• http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Nice piece. Thanks, Tim.

    My 2 cents:

    the fossil fuel/GOP/conservative media will just as easily demonize “fee and dividend” as they did “cap and trade.” i think it’s very easy for them to successfully do so with terms and phrases that are a bit complicated sounding (basically, anything over a 4th or 5th grade level).

    i think the Aussies were clever going to “carbon price” route. more or less, people have heard the word “carbon” and know it’s associated with global warming. people certainly know the word “price” and are very familiar with pricing things. :D  i think it’s easier for them to get behind (or, at least, not be confused or brainwashed too much about) the simple idea that comes to mind with the phrase “carbon price” — it’s time to put a price on pollution.

    perhaps it could be made even simpler and more clear, but at the moment, i’m a fan of the “carbon price” terminology.

    however, of course, it really goes far beyond terminology.

    • http://ecopolitology.org/ Tim H.

       yeah, I only scratched at the surface of the framing debate, but you’re right, that is only one little piece of it.  Any climate policy that raises energy costs will be demonized by opponents, yes. But what strategists need to do is get ahead of that and show the public exactly when, how much and how often they will be reimbursed.

      In stead of floating an idea and then letting well-funded opponents rename it, reshape it and tear it down. Supporters need to own the policy, anticipate opposition and be very clear about exactly how it works and what impact it will have.

      Maybe not today, but soon.

      • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

        yep.

        agree

  • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Nice piece. Thanks, Tim.

    My 2 cents:

    the fossil fuel/GOP/conservative media will just as easily demonize “fee and dividend” as they did “cap and trade.” i think it’s very easy for them to successfully do so with terms and phrases that are a bit complicated sounding (basically, anything over a 4th or 5th grade level).

    i think the Aussies were clever going to “carbon price” route. more or less, people have heard the word “carbon” and know it’s associated with global warming. people certainly know the word “price” and are very familiar with pricing things. :D  i think it’s easier for them to get behind (or, at least, not be confused or brainwashed too much about) the simple idea that comes to mind with the phrase “carbon price” — it’s time to put a price on pollution.

    perhaps it could be made even simpler and more clear, but at the moment, i’m a fan of the “carbon price” terminology.

    however, of course, it really goes far beyond terminology.

  • Gielsj

    Wall Street and the other financial sector bigwigs will try to get their hands in the cookie jar and the big question, do you really think the dividend will be returned? We gas already upwards to $4.00 a gallon, a carbon fee would be hard to pass. Also, the spin machine by the coal/oil industry will flood the airways against it.
    How to really cut emissions now? Sorry guys, economic and societal collasp

  • Tom Harrison

    I agree with Zach and Timothy on a key point: terminology is important.  I have been a student of energy policies for a good long time now, and the moniker “Fee and Dividend” is no more clarifying or compelling than Cap and Trade is (was?).  

    Witness “global warming” — technically accurate but not aligned with what people see in many cases — “climate change” is better, but it seems so abstract.  ”Drought, flood, famine & pestilence” seems a little more … relatable.  And Biblical.There is a lot at stake here.  Scientists and economists are wary of overstatement.  What we need now are some good politicians.