All News & Blogs
As the revenue-neutral pollution fee increases each year, the market--not government regulations--makes the transition to clean energy.
On the other hand, since the REMI report was issued, there has been a second landmark study released detailing the devastating economic effects climate change will have on our nation unless we make "immediate" cuts in carbon emissions, bigger and faster than the EPA: Taxpayers will bear an unsustainable burden of hundreds of billions of dollars for climate change.
The president of the Reinsurance Association of America (the people who insure the insurance companies) recently said, "It is clear that global warming could bankrupt the industry."
The world's experts on risk management are seriously worried about worsening climate change.
In order to avoid the "catastrophic" climate change the IPCC reports are warning of, we'll have to have make global carbon emission cuts, something the EPA can do nothing about.
However, a revenue-neutral carbon fee would also be placed on imports from carbon polluters like China, forcing them to cut their emissions to compete economically. This fee, too, would be rebated directly to consumers, a monthly check in the mail, so they could choose to buy American products with that money.
Most economists support this plan, including eight Nobel Prize winners. So we have a win-win solution to climate change, but unless we act swiftly and decisively, we'll be overwhelmed by climate change disasters. All we lack is the political will to enact this plan.