrive creating the delay of a
false debate? IMO we must take action by supporting responsible adults,
of either party, for Congress.
But where are your calculations that prove that the main cause of global warming is carbon emissions? The glaciers did not leave Ohio 15,000 years ago because of too many coal fired power plants.
I do not agree with the premise so this is moot. What is relevant is the movement to force and tax every one for something that most people do not agree with . Again do what you want. Drive a bike everywhere you want and never shower. Fine but you cannot force or use the government to force people to live the same lifestyle.
Finall, the notion of one person polluting more than another is ludicrous and another way of attempting to fool and divide the public. If all this is true then it will play out on its own. People would/will began to see what happens and, as we have and are doing, adjust on their own. The market also will make costs decrease. For now it is just early.. No need spreading misinformation .
I agree with you to the extent that I firmly believe that Washington couldn’t care less about global warming or climate control. They have seized upon this issue as a vehicle to collect more taxes and to further intrude into our lives.
Yours is the usual cynical dismissal of government that has been dished out since Reagan. This kind of paranoia is lazy.
Obama has done a great deal to limit emissions: Clean Power Plan, CAFE standards for cars and trucks, Dept. of Defense switch to renewables, efficiency requirements for contractors and buildings, etc.
These are fees, not taxes, as the government doesn’t keep any of it; it is rebated to all households. The Dept. of Treasury would be in charge, as it has responsibly sent refund checks and can be trusted. Of course, one can scoff. It contributes nothing.
But you don’t know if any of it is working because you still don’t know what is the root cause of global warming.
bcngator63 Ships cannot remain where the water is shallow.
Jfreed27 How does the rebate system work?
Haha. There will be no rebates. Please!
If anyone believes anything these people say then you are done.
Remember? ISIS JV and contained.
Your health insurance premium will be $2500 lower
The economy is booming
The earth is warming, cooling and that we are causing it.
Please everyone do what ever you want and drive any car or bike you want but think for a change.
bcngator63 Jfreed27 Good question. The rebate in BC, Canada is in lowering taxes; very popular. The rebate in Alberta is to stimulate renewables.
In the U.S. former Sec. of State under Reagan, George Shultz recommends that all pollution fees be returned to citizens as a monthly check. The U.S. Dept. of Treasury could do this electronically with a very small cost to its budget. After some years, according to a study by REMI, the monthly rebate would be $400
per month per family, which for most citizens would be greater than the spikes in fuel prices.
Please remember that I, as most, don’t believe in the premise. However, I like the way that regarding some fantasy (hopefully) idea you cabn come up with a $400 per month rebate. A check that is supposed to magically appear from the government. 1) the costs of all of this additional environmental stuff already is costing us $400 per month. Adding more and more and more will cost likely thousands more dollars if your team gets your way ; 2) when will it stop? Answer: Never. Your encouragement people have had your way for 20+ years and nothing has happened to make you all happy. At least you could alter the lie and say “The fact that no nocitable warming has occurred since we took over…..”. What we get is “We need to do more and more “.
Again why can you guys do all you want and stop forcing BS science down our throats.
poulie The $400 per month rebate figure is directly from the study of the (conservative) prestigious Regional Economic Modeling Inc. That is after some years, as it grows slowly. It is based on a small fee on billions of tons of carbon used in the U.S.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/REMI-National-SUMMARY.pdf
I get that you are frustrated, but your words just aren’t clear.
Jfreed27 poulie Who gets the $400 and who determines who gets it?
It sounds to me as if your power bill goes up $1,000 per month. you get a $400 rebate. If my power bill goes up $10 per month, I get a $400 rebate. Is that correct?
The world knows that 97 percent of climate scientists are convinced,….this has been refuted many times. Look at articles in Forbes, WSJ etc…I remember in the 70’s when all of the experts were calling for a global ice age
This is simply a grand plan for income redistribution and vote buying. If they were really serious about climate, they would take the money and spend it on research.