This has been a good week nationwide for LTE opportunities!
First, your “assignment” of the week:
Newsday, 4/16: http://nwsdy.li/1tjTTVP
- High cost of repairing extreme weather damage
- IPCC report suggests climate mitigation could be cost-effective, especially when the costs of inaction are considered
- Carbon tax is one of the cheapest, simplest, and most efficient mitigation strategies
“Extra credit” if you can also respond to one or more of these!
New York Times, 4/17: http://nyti.ms/Qt9gvS
- We should thank Krugman for pointing out the false conflict between decarbonization and economic growth
- Mentions carbon tax, but not return of revenue
New York Times, 4/14: http://nyti.ms/1ngpsyl
- The article pretty much covers it, but mentions a carbon tax as a means to reduce income taxes or corporate taxes. Why not offer direct rebates instead (as do California and British Columbia)?
New York Times, 4/13: http://nyti.ms/1iyh1eq
- Discusses urgency of latest IPCC report, but argues that climate action would cut into economic growth by the end of the century. Article does not make clear whether the high costs of inaction are part of this calculation.
- According to an IPCC press release ( http://bit.ly/Q31rgz ): “In business-as-usual scenarios, consumption grows by 1.6 to 3 percent per year. Ambitious mitigation would reduce this growth by around 0.06 percentage points a year. However, the underlying estimates do not take into account economic benefits of reduced climate change.”
Washington Post, 4/17: http://wapo.st/1ngmkCN
- A carbon tax would be technology-neutral, affecting prices based on the fuel’s relative carbon intensity, including natural gas
- Natural gas prices just took a large jump; unpredictable, unlike renewables
- China’s emissions are in part due to US demand and the current atmospheric concentration is due to our own historical emissions; don’t minimize our responsibility to lead with landmark legislation (like a carbon tax!)
The Arizona Republic, 4/17: http://bit.ly/1mhdguK
(Submit letters here: http://bit.ly/1f4E3oX )
- Says it is time for solutions, but suggests none, with the proviso that costs must be considered. To the rescue: the revenue-neutral carbon tax, of course!
Washington Post, 4/17: http://wapo.st/1nuUXlz
- We already subsidize the fossil fuel industry, both with direct tax breaks and by allowing them to cause costly climate damage for free.
- Special initiatives and subsidies would not be necessary with a carbon tax in place.
- Carbon tax is simpler than a solar policy that must account for all kinds of special situations.
Los Angeles Times, 4/14: http://bit.ly/1qXmsEs
- Methane leaks a huge concern, given that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
- A carbon tax, along with better measurements, would allow the market to correct for methane’s harmful effects whether compared to oil or wind power
Tampa Bay Times, 4/14: http://bit.ly/1mkDbSb
- Says we should take climate change seriously and work toward international agreement, but offers no solutions. How about a carbon tax?