MOVING FORWARD 

April 2026 - Time to Get Rolling Again

We have taken some time off to attend to family matters and also partially because we have been waiting for some of the dust to settle around the actions of the current administration.  In some ways, Trump looks like he is trying to resurrect 1897 president William McKinley with the tariffs, support for monopolies, and ignorance of nature.  But Trump is a lot worse by wanting to regress the entire country.  Coal was the fuel of the 1800s.  Now Trump wants to resurrect burning rocks as the path forward including his recent executive order to subsidize coal plants and force the military to buy power from coal-fired power plants.  This is on top of the retraction of many Inflation Reduction Act clean energy projects and the retraction of the EPA endangerment finding for CO2.  Even China sees that renewable energy is the future and is far outcompeting us as we move 130 years into the past while they lead on future technology.

So, what now?  Mid-term elections are coming up, and finally some congressional Republicans are breaking from Trump.  The Democrats are finally realizing that they have to attract enough moderates and working class folks that they are gradually changing strategies.  News media and pollsters think we will see changes in Congress that will effectively reduce Trump’s power.  

Locally, Congressman Mike Thompson (who has been a phenomenal climate advocate) is looking at new district boundaries and challenges.  As Yolo CCL, we would like to encourage him this year to support permitting reform legislation so that clean energy projects can get completed more quickly and electric power can be transferred between regions more easily.  CCL national is working vigorously on getting this type of legislation passed.

CCL’s other emphasis includes renewed support for legislation that supports international border carbon adjustments and support for new carbon sequestration projects and science.  Those are issues that will likely be in play next year, so it’s time to start generating more support for them.

As an example, one of CCL’s legislative efforts recently succeeded with the passage of the PROVE IT Act.  The PROVE IT Act was signed into law as part of a 2026 funding package, following years of intensive lobbying by Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) volunteers. This bipartisan legislation requires the Department of Energy to study and report on the carbon intensity of U.S.-produced goods compared to foreign competitors, aiding in future carbon trade policy.  

CCL is not giving up on carbon pricing with a return of the revenue.  Most economists agree it is the overall best solution to the global warming problem.  While we are waiting for the political scene to improve for major climate legislation, we are still trying to get substantive legislation in place to reduce future emissions.

In the meantime, the seriousness of the global warming problem is only getting worse.  I try to follow James Hansen, who was the premier climate scientist warning about global warming all the way back in the 1980’s.  His predictions have been pretty darn close to the mark.  His latest assessment is that climate sensitivity is actually about 50% worse than the IPCC models.  He is predicting that the global temperature increase over baseline will reach 1.7 degrees C (3.1 degrees F) by next year!  That means we need to act even more urgently.  Come join us at our meeting in June (early June TBD) as we plan our next steps.

Rob Beggs

What we achieved by passing and protecting the IRA

(By Dana Nuccitelli, CCL Research Manager and Sacramento Chapter member)

A billion tons of climate pollution avoided

We don’t want to sugarcoat the difficult situation we’re facing – the big budget bill’s clean energy rollbacks have done a lot of damage, as has the EPA’s gutting of federal climate pollution regulations, which CCL has formally opposed.

But CCL’s work to pass and preserve the IRA’s clean energy tax credits nevertheless made a meaningful difference for American emissions and the climate. For example, many more solar farms and battery storage facilities have come online over the past two years, and will continue to come online over the next several years, than would have without the IRA or our successful defense of some of its provisions.

...Compared to a world in which the IRA never became law, we’ll save about 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution over the next decade. That’s equivalent to permanently shutting down 26 coal power plants, or taking 23 million cars off the road. 

It’s a far cry from the 3 billion tons of climate pollution that would have been avoided had the IRA remained fully intact, or the 7 billion tons had both the IRA and EPA regulations remained untouched. But it’s important to remember that every fraction of a degree and every ton of avoided carbon pollution makes a difference, and CCL’s work helped avoid a billion tons. That matters. Now let’s keep working towards avoiding the next billion tons!

See complete article with graphics here.

Global Temperatures Rising Faster Than Expected – Part of the Reason is a Surprise

Worldwide temperatures have risen much faster than expected in the last few years.  Part of the reason is because of the recent El Nino ocean conditions, but the other reason appears to be a surprise.  Scientists have known that sulfate aerosol emissions from ships and coal fired power plants temporarily reflect sunlight and cause cooling, however, they thought the effect was small.  According to renowned climate scientist James Hansen and others, it now appears that this effect was larger than expected.  In 2020 most oceangoing ships stopped using high sulfur fuel.  Since then, the ocean surface temperatures in areas that have the most ship traffic have distinctly increased far more than expected.   What this means is that the warming effect due to CO2 emissions is probably much greater than they had been figuring because it was being masked by stronger short term cooling effects of aerosols. This is bad news for the long term.  

We need to speed up actions to reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon.  This means we need permitting reform for faster construction and reconductoring of electric transmission lines and faster permitting for zero carbon energy such as solar, wind, and nuclear.  The Atomic Energy Advancement Act that recently passed with support from both Congressman Mike Thompson and Congressman Doug LaMalfa is a good start.

We also need internationally effective carbon pricing to incentivize change and to protect our carbon-efficient industries from unfair competition from heavier polluting countries.  We urgently need to research methods for efficiently removing CO2 from the atmosphere.  The future will not be kind to our grandchildren if we don’t step up the transition to carbon neutrality.

Rob Beggs

Also published in the Opinion Section of the Woodland Daily Democrat 7/3/24

The latest from james hansen - the older generation may be denying valuable future options for young people (may 2024)

"Global fossil fuel emissions will not begin to decline rapidly until there is a rising fee on carbon emissions enforced on a near-global basis via border duties on products made from fossil fuels. Here, however, I want to focus on two related matters – one old and one new: (1) nuclear power, and (2) the increasingly likely possibility that young people will need to take purposeful actions to cool off the planet faster than is possible with even the most aggressive phasedown of emissions and removal of greenhouse gases. 

I had no strong opinion about nuclear power when I began to be interested in energy policies about 25 years ago. But as I began to travel with and give talks with environmentalists, some things they said about nuclear power clearly did not have a scientific basis. The strategy to kill nuclear power by making it so expensive that nobody wants it (based on material costs of a nuclear power plant and fuel costs of the fuel, nuclear power should be our cheapest energy) and count on 100% renewables is unfair to young people. Do we have the right to make the decision for them that they must use 100% renewables? What if they do not want German electricity prices? De facto, we made a decision for young people and future generations via the hidden, unlimited, subsidy of “renewable portfolio standards” (as opposed to “clean energy portfolio standards”) and many other actions that denied equal opportunity to drive down costs of nuclear power. On the contrary, disinformation about the danger of low-level radiation served to drive up the cost of nuclear power – there is a long, sordid, story to tell about that, but this is not the time for it. 

Instead, I want to point out the analogy with a new story: geoengineering. Old people are geoengineering the dickins out of the planet. Never in the history of planet Earth has there been a drive for global warming at even one-tenth of the rate of the present human-made geoengineering of the planet. Yet there are some people (of the generation responsible for the geoengineering) who believe they have the right to prevent investigation of the options to phase down the massive geoengineering that the old geezers imposed on young people and future generations. Potential consequences are related to and analogous to the consequences of the past lack of the support needed to drive down the cost of modern nuclear power. Just as young people today have been denied the option of ready, low-cost, modern nuclear power to complement intermittent renewable energies, so young people tomorrow may be denied the option of a life-jacket in the event that accelerating climate change drives the climate system toward the point-of-no-return. "

New study: CFD much better for economy, households than regulations

By Jerry Hinkle

A number of climate policy proposals were offered by Democrats in 2020 that would achieve CCL’s primary objectives1 through a predominantly regulatory approach to reducing emissions. However, CCL has chosen to continue focusing our advocacy on a national carbon price. Though these policies can play an important complementary role in a comprehensive climate package, we continue to advocate for a carbon tax as the backbone of an ambitious US climate policy. As explained in this National Conference presentation (start at minute 37), the primary reasons for this are that carbon fee and dividend (CFD) is better for the economy, better for the poor, and will reduce emissions more quickly. It is also more likely to achieve bipartisan support, a feature which is essential for policy durability.

Regarding it being better for the economy, a study has just been published that explicitly quantifies the difference in economic impacts of a CFD approach versus a purely regulatory approach to reducing emissions. The analysis, produced for the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), compares the impact on GDP and household consumption from a CFD policy starting at $43/ton2 and increasing at 5% per year3 , and a regulatory policy consisting largely of clean energy, energy efficiency and fuel efficiency standards that generate the same level of emission reductions. The CFD policy presented in this paper is referred to specifically as the “Carbon Dividends Plan,” or CDP.

Study Results

The fundamental result of the study, completely consistent with the economic literature (pgs. 12-18), is that a scheduled carbon price reduces emissions at far less economic cost than a standard regulatory approach. Specifically, the GDP advantage in the CDP scenario over the regulatory plan steadily increases to reach $420 billion dollars in the final year of the study, 2036. This represents 1.5% of GDP in that year, and this economic advantage is expected to grow over time.  

This economic cost advantage is also estimated in terms of household consumption per year (see graphic, below). Again, CFD results in greater consumption, and the difference increases over time to reach an average of $1,260 per household by 2036. This advantage would also continue to increase over time.

The study points to an additional advantage of a carbon price that was illuminated in a recent CCL Blog. A border carbon adjustment (BCA) can be coupled with an explicit carbon tax under WTO rules to protect the competitiveness of US producers and the jobs they create. In contrast, though a regulatory approach would raise costs on producers by, for example, raising energy costs, a BCA would almost certainly not be allowed under WTO rules in that case. Without a BCA, the US competitiveness of exporters would suffer and corresponding jobs would decline. This would further diminish the political appeal of a regulatory approach to emission reductions.

Why Regulations Cost More

A carbon price provides a consistent financial incentive across the economy to reduce emissions. Businesses and consumers have complete flexibility make reductions in a least-cost manner. In contrast, regulations tend to stipulate how to reduce emissions and when, and this may not be consistent with a “least-cost” approach. For example, a CAFÉ standard requires producers to sell more fuel-efficient cars. In contrast, a gas tax directly incents all to reduce emissions in a least-cost manner, so driving less and taking public transportation are also options. As a result, the same level of reductions are achieved at a fraction of the cost (see page 13). Similarly, a clean energy standard in the power sector does not provide the same consistent financial incentive to reduce energy use as a carbon tax does, so achieving the same level of reductions costs more (see page 15). 

Summary Implications 

At CCL, we trumpet peer-reviewed research that indicates revenue neutral carbon tax policies (like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act) have “roughly zero impacts on the overall growth of the US economy,” so that the enormous climate and health benefits from the policy come at little to no economic cost. Though certain regulations can have a complementary role to play in reducing US emissions consistent with science-based targets, if we relied on regulations for the bulk of the reductions, the economic cost of the policy would be significantly higher. This study makes that clear. The incoming Congress may yield a wide range of climate proposals, and some may meet CCL’s primary objectives. During this period, imposing a predictable carbon price will remain the focus of our advocacy as the policy that, overall, is best for the economy and households.

Footnotes:

1. CCL’s primary objectives for climate policy is that it greatly reduces emissions while not harming the bottom two income quintiles.

2. The fee starts at $40/ton in 2017 dollars, or $43/ton in current dollars.

3. There are two key differences between the CFD policy simulated and HR 763 for purposes of the modeling exercise. First, this carbon price starts higher ($43) but grows more slowly (5%), so that it reaches $94 by 2036 whereas HR 763 reaches $165 in 2036 if it begins in 2021. Second, this proposal gives a full dividend share to all those under the age of 19, whereas HR 763 gives them a half share. The two policies are sufficiently similar, and the analysis results sufficiently strong, that the conclusions drawn from this study can be assumed to apply to HR 763 advocacy.

Jerry Hinkle is a research coordinator for CCL.

The post New Study: CFD much better for economy, households than regulations appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Carbon Pricing + Border Adjustment = Solution

Some of the argument against the carbon fee and dividend approach is that the money can't be spent by the government on favored programs.  This argument whiffs two ways. First, returning money directly to households (actually front-loading the dividend) makes the program politically feasible.  But the most important aspect is that a carbon price is simple to use for setting up border adjustments to effectively force all major trading partner countries  to adopt the same level of pricing.  Whatever we do in California or even the entire U.S. will not solve the problem if other countries continue to increase their CO2 emissions.  Getting an internationally enforceable program is critical to actually solving the global warming problem.  

Rob Beggs

Yolo Citizens Climate Lobby