Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Bipartisan, market-based approach could significantly cut carbon emissions

Bipartisan, market-based approach could significantly cut carbon emissions

opinion-WEB

Making the switch to renewable energy is clearly not a partisan issue. According to the Post-Election National Clean Energy Survey conducted by the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, 75 percent of Trump voters support taking action to accelerate the development and use of clean energy in the United States. Altogether, 64 percent of the 1,000 voters surveyed say they’d even pay more to support renewables.

The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is proposing legislation to do just that. Their Carbon Fee and Dividend system will place a reasonable fee on fossil fuel companies at the extraction sources in the U.S., as well as a border tariff on the fuels that are imported from other countries to keep the playing field level. The money collected would then be returned to U.S. citizens as a dividend, protecting family budgets while injecting billions into the economy. This bipartisan, revenue-neutral, market-based approach could result in a significant reduction in carbon emissions, while incentivising development in efficient and sustainable energy.

The desire and the solution to make the switch is already here, on both sides of the aisle. The next step is to work together to tell our elected representatives that we want it. For more information on Carbon Fee and Dividend, visit citizensclimatelobby.org.

Survey source: http://www.conservativeenergynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Clean-Energy-Survey4.pdf

— Emily Whitmore lives in Phoenix.

One comment

  1. There is nothing “market based” about having the government pick winners and losers. The best path forward for renewable energy is to continue to improve it in terms of technology and cost effectiveness so that it can stand on its own in the marketplace. People should choose renewable sources because they are better, not because the market is skewed by government interference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

redistricting-620

Gerrymandering – the ‘Efficiency Gap’ is too unstable a measure

With such measurement instability, I don’t think the Efficiency Gap measurement can be considered a reliable indicator of the extent of partisan gerrymandering of Arizona election districts.