The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: cap and trade
Happy Earth Day — But Don’t Forget Arbor Day (And Trees!)

Happy Earth Day — But Don’t Forget Arbor Day (And Trees!)

The last Friday in April is National Arbor Day. You knew that, didn’t you? Born in the Victorian era, Arbor Day began mainly as a gentle reminder to admire trees as things of beauty. As an environmental observance, it has been upstaged by the more comprehensive Earth Day (itself now almost 50 years old). But Arbor Day has been very much updated.

The status of trees as uniquely important environmental players has risen in recent years. Trees are now on the front lines in the battle against climate change. That’s because forests absorb nearly 40 percent of human-made fossil fuel emissions every year. Burning wood and rotting trees release carbon dioxide into the air.

This makes massive deforestation a harbinger of doom for the environment as we know it. Fortunately, there are ways to head this off. Proposals to create a carbon-offset market for trees, if put in motion, could reverse the destruction. Right now, these cap-and-trade setups are open only to utilities and industrial companies. Adding trees to a cap-and-trade system would let owners of forested acres make real money by not cutting down trees.

The fate of tropical forests, particularly in Southeast Asia, is of greatest concern. The ranching, mining and timber industries have played a major role in leveling more than a billion acres of tropical forest over the last 40 years. The loss of these trees contributes an estimated 12 to 15 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions a year.

Here’s a simplified version of how a market for trading carbon offsets now works: Company A reduces its emissions below a government-set cap. Company B’s emissions, by contrast, exceed the limit. To avoid paying a penalty, Company B buys offset credits from Company A.

The price of credits is set by supply and demand. That these systems are market-oriented pleases conservatives committed to fighting climate change. Trade in these markets already totals billions of dollars a year.

Some 40 countries now put a price on carbon. Some do it via cap-and-trade. Others, such as Canada, place a tax on fossil fuels, with most of the proceeds going back to Canadians through reductions in their tax bills. The United States does none of the above, but California and nine Northeast states have established their own cap-and-trade systems.

Where do trees come in? Removing trees increases emissions. Letting them grow reduces them. Putting a price on leaving them alone would act as a powerful incentive to not cut them down.

There remains the dilemma that many locals in and around tropical forests currently make a living in ways that require their destruction. Under a proposal known as the Rainforest Standard, however, mechanisms would be set up to spend some of the money building new livelihoods not dependent on axing trees. Examples include ecotourism, fishing and harvesting tree products, such as nuts and palm fruit.

Ordinary homeowners don’t have big forests to preserve but can nonetheless use trees to reduce their carbon footprint. Trees shading the house have a cooling effect in hot weather, reducing the need for air conditioning. And there is some money in this, of course, in the form of lower electricity bills.

So National Arbor Day is coming. Bear in mind that your state’s Arbor Day may fall on a different date than the national one. Many states move their observance to coincide with the best times in their area to plant trees. The big news this year is that in addition to providing beauty and serenity, trees can play a major role in saving our world from catastrophe. Is there a poem for that?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

IMAGE: A fire burns near trees in a peatland area on the outskirts of Palembang on Indonesia’s Sumatra island, September 9, 2015. REUTERS/Beawiharta

Why A Carbon Tax Is A Truly Good Idea

Why A Carbon Tax Is A Truly Good Idea

Address climate change and send Americans a check at the same time. That’s the nut of an intriguing idea put together by a group of Republican elders. The plan would curb emission of greenhouse gases by taxing them at the refinery, at the mine, or wherever they enter the economy. The proceeds would be sent to Americans in the form of dividends. A family of four could expect to receive about $2,000 in the first year.

Those leaning left also see beauty in a carbon tax, though some environmentalists want the revenues to go toward developing renewable energy sources. I’d prefer that, too, but the prospect of dividends makes for a much easier sales pitch. And frankly, the private sector is doing a very good job of clean-energy innovation.

The plan would tax carbon dioxide emissions at $40 a ton, with the rate rising over time. There would be “border adjustments” to punish imports from countries lacking a comparable carbon pricing system. And former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan would be repealed. (Hold on; we’ll get back to that.)

The authors include former Secretaries of State James Baker and George P. Shultz, former Treasury head Henry Paulson, and leading conservative economists. Their group is called the Climate Leadership Council.

Whether this would fly in today’s Washington remains to be seen. A different kind of Republican currently occupies the White House and much of Congress. These politicians hold that a) the planet isn’t warming, b) if it is warming, humans play little part in it and/or c) we’ll be gone by the time catastrophe hits.

President Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax. He’s also claimed an “open mind” on the matter. You figure it out.

President Obama pushed for a cap-and-trade system — not the same as a carbon tax but another market-based means for reducing emissions. Environmentally minded conservatives have endorsed cap and trade also, but the Republican House voted no. Whether it objected to cap and trade on policy grounds or because Obama wanted it, we cannot be sure. And let the record show that Trump’s crowd doesn’t hold much love for establishment Republicans, either.

The Clean Power Plan called for reducing power plant carbon emissions by 32 percent within 25 years (to 2005 levels). Setting such limits would have its virtues, especially at a time when congressional leadership is limp. But it would also be a magnet for legal challenges.

A carbon tax would elegantly put strong financial incentives in place to discourage use of fuels that emit greenhouse gases. It also would provide a measure of predictability that companies need for making long-term capital investments — something government-set renewable energy targets don’t do well. Simply put, the targets are not bankable commitments against which green energy companies can get financing.

When companies have to pay for pollution, there’s less need for micromanaging laws requiring such items as smokestack scrubbers. In sum, until you get to zero emissions, you are paying.

Less government involvement also means less politics. Recall how Republicans flogged the Obama administration over losses at Solyndra, a solar energy company that stimulus money helped finance.

Private capital knows that often only 1 in 10 investments pay off. Political demagogues don’t know or don’t care to know. The program used by Solyndra happened to have many successes, but who can name a single one?

Expectations that the current administration will take up even a conservative approach to global warming are dismally low. The single candle lighting the darkness is the new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who supported a carbon tax as CEO of Exxon Mobil.

Trump has been king of surprises. Isn’t it time for a good one?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

IMAGE: United Nations Photo / Flickr

Fighting Climate Change For Real

Fighting Climate Change For Real

Time to drop this “war on coal” talk. Time to ignore the hollering by coal country politicians over President Obama’s beefed-up plan to combat global warming.

No, the Clean Power Plan will not ruin their local economies, because coal has already done that, certainly in Appalachia. Look at those barren flats where majestic mountains once stood. The coal industry lopped off the mountaintops and fouled the streams, depriving West Virginia and eastern Kentucky of a key recruiting tool for modern employers prizing a healthy environment.

But let’s not go overly negative here. Coal did its job. It powered 20th-century America. The Appalachian coal regions gave and gave. We honor their sacrifice.

So rather than call the new plan a war on coal, let us call it a retirement party for coal. Coal is the largest source of planet-warming gases. It must make room for 21st-century power.

Mother Nature has already offered us a foretaste of what she has in mind should global warming go unchecked. Higher temperatures have worsened drought in the West, igniting large swaths of California, Washington, and Oregon.

Glacier National Park in northern Montana may sound like a cool, watery place. But tourists there have been abandoning their cars to flee wildfires. The glaciers themselves are melting and may be gone in 30 years.

Flooding in other parts of the country is part of the same climate phenomenon.

Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as does coal and can transition us to truly clean power. But the future is clearly renewable energy from such sources as the sun and wind.

The new rules push us in that direction. They will require utilities to generate at least 28 percent of their electric power from renewable sources by 2030. (Renewables accounted for only 13 percent last year.)

This is not mission impossible. In 2011, California mandated that 33 percent of its electricity come from renewable energy sources by 2020. California’s economy is booming — aided no doubt by all that clean-energy venture capital (almost 60 percent of America’s total) flowing into the state.

Obama’s plan promotes a cap-and-trade system. States place a limit on greenhouse gases and let businesses buy and sell permits to emit them. This market-based approach started off as a conservative idea. Do remember that when the opposition rails against the idea as “cap and tax.”

California already has a cap-and-trade system, and 10 other states have followed suit. At least 30 other states also have mandates for renewable energy.

Foes will no doubt bash the Clean Power Plan as radical, but the public should know that even these stricter regulations will not save us from global warming. They will only stop a free fall into planetary catastrophe.

What about other countries? A reasonable question. The plan will give Obama something serious to unfurl at the climate change summit this December in Paris. When the United States offers a plausible blueprint to meet the challenge, other countries, notably China, will be pressed to follow suit.

And what about the coal regions? Appalachia has considerable natural beauty left, a great location and plenty of water. Coal-producing Wyoming has its own attractions, some quite magnificent.

Coal is yesterday’s fuel. Give it a respectful goodbye and dry the tears.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: The coal-fired Castle Gate Power Plant is pictured outside Helper, Utah November 27, 2012. The plant was closed in the Spring of 2015 in anticipation of new EPA regulations. President Barack Obama will unveil on August 3, 2015 the final version of his plan to tackle greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants, kicking off what is expected to be a tumultuous legal battle between federal environmental regulators and coal industry supporters. REUTERS/George Frey

5 Policies That Republicans Loved (Until Obama Did, Too)

5 Policies That Republicans Loved (Until Obama Did, Too)

Texas Senator Ted Cruz (Peter Stevens/Flickr)

Photo: Peter Stevens via Flickr

On Friday, Texas senator and likely 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) took some heat when Mother Jonesreported that the right-wing Republican once offered a resolute defense of the 2009 stimulus law that he now derides as an archetypal government overreach. As a private-practice lawyer representing the Texas Retired Teachers Association, Cruz declared that stimulus money “will directly impact the [Texas] economy…and will directly further the greater purpose of economic recovery for America.” But today, he considers the law to be a failure.

Cruz is far from the first Republican to change his mind on an issue championed by the White House. Here are five policies that high-profile Republicans loved — until President Obama came along.

Obamacare

Photo: SEIU International via Flickr

Photo: SEIU International via Flickr

Since before it even became law, Republicans have decried the Affordable Care Act as a job-killing, freedom-crushing abomination. But the right wasn’t always so vehemently opposed to the law’s underlying ideas, like the health care exchanges, the individual mandate, and Medicaid expansion. In fact, they were developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, and favored by many Republican politicians.

As recently as 2008, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney considered his health care law — which was largely the inspiration for Obama’s — to be “the ultimate conservative plan,” and a “model” for the rest of the nation. But with Obama in the White House, that didn’t last.

Common Core

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Today, Republicans widely agree that the Common Core education standards are a hostile, oppressive government takeover of the education system. Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has compared Common Core to “centralized planning” in the Soviet Union. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) derides it as “the Obamacare of education.” Senator Cruz has vowed to repeal it (even though it’s not a law passed by Congress). State Representative Charles Van Zant (R-FL) warns that it will “attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can.”

But before Republicans began associating the new educational guidelines with the Obama administration (and, by extension, gay communism), they were quite fond of them. After all, Common Core takes after George W. Bush’s education policy, was introduced by the bipartisan National Governors Association, and at one point was adopted by 46 states. Even the aforementioned Jindal, now a leader of the anti-Common Core push, once defended it by promising that his state would not “move one inch off more rigorous and higher standards for our kids.”

Cap And Trade

Photo: Robert S. Donovan via Flickr

Photo: Robert S. Donovan via Flickr

Before Barack Obama became president, public officials broadly agreed that climate change was a real problem that required a serious policy response. Newt Gingrich even sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about it.

Many Republicans agreed that cap and trade, which was developed by a “strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists,” was the solution that combined the most economic and environmental benefits. In fact, almost every Republican candidate in 2012 backed the plan — until they decided to run against Obama, at which point they reflexively turned against it.

Today, carbon limits remain unpopular on the right, where they are falsely considered to be a job-killing abomination.

Deficit Spending

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

When President Obama released his 2016 budget plan, congressional Republicans reacted as they often do to his proposals: by attacking it for failing to close the budget deficit.

“While Washington is still racking up debt, this budget doesn’t even try to balance the books,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy complained. “In fact, despite the best efforts of Republicans over the past four years to rein in spending and cut the deficit, this budget would erase all those gains over the 10-year budget horizon by increasing the deficit and adding even more to the debt. Our children and grandchildren can’t afford such recklessness.”

But back during the Bush administration, McCarthy and his fellow Republicans didn’t seem to mind budgets that never balanced; that’s why they voted for deficit-busting plans like the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq War, among many others.

Indeed, the Republican Party’s pre-Obama attitude towards balancing the budget can be best summed up by former vice president Dick Cheney: “Deficits don’t matter.” There’s a pretty good case that he was right — but don’t expect any Republican to make the argument while Obama is in the White House.

Immigration Reform

Florida Senator Marco Rubio addresses CPAC 2014 (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

For years, many Republicans have agreed that the United States desperately needs to reform its immigration laws. In 2013, the Senate even passed a rare bipartisan bill which would strengthen border security and establish a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are already in the country. In other words, it closely mirrored President Obama’s goals. And that became a major problem for many Republicans. For example, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted against the 2013 bill despite having supported similar measures in 1986 and 2006.

But no Republican illustrates President Obama’s effect on the GOP better than Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Rubio helped craft the 2013 bill in the first place, arguing that the issue is a question of human rights. But a year later, he had abandoned his plans — because “the Obama administration has ‘undermined’ negotiations by not defunding his signature health care law.”