We can Transition off Fossil Fuels
We Can Transition Off Fossil Fuels Without Shifting The Cost to Consumers
by Michael Richardson
If you chose to read this op-ed, you likely know that climate scientists have issued a clarion call to fast-track climate action on all fronts if we are to avert critical tipping points in the climate system. Nevertheless, both the Governor and leaders in the NYS Assembly have failed to act with such urgency. Since passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019, the State has yet to fully fund or implement our landmark climate act.
An excuse often given for slowing down implementation of the Climate Act is that transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy will impose unacceptable costs to consumers.
At long last, the State has a feasible plan to reduce climate-warming emissions, make large companies pay for their emissions, and then use those funds to drive the economy-wide transition to renewable energy - all while averting shifting the cost of doing so onto consumers. That is, if the system is well designed.
If done right, the State sets a limit, or cap, on total statewide climate-warming emissions under which utilities and industries are required to purchase permits for a limited amount of emissions they each may then produce.
If done right, the State then invests proceeds from the permits to fund climate mitigation projects (infrastructure replacement, clean transportation). The State also uses the proceeds for direct payments and subsidies to consumers to offset increases in energy bills and other potential consumer costs associated with the transition to renewable energy.
If done right, New Yorkers achieve energy independence by developing our domestic power grids with hydro, solar and wind and correspondingly reducing imported oil and gas.
If done right, well-paying jobs are created in our communities installing solar panels and heat pumps and expanding our electric grid as we transition to renewable energy.
If done right, urgently needed funds are directed to communities living at the frontlines of toxic pollution and climate disruption to ensure that they benefit from the transition to renewable energy - including cleaner air and economic opportunities.
If done right, billions of dollars in medical bills are saved in that reducing emissions and pollution would lower the rates of asthma, heart disease, and stroke.
But, if done wrong, some of the worst fossil-fuel polluters could be exempted from paying for their emissions or allowed to profit from selling their permits to pollute without resulting in a net reduction in emissions.
And, if done wrong, emissions could be concentrated - or reduced more slowly - in and near communities that are already over-polluted, underpaid, and disrespected.
To be done right, emissions caps must decline every year in every sector (transportation, buildings, utilities, industry, agriculture) and include facility-specific emissions caps - and there must be aggressive penalties for exceeding caps.
To be done right, permits must have an escalating price every year - with a price floor to ensure adequate revenue and a price ceiling to limit consumer impacts - and there must be a higher permit price in and near disadvantaged communities.
To be done right, trading schemes for buying and selling emissions permits for profit must be prohibited. Companies reducing emissions below their permitted cap must not be allowed to sell their allowances to companies producing emissions above their permitted cap. Simply put, companies must not profit from polluting.
All said, if done right, an emissions cap system in which polluters pay for emissions when paired with subsidies and rebates to households and small businesses will not only offset increases in consumer utility and heating bills but also greatly reduce the
cost of converting expensive fossil-fueled heating systems and appliances over to clean, inexpensive renewable energy.
Michael Richardson resides in Chatham, New York, and is a member of the NY Renews steering committee