Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Fossil-fuel corporations should pay a carbon pollution fee

Re: “Why the EPA’s Clean Power Plan makes even green Minnesota a little nervous” (MinnPost, March 11).

The real trouble with the EPA regulations is that they don’t do enough, plus they punish consumers, making them pay for the pollution the fossil fuel industry’s products cause. The EPA will only cut carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent, and they produce only 40 percent of U.S. emissions. And the EPA can do nothing about reducing emissions in China.

There’s a better way:

Make fossil-fuel corporations pay a carbon pollution fee that would be entirely rebated to every American every month, and, as we increase the fee annually, people, naturally, will use their rebate to switch to cheaper clean energy. Do the same thing with imports from carbon polluters like China, until they lower their emissions. Give that import fee to us and we’ll be able to afford U.S. products.

Eight Nobel economists agree, and an independent REMI economic report says this plan will create millions of U.S. jobs and increase GDP by tens of billions annually while cutting our emissions in half is less than 20 years, not to mention the emissions cuts it will create overseas. (REMI)

The national volunteer Citizens Climate Lobby is working to get a law passed in Congress that will do just that. The bill they are proposing is politically viable because it’s bipartisan. It uses conservative economics — market forces rather than government regulations, expansion or expense — and it’s revenue-neutral. In fact, middle-class and lower-income Americans will make a profit while transitioning to clean energy with this plan.

Watch YouTube’s “Climate Fixed in Two Minutes for Free,” “Climate Solutions Citizens Climate Lobby” and “Decarbonization Takes the Fast Lane.” Then go to the Citizens Climate Lobby website for more information.

MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor.

The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.

Comments (2)

  1. Submitted by Joe Smithers on 03/17/2015 - 01:21 pm.

    Would love an explanation

    Would you please tell me how in the world anyone would see a monetary benefit of this when in order to offset the rebates to consumers the corporations will be increasing the cost of their products? How then are consumers to be able to afford to switch to what you call clean energy sources when the cost of the current source is going up as much as their rebate is? What sources of clean energy have you come up with that do not use any carbon? Solar uses carbon to construct the equipment as does wind? If they are forced to pay rebates I would bet it will also be more expensive to purchase those as well as if it isn’t expensive enough already. The alternative sources are more expensive already so what sources are you calling cheap? I’m not seeing where you think there will be an increase in jobs or a reduction in carbon pollution at all. Please explain.

  2. Submitted by Rolf Westgard on 03/19/2015 - 03:25 am.

    Joe, she can’t explain

    And those rebates would go to buy Asian imports at Walmart and Target. The Asians would burn more fossil fuels to produce those products.
    Then there is the question of whether CO2 emissions do any net harm.

Leave a Reply