Confronting Climate Change with a Price on Carbon — The Devil’s in the Details
Panelists representing research, business, and local perspectives agree: Carbon pricing is efficient, effective, and predictable policy.
By Catherine Goggins
Director of Events, McCourt E&E
When it comes to putting a price on carbon the “devil” really is “in the details,” as Camila Thorndike, the director of the Price It DC campaign put it. Thorndike was joined Kristin Hayes, a researcher with Resources for the Future, and Jesse Vogel of the Partnership for Responsible Growth, for a fascinating panel conversation hosted by McCourt E&E on January 17th. Before addressing the nuances of carbon pricing policy, a more personal question was posed by McCourt E&E’s President and the evening’s moderator, Amy Richards: “What does climate change mean to you?”
It is a question McCourt E&E has encouraged members of the Georgetown community to reflect on and was something the audience was eager to hear addressed by the experts. Citing climate change as the greatest political challenge of our time, Vogel acknowledged how daunting addressing it is, while also highlighting the important conversations it necessitates. Thorndike, without trying to “force a silver lining,” pointed out that to her, addressing climate change is connected to overcoming what she called the “great American myth of individualism.” To her, addressing it means no longer taking our communities, or the ecosystems on which they depend, for granted. Pointing to the role climate change plays as a threat multiplier, Hayes mentioned national security and economic welfare concerns as examples of connected issues. She also highlighted how those issues are ones that well-thought-out climate policy could help address.
Though they each represented a unique viewpoint, the panelists were all pragmatic in their approach to carbon pricing. Drawn to it for its efficiency, effectiveness, and predictability, they also noted its distinct capacity to generate revenue. Whether through cap and trade, a carbon tax, or a hybrid of the two, a carbon price creates an opportunity to generate revenue, as well as a contentious debate about how such monies ought to be allocated.
There is concern, for example, that an allocation of revenue towards an ongoing need, such as schools or roads, could lead to a dependency on fossil fuel revenues that would slow the transition to renewable energy. For Thorndike and the Price It DC coalition, the return of the majority of the revenue to residents, in the form of a quarterly rebate, has clear advantages. In addition to decoupling fossil fuel profits from funding necessary programs, their proposal would support families, especially those living below the poverty line, as they adjust to a clean energy economy.
An energetic organizer, Thorndike took advantage of the opportunity to pass a clipboard with petitions (available online here). She also called on the audience to encourage Georgetown to be “on the right side” of the issue and to help “illuminate that contrast between the University’s stated positions on climate change and where [Georgetown community members] really are on participating in a carbon free economy themselves.”
The three panelists, through their unique lenses of research, education, and grassroots organizing, highlighted the importance of well-thought-out policy, essential for making progress towards environmental and economic justice. Hayes especially stressed the importance of having one’s “ducks in a row” in order to be prepared for policy windows that may open in the future. She encouraged students not to not abandon efforts to influence federal policy, given the gravity of the issue, but also to continue to build on momentum where it already exists, at the local level.
As the panel came to an end, an audience member raised a timely question about the intersection of climate and migration policy, especially following natural disasters. “The United States has immense responsibility to act,” Vogel responded. “It is an interesting question in the context of a pricing system which is based on the market,” something he suggested is not often considered a “system of liberation” but that, due to its immense power, must be utilized to address climate change and the plight of climate refugees as quickly as possible.
Hayes shared that funding the Green Climate Fund is, at least in theory, one way the United States could use revenues generated by a carbon price and reduce further climate change-fueled migration. Thorndike pointed out that in D.C there is interest in a carbon rebate as a form of reparations, especially for those that are currently bearing a disproportionate share of pollution locally. She also emphasized that residency, not citizenship, would be a requirement for receiving the rebate.
Though in theory carbon pricing is a straightforward way to correct a market failure and internalize an externality, the panelists made it clear that, like any policy that could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, carbon pricing has wide-reaching effects. Though their discussion frequently returned to the myriad possibilities carbon pricing offers, serious concerns were also discussed. Emphasizing how crucial careful judgement and further research is in order to achieve efficient, effective, and equitable policy, panelists also encouraged students to utilize their own strengths in confronting climate change throughout their policy careers.
McCourt E&E extends its gratitude to all who attended and participated in the discussion, especially each of the panelists. Thank you!
Join the conversation: Make a video and tag @McCourtEE. We want to hear what #ClimateChangeMeans to you!
Catherine Goggins is in her first year of study at the McCourt School of Public Policy. Interested in climate resilience and a just economic transition, she serves as a faith-based climate organizer with Interfaith Power & Light and on McCourt E&E’s leadership team.
