>> THE CITIZENS' CLIMATE LOBBY IS A NON-PROFIT, NONPARTISAN,
GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION FOCUSED ON NATIONAL POLICIES TO
ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.
THERE ARE 13 CHAPTERS OF THE
ORGANIZATION IN MASSACHUSETTS, INCLUDING ONE, WHICH RECENTLY
LAUNCHED IN SPRINGFIELD.
MARY JANE EUSTACE, AND STEVE MARANTZ CO-FOUNDED THE
SPRINGFIELD CHAPTER AND THEY SPOKE WITH ME IN THE STUDIO.
>> I HAD BECOME VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND I WAS
LOOKING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I HAD NEVER BEEN INVOLVED POLITICALLY AND I CAME ACROSS
CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY.
I ATTENDED A MEETING IN NORTHAMPTON.
I WENT TO THE REGIONAL CONFERENCE WHICH IS WHERE I MET
STEVE AND AT THAT CONFERENCE IT WAS REALLY ONLY MY SECOND
ENCOUNTER WITH CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY WE WERE ALREADY PRETTY
ENTHUSIASTIC AND LET IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE ONE IN
SPRINGFIELD, 1, IT'S THE MAJOR CITY OUT IN WESTERN
MASSACHUSETTS AND REPRESENTATIVE NEAL HAS AN OFFICE HERE SO WE
THOUGHT IT WAS THE PERFECT LOCATION TO GET ONE UP AND
RUNNING.
>> AND AS A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION, THE CLIMATE LOBBY
HAS BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
THERE ARE ABOUT 13 CHAPTERS HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS NOW.
THE SPRINGFIELD -- WITH THE ADDITION OF SPRINGFIELD AND THE
PRIMARY LEGISLATION THAT THE LOBBY WAS PUSHING FOR THAT WENT
BEFORE THE HOUSE LAST SESSION WAS THE ENERGY INNOVATION AND
CARBON DIVIDEND ACT -- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE TITLE
CORRECT THERE.
WHAT WERE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
STEVE?
>> PRIMARILY IT'S PUTTING A FEE ON CARBON, RETURNING THAT FEE TO
THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY AND THE IDEA IS AS THE FEE GOES
UP, THAT WILL MAKE -- AND THE FEES ON FOSSIL FUELS AND CARBON
MONOXIDE EMITTING EMISSIONS AND THE IDEA AS WE GOES UP IN PRICE,
THE INNOVATION PART IS AMERICA BEING WHAT IT IS WILL FIND NEW
AND BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT AND CLEANER WAYS TO PRODUCE ITS
ENERGY.
>> BECAUSE IT WILL BE JUST MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE.
>> MORE EXPENSIVE.
>> TO DO IT THE OLD WAY OR THE . >> SO THE DIVIDEND PART IS THE
FEE'S COLLECTED -- I CAN GIVE YOU A QUICK RUNDOWN WHY CITIZENS
CLIMATE LOBBY -- IT'S NOT CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY
LEGISLATION LEGISLATION THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LEGISLATION.
SINCE IT'S INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS, THE POWERS THAT BE AT
CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY SAYS THIS IS GOOD.
WE WANT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING -- >> PUT SOME MORE BEHIND IT.
>> IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN NOTHING.
1 IT'S EFFECTIVE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT WILL REDUCE EMISSIONS
40% WITHIN THE NEXT 12 YEARS WHICH IS ALSO WHAT THE UN
BASICALLY SAYS WE HAVE.
THE GOAL IS A 90% REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS FROM 2015 LEVELS BY
2050.
SO IT'S EFFECTIVE.
IT'S BIPARTISAN AND I -- AND IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE BEING
BIPARTISAN IS REALLY QUITE IMPORTANT.
IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE IN THAT IT WILL REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND
THE NUMBERS WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE IS THAT PROBABLY THEED
MAJORITY -- PROBABILITY THE MAJORITY OF FOLKS HAVE MORE
MONEY IN THEIR POCKET WITH THE DIVIDEND COMING BACK AND WILL
CERTAINLY FAVOR LOW INCOME FOLKS.
>> THE IDEA IN GENERAL TO ME SOUNDS SIMILAR TO A CARBON TAX,
YOU KNOW, CANADA HAS LOOKED AT NATIONAL.
IS IT SIMILAR TO A CARBON TAX OR IS IT DIFFERENT.
>> WE LIKE TO USE THE WORD "FEE" 'CAUSE IF YOU DON'T --
>> TAX IS AN UNPOPULAR WORD.
>> BUT IF YOU DON'T DRIVE YOUR CAR YOU DON'T PAY GASOLINE TAX.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT IT'S -- IF YOU INSIST YOU CAN CALL IT A TAX BUT IT COMES
BACK AS A DIVIDEND.
>> THE REASON WHY I BRING THE PHRASE UP THIS WAY BECAUSE WHEN
WE HOSTED THE DEBATE HERE BETWEEN NOW SENATOR WARREN AND
THEN CANDIDATE FOR SENATE JEFFERY DEAL AND I ASKED THEM A
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A CARBON TAX OR AS YOU'RE SAYING A CARBON
FEE WOULD BE SOMETHING -- A POTENTIAL SOLUTION TO THIS
CHALLENGE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
NEITHER CANDIDATE WANTED TO TOUCH THE QUESTION JUST TO CUT
DOWN THE BRASS TAX BUT YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE PALATABLE?
>> AS I SAID THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WILL
ACTUALLY HAVE MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKET AS A RESULT OF THIS
FEE THAN NOT.
THE LOWER INCOME FOLKS -- WHATEVER -- I ENCOURAGE
EVERYONE TO COME TO OUR WEBSITE AND SO ARE THE GOVERNMENT
WEBSITE TAKE A LOOK A LOOK AT THE ACTUAL NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE
BILL.
>> SURE.
>> BUT MORE PEOPLE WILL MAKE MONEY OUT OF THIS THAN NOT.
ESPECIALLY THE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE MOST MONEY USE THE MOST
ENERGY, THEY WILL PAY THE MOST AND THEY WILL PAY OUT MORE THAN
THEY GET BACK IN THE DIVIDEND BUT LET DIVIDEND IS THE CRUX.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE THEY PUT THIS TAX ON
FUEL AND PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY BROUGHT IT BACK TO THEM
AND ONE OF THE ASPECTS WE LIKE ABOUT THIS BILL IS IT'S
REVENUE-NEUTRAL SINCE IT'S ALL COMMONSENSE, I THINK THE NUMBERS
ARE AROUND 2% GOES TO ADMINISTRATION.
98% OF THE MONEY GOES BACK TO THE PEOPLE SO IT'S NOT GROWING
GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS NOT LIKE A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT'S GOING
TO GO ON FOREVER AND IT DOES HAVE A SUNSET CLAUSE IN IT
MEANING IF WE ACTUALLY HIT THESE TARGETS IT GOES AWAY AT THE END
OF THE DAY IF WE ACTUALLY GET THERE BY 2050 SO THOSE ARE SOME
OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE -- >> WITH TARGETS IN GENERAL ARE
KIND OF NOTHING NEW TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CROWD, IN FACT,
MASSACHUSETTS AT THE STATE LEVEL JUST RECENTLY -- MANY
LEGISLATORS, ABOUT 85 GOT TOGETHER AND SAID THIS IDEA OF
2050 LET'S REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS, BUT IT FEELS
LIKE -- AND TO BE SPECIFIC IT'S THEY SIGNED THE IDEA OF REDUCING
CARBON EMISSIONS.
IT WOULD BE NET ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS BY 2050, IS THAT A
REASONABLE APPROACH, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT SEEMS IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY WE SET THESE TARGETS AND THEN THEY'RE
NOT MET AND THEY KIND OF JUST DISAPPEAR AND THEN PEOPLE KIND
OF RALLY TOGETHER AGAIN AND SET NEW TARGETS?
IS IT GETTING ANYTHING DONE >> WELL, IN MASSACHUSETTS
SPECIFICALLY, THERE'S A LAW -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS IF WE BREAK
THE LAW BUT THE LAW IN 2008 THE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS -- THAT'S VERY
SPECIFIC ABOUT REACHING THESE GOALS.
IF YOU DON'T REACH THEM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENS BUT THE CARBON
FEE AND DIVIDEND -- OR THE ENERGY INNOVATION PROGRAM
IS -- I MEAN, THE INCREASING PRICE OF CARBON IS THE
MECHANISM.
THIS OTHER STUFF -- LET'S GET TO THE GOAL AND SO THAT'S THE
MANDATE.
THE MANDATE THIS WILL GO UP.
ONE OF THE COMPROMISES THAT THIS BILL HAS IS A LOT OF POTENTIALLY
NEW REGULATIONS ON THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY ARE NOT GOING TO
GO ON INTO EFFECT UNTIL WE SEE HOW THIS WORKS.
I MEAN, OLD REGULATIONS ARE THERE -- YEAH, THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO REDUCE SOME OF THE CAR EMISSIONS AND THINGS BUT THE
WHOLE -- THE IDEA IS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET DOUBLE REGULATED
WHILE YOU ALSO HAVE TO PAY AS YOUR FOSSIL FUEL COMES OUT OF
THE GROUND AND YOU PAY FOR THAT IN THIS FEE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT NEW REGULATIONS ON IT.
THAT'S PART OF THE COMPROMISES WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> I THINK ALSO A DISTINCTION MIGHT BE THAT WHEN YOU SET A
TARGET, YOU'RE TELLING EVERYBODY, WE HOPE AND WE WANT
TO GET THERE.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT THEY CAME UP WITH THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND HIRED EXPERTS TO DETERMINE AND PROJECT
WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE AND THE EFFECT WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH
THE TARGET SO THEY'VE STUDIED -- OKAY, IF WE -- WE PUT
THE FEE ON THIS MUCH AND INCREASE IT BY THIS MUCH, IT
WILL HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
THE LOW AND MODED INCOME PEOPLE WILL GET THIS MUCH EVERY MONTH
AND SOME BALANCED IT OUT TO REACH A CERTAIN POINT IN THE
FUTURE.
SO IT'S NOT JUST A POLICY OF WE WOULD LIKE TO REACH THIS.
IT'S BEEN STUDIED AND I'M NOT A DATA SCIENTIST BUT THAT'S WHAT
THEY DID -- THEY HIRED AN ORGANIZATION TO STUDY THE
DETAILS OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS, THE HEALTH EFFECTS.
HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE -- WHICH SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION WOULD
ACTUALLY BE MOST LIKELY KEEP MONEY.
WHICH SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION MAY HAVE TO PAY MORE OUT OF
POCKET AND THAT'S HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE CARBON FEE AND
DIVIDEND AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE FEE AND A TAX ALSO THAT A TAX, AS STEVE MENTIONED, GOES TO
GOVERNMENT, IT GROWS GOVERNMENT.
WHAT MAKES THIS ATTRACTIVE PARTICULARLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
MORE CONSERVATIVE IN THEIR VIEWS IS THAT IT GOES FROM THE
FEE -- FROM THE CARBON EMISSION PRODUCING COMPANIES TO AMERICAN
HOUSEHOLDS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO GOVERNMENT.
IT'S NOT SERVING A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
>> AND, AGAIN, THIS IS ALL PROPOSED, SOMETHING THAT WAS
TAKEN UP BY THE HOUSE WHETHER OR NOT THE SENATE WILL TAKE IT UP,
WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.
>> WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE REINTRODUCED 'CAUSE IT WAS
INTRODUCED -- >> LAST SESSION.
>> LAST SESSION BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE ASPECTS TO MAKE A LITTLE
PITCH HERE FOR CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY FOR FOLKS IN THIS AREA,
SINCE REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD NEAL IS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
AND REVENUE HOUSE AND IT COLLECTS A FEE AND GIVES IT BACK
WILL GO THROUGH HOUSE, WAYS AND MEANS SO WE AS CITIZENS CLIMATE
LOBBY WE ASK -- WE ASK THE RESIDENTS OF REPRESENTATIVE
ANIL'S DISTRICT AND ANY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT YOU
HAPPEN TO BE LIVING IN TALK TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN SHOULD ANY
LEGISLATION COME THROUGH ABOUT CARBON PRICING AND CARBON
FREEING DIVIDEND TO CERTAINLY BRING THAT TO THE FLOOR AND HOLD
HEARINGS AND TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW
FROM CITIZENS CLIMATE POINT OF VIEW THIS IS THE ISSUE -- THIS
IS THE EX EXTENSIONIAL THREAT TO ALL OF US.