PDA Endorses Direct Carbon Pricing with Revenue Recycling
October 22, 2009, Washington, DC
On October 21, Progressive Democrats of America finalized a months-long process with our endorsement of direct carbon pricing, with revenue recycling as the preferred method for reducing carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Read the statement here.
PDA is currently considering endorsing Rep. John Larson’s (D-CT) bill and eagerly awaits the introduction of Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) bill. Cantwell is expected to introduce legislation superior to the current cap-and-trade bills.
The Stop Global Warming/Environmental Issues Organizing Team, led by Dave Massen, has been sifting through different legislative proposals in the House and Senate since late last year.
“When we began the process, individual team members supported several different mechanisms for reducing CO2,” said Massen, who originally leaned toward cap and trade. “But in view of the recent economic meltdown, we became concerned that even with some proposed new regulations, a large market for trading carbon derivatives would also be vulnerable to a collapse with global repercussions, especially since hard-to-verify offsets are likely to be part of any trading scheme. Additionally, it seemed that paying Wall Street traders would add unnecessarily to the costs of reducing carbon.”
Cap and trade has been implemented in Europe and has so far failed to meet the necessary targets because of offsets, free allowances and trading. Sweden and British Columbia have implemented direct carbon pricing (upstream carbon fees) and are making good headway toward meeting targets while showing strong economic growth.
The endorsement comes just days before the October 24 International Day of Climate Action, sponsored by 350.org. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), pointed to 450 parts per million as the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere just two years ago. More recent science noting the rapid spread of global warming effects, indicates that 350 ppm is now the threshold of stability to avert catastrophic climate change. On October 24, people around the world will join together in events and actions to raise the public’s awareness.
PDA calls on its members to contact President Obama to lead the world in a discussion on quickly achieving 350 ppm through the implementation of direct carbon pricing with revenue recycling, when he attends the Copenhagen meeting this December. Based on the performance of already implemented cap-and-trade and carbon-pricing models it is clear that the latter is easier to implement and more effective than the former.
PDA has been working in alliance with like-minded organizations to inform the debate in Congress on alternatives to cap and trade. The groups include Price Carbon Campaign, Climate Crisis Coalition, Carbon Tax Center, WeAct for Environmental Justice (Harlem), Friends of the Earth, Friends’ Committee on National Legislation, Climate Policy Center / Clean Air-Cool Planet, CLEAN Network and Citizens Climate Lobby.
Other environmental groups embraced cap and trade long before the very flawed ACESA (Waxman-Markey bill HR 2454) was passed by a narrow margin (219–212) in the House in late June. PDA hopes to convince those groups to reevaluate cap and trade and join them in supporting direct carbon pricing with revenue recycling before the Senate considers the companion bill offered by Senators Kerry and Boxer.
Beaver County Blue: Voice of the 17th CD of Progressive Democrats of America 
Was anything done to commemorate 350.org on Saturday Oct 24? I wasn’t at the Beaver County Court House vigil last Saturday.
See http://www.350.org/ for international expressions. They are rather diverse. Some are like the Westend Bridge rapelling (sic) on steroids.
The inclusion of alternatives to CO2 is sometimes symbolized by the term 350e to recognize other gases as significant green house contributors. Perhaps in some circumstances or contexts they could even draw the main focus.
Another reason for concern about CO2 levels is because of perceived growing ocean acidity. See “Rising Acidity Is Threatening Food Web of Oceans, Science Panel Says” at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html for this and other material.
For example: Jeremy B. C. Jackson, a coral expert at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego who has no connection to the Monaco report, said “there is just no doubt” that the acidification of the oceans is a major problem. “Nobody really focused on it because we were all so worried about warming,” he said, “but it is very clear that acid is a major threat.”
I believe that the specific number 350 for parts per million of CO2 by mass derives its motivation largely from this acidity issue and not so much from the concern about global warming. But I will work to track that down especially in the speeches and writings of Bill McKibben.
James Hansen may actually have picked this number as the maximum concentration that should be allowed, again at least partly because of CO2’s perceived impact on oceanic acidity.
Bravo! We at the U.S. Climate Task Force applaud the PDA are also working to educate our opinion leaders about a carbon tax shift approach.