Comment Log Display

Dear CARB,

I commend you for working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
state of California.  However, I ask you to consider implementing a
revenue-neutral fee on carbon emissions, in which 100% of the
revenue is returned evenly to California residents, instead of a
cap and trade system.

A carbon fee is much easier to implement than cap and trade.  The
fee could be set at a certain amount for the first year, and
increase by a set amount every year.  This could be implemented
immediately, as opposed to a cap and trade system, which could take
years to implement.  Since right now we do not have an effective
way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sooner we
can start reducing emissions, the better off we'll be in the long
run.

A carbon fee is also more transparent than a cap and trade system.
A stable price of carbon would make it easier for businesses to
predict their costs.  Cap and trade, on the other hand, would
create much higher volatility in carbon prices. 

In these tough economic times, it is important to consider how a
price on carbon would affect the poorest Californians, who spend a
higher percentage of their income on carbon dioxide sources, such
as transportation.  A flat fee on carbon would disproportionately
affect the poor.  However, by returning 100% of the revenue evenly
to California residents, the carbon fee would be progressive,
rather than regressive, and people would be more insulated from
rising costs.  

A fee on carbon will achieve the same purpose as cap and trade: it
will lower carbon dioxide emissions, while helping to level the
playing field for renewable energy.  A cap and trade system can be
unnecessarily complicated, and can cause very high uncertainty in
carbon prices.  On the other hand, a revenue-neutral carbon fee and
dividend is very simple, eliminates the potential for carbon price
uncertainties, and helps insulate Californians from rising carbon
prices.   

Sincerely,
Lauren Rafelski