Many environmentalists were heartened recently when a group of prominent Republicans, including three former cabinet members, proposed a carbon tax for the United States with all the proceeds to be returned to the people as equal dividends.
“The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” certainly has some heavyweight proponents.
James Baker was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, secretary of the treasury under President Reagan and White House chief of staff under both.
George Shultz served as secretary of state under Reagan, and as secretary of treasury and labor under President Nixon.
Henry Paulson was secretary of the treasury under George W. Bush. Before that, he served as chairman and chief executive officer at Goldman Sachs.
The proposal calls for a carbon tax on all fossil fuels across the United States. It would start at $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide produced and rise gradually for five years, at which time it would be reviewed.
All the money collected would be distributed as equal dividends to everyone with an American social insurance number.
A family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year of the tax, with that amount also rising with time.
Border adjustments would protect American jobs and industry from competition with jurisdictions without equivalent carbon pricing. In other words, exports would receive rebates for the carbon taxes paid, while imports would be charged fees based on how much fossil fuel was used in their manufacture.
Although not a Citizens Climate Lobby initiative, much of what was proposed was essentially the same as the carbon fee-and-dividend being promoted by CCL.
It remains to be seen if the proposal will be adopted by the Trump administration. A delegation went to the White House to present it and it is perhaps significant that, while they did meet with senior officials, they did not speak with President Trump himself.
Even if it is not immediately adopted, however, just the fact that such a group of high profile Republicans could make such a proposal is significant progress.
If nothing else, it gives permission to those conservatives in the United States who accept the science of human-caused climate to start discussing solutions – and whether you are conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, green or purple, putting a price on carbon and then distributing the proceeds as dividends is going to have to be a major part of the solution.
Some conservatives in Canada complain about American environmentalists who get involved in Canadian issues.
Here is a suggestion from a Canadian to environmentalists in the United States.
Last November voters in Washington State rejected Initiative 732, which would have brought in a carbon tax for that state.
The proposal was revenue neutral but was not carbon fee-and-dividend. Instead of using the money for rebates to the people, it would have been used to reduce the state's sales tax, increase a tax credit for low income families, and reduce a business and occupation tax.
In order to get the initiative on the ballot, its supporters needed to collect a minimum of 250,000 signatures on a petition.
The population of the United States is about 45 times larger than that of Washington State.
An equivalent figure for the whole country therefore would be 11.5 million signatures.
Those in the United States who support carbon fee-and-dividend should continue their lobbying efforts with top ranking decision-makers, as they appear to be working.
They also should consider going to the people by launching a nationwide petition calling for a referendum on carbon fee-and-dividend.
Unlike in Washington State, there is no legislative requirement for the federal government to hold such a referendum, even if millions of people sign the petition.
However, if enough people add their names, it would send a strong signal that even some of the radical conservatives in the Trump administration would find hard to ignore.