During the runup to our recent midterm elections, The Chronicle took an editorial position against carbon pricing Initiative 1631. The Chronicle’s statement did not dispute the need to address human-caused climate change but was opposed to the regressive nature of the fee system that I-1631 was advocating.
The Editorial Board concluded: “... we must find another way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than unfairly burdening individuals and families.”
Another way of using carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon “fee and dividend” approach. Just last month Canada adopted a fee and dividend system to start moving its economy away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy.
Like the I-1631 approach, the fee and dividend system imposes a fee on fuels that produce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Canada’s system will increase that fee annually until it reaches a maximum of $50 per ton of carbon in 2022.
Unlike I-1631, the fee and dividend system would return the fee’s proceeds back to households in the form of a regular dividend check. Rather than being a regressive tax, this dividend would provide more money to the majority of households than is paid out in the form of increased energy costs.
The United States stands alone in the world in its refusal to deal with human-caused climate change on a national scale. To learn more about how a fee and dividend system would help move our economy away from fossil fuels and toward modern renewable energy sources, please visit www.citizensclimatelobby.org.
Don Watt
Chehalis
