Thursday, February 16, 2017

Are the 'reasonable Republicans' trying to survive by saying they are taking action on climate? Two issues this week: Mankiw and company's 'carbon tax/carbon dividend' scheme (bad ideas all around) & David Roberts: "Renewable energy draws increasing Republican support. That could shift climate politics." via Vox

Updated, Feb. 20, 2017, with links to other proponents of the plan, see below.

 I refer to Republicans who acknowledge climate science and anthropogenic global warming as the "reasonable Republicans." There aren't many of them.  And they are quite unreasonable in many other ways.  But, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope, since they may also recognize that despite the Trump victory, the GOP is dying quickly, and climate is a key issue for young people across the spectrum. So here we see them scrambling for ideas that might both maintain the problems of the system that got us here (oil-dependent capitalism based on unfettered growth) while diverting our attention from what we really need, more radical alternatives to accelerate the energy transition.  At any rate, two things in news this week:

 1) Free-market and fossil fuel industry interests are once again floating the idea of a carbon tax, and calling it a carbon dividend as a way to sell it to people.  It's a jumble of bad ideas that the Harvard economist (orthodox neoliberal) Gregory Mankiw has signed his name to, unsurprisingly, but here it is for you to consider:

 Radio story on the A1: http://the1a.org/shows/2017-02-16/conservatives-make-the-case-for-action-on-climate-change

 And here's the proposal, from the badly named 'Climate Leadership Council':  https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf

 My take on it: 

Here's Rice U. Professor Daniel Cohan, trying to convince liberals that this plan is a good idea.  He makes some good points.  He's also running calculations that may or may not play out (remember Mitchell on the ways we [mis]calculate.)  There's also an assumption that this is the best path to renewable energy – or perhaps 'as good as we can get in this political moment' – which seems a bit defeatist.  This also assumes a broader-based grassroots anti-fossil fuel movement will not grow.  He may be right, he may be wrong, you decide.  For the record/full disclosure:  James Baker III is a big backer of this carbon tax scheme.  Rice University is home to the James Baker Institute  which publishes a lot of pro-oil industry research (and gets a lot of oil industry $$$).  I like Prof. Cohan's work.  I am making no allegations of conflict of interest.  However, since Baker – oil lawyer, foreign policy hawk, and Exxon advocate – is part of this new carbon tax scheme, we'd love to have some assurances that there aren't any backstage pressures influencing these endorsements.  (See, for example, James Baker's own push for his plan on the Rice U. Baker Institute home page).

And here's Charles Komanoff, a long-time proponent of the idea of a market-friendly carbon tax, writing in the left-leaning The Nation, also suggesting we need to get on board with something cooked up by hard-line right-wing oil industry supporters. This also seems to be largely the 'this is as good as it gets' argument:
https://www.thenation.com/article/progressives-need-to-get-over-themselves-and-support-this-gop-backed-carbon-tax-plan/. I disagree.

I'll clarify my position: carbon tax, sure.  But attached to all sorts of other fossil-fuel industry protecting rules?  And absent any other vision for investing in renewable energy infrastructures and incentives?  Dividends to families to try to sell it?  Alaska does this with oil rents and their infrastructure and public services are awful. And they are still deeply dependent on oil.  A national carbon dividend? Never.  We could start by simply dismantling all the subsidies that fossil fuels get – tax breaks, etc.  We could incentivize renewables instead.  We could demand more public control over the grid.  Take profit out of utilities. Break the monopolies of big energy.  Divest. Point being, there are plenty of other avenues that merit our political investment and energy, no pun intended.

 Their long game appears to be to keep burning fossil fuels as long as possible, with inevitably higher prices, no matter the tax, which will be passed on to consumers, who will remain dependent since there is no vision for infrastructural transformation.

 And, as with the Stephen Hadley/ Madeleine Albright hawkish road-show, we are talking here of really old thinkers – Prof. Cohan calls them 'elders' too – Reagan-era oil Republicans who are desperately grasping for straws as the world and DC go up in smoke.  James A Baker III is 87 years old for goodness sake.  And age does not equal wisdom when we are talking fossil fuels. At any rate, the plan has little chance of gaining traction, so it's not clear why we should get too distracted by it.

 Read, critique, decide for yourself.

2) Meanwhile, David Roberts at Vox, rightly observes that revenue neutral carbon taxes are bad ideas, but talks about the business of renewables, which is getting more Repub support at the state level... a glimmer of hope and reason coming from the right?.

Renewable energy draws increasing Republican support. That could shift climate politics.  D. Roberts (Vox)

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback reconsiders the whole “picking winners” thing. (Bo Rader/Wichita Eagle/TNS via Getty Images)



Posted by at