The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Featured / Exxon Funds Push for a Carbon Tax That Ends Climate Liability Suits
Exxon Funds Push for a Carbon Tax That Ends Climate Liability Suits

Exxon Funds Push for a Carbon Tax That Ends Climate Liability Suits

October 9, 2018 Filed Under: Access to Courts, Featured, Liability Waivers

print
By Karen Savage

Exxon has announced it will pledge $1 million to Americans for Carbon Dividends, an advocacy campaign that backs a carbon tax plan, but one that would be coupled with rollbacks to environmental regulations and ending climate liability suits.

The Baker-Schultz Plan—named for its lead authors, former secretaries of state James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz—proposes a gradually rising carbon tax, with 100 percent of the proceeds paid to Americans in a monthly dividend. It was unveiled last year by the Climate Leadership Council, a nonprofit policy institute founded by author and policy entrepreneur Ted Halstead.

The council’s founding members include Exxon and other oil and corporate giants—among them, BP, Shell, Johnson & Johnson—as well as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Greg Bertelsen, the council’s senior vice president, called Exxon’s donation a significant step in U.S. climate policy.

“It represents the first time an oil and gas oil major has made a significant contribution in support of a campaign to put a price on carbon,” said Bertelsen, who formerly served as senior director for energy and resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers.

In return for what is a modest tax, the Baker-Schultz plan also calls for the rollback of greenhouse gas emissions regulations and an “end to federal and state tort liability for emitters.” That means the federal government would no longer have the ability to regulate climate pollutants and courts would have no role in determining whether industry should pay for impacts already caused by fossil fuel-driven global warming.

Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center, said it’s significant that when the plan was launched, no corporate members were involved publically.

“The most interesting thing to me is how Exxon has been behind this the whole way but was intentionally hidden from view,” Davies said.

“Are they shy? No, they know the optics,” he added.

Americans For Carbon Dividends is co-chaired by former Senators Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.), whose lobbying firm was hired to promote the plan. And according to its website, its communications is being led by Richard Keil, a former senior media relations advisor for Exxon. Keil is listed as a managing director for Hill+Knowlton, the firm that once represented tobacco companies as they tried to escape liability for the devastating health effects of smoking.

Exxon’s announcement came a day after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a landmark report warning that climate change is a much more dire and immediate problem than previously thought. In the report, scientists call for “unprecedented” action that would be needed to combat the effects of climate change.

To prevent catastrophic climate change, carbon emissions must be reduced by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050, the report says. The use of renewable energy to generate electricity must increase from about 20 percent today to about 67 percent by 2050. It also calls for a robust carbon tax, large enough to raise the cost of fossil fuels to drive down their use and raise enough money to offset their detrimental impact on the climate.

“A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation,” said the report’s authors. They estimate that to achieve needed emissions reductions, the price per ton of carbon dioxide pollution must range from $135 to $5,500 in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100.

A recent study by the University of Massachusetts found a carbon tax would have to reach $200 a ton to change consumer behavior and to keep low-income consumers from absorbing a disproportionately high amount of the costs.

The Baker-Schulz Plan starts the tax at $40 per metric ton, far below what the studies say would significantly reduce emissions. The plan does not specify how much it will rise or how the increases will be determined.

Bertelsen said that’s a detail that will be worked out over time by the council’s founding members, which in addition to the oil giants includes corporate giants P & G, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsico, and Exelon. Bernanke, Bloomberg and former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman are also founding members, along with the environmental organization The Nature Conservancy.

When asked repeatedly whether founding members would reconsider their stance on climate litigation, Bertelsen would only say that the Council is focused on solving the climate problem and transitioning to a low-carbon economy.

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri told Bloomberg that applying a uniform cost across the economy is consistent with Exxon’s principles on how to manage the risk of climate change. He said the company has consistently backed a carbon tax that returns proceeds to the public and not the government, but Exxon has also long supported organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council that have lobbied vigorously against carbon taxes of any kind.

Under the plan, U.S. taxpayers would benefit from monthly dividend payments, but none of the proceeds would help cities and states pay the skyrocketing costs of climate mitigation and adaptation.

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he remains skeptical and suggested the oil giant lay out a plan for bringing company-wide carbon emissions to net-zero by mid-century. That would be consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement that Exxon also says it supports.

“I’ll take ExxonMobil claims of support for a carbon dividend seriously when it stops providing far larger sums to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other lobbying groups that oppose the same climate policies,” Frumhoff said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Access to Courts, Featured, Liability Waivers

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Our Daily Planet: Monster Storm Michael, Sharing Colorado River Water, Giant Mosquitos, and Which Is the Greenest U.S. City? says:
    October 11, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    […] a disproportionately high amount of the costs. The plan proposed by Americans for Carbon Dividends starts the tax at $40 (far below $200) and doesn’t specify how much it will rise or how those increases will be […]

  2. Exxon Funds Push for a Carbon Tax That Ends Climate Liability Suits – Climate Change Resources says:
    October 12, 2018 at 10:23 am

    […] Modern bioenergy is critical to meeting global climate change goals […]

  3. Don't be fooled by Exxon's carbon fee public relations scheme - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International says:
    October 12, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    […] the Baker-Shultz plan would completely wipe away any potential legal liability for fossil fuel industry actors for damages from climate change it is responsible for. ExxonMobil has recently been targeted by […]

  4. Taxing carbon may sound like a good idea but does it work? | DJG Blogger says:
    October 15, 2018 at 6:35 am

    […] from some existing regulations and from being held liable for damage to the environment at the federal or state level from decades of earlier fossil fuel […]

  5. Taxing carbon may sound like a good idea but does it work? – Above Big Tech says:
    October 16, 2018 at 5:57 am

    […] from some existing regulations and from being held liable for damage to the environment at the federal or state level from decades of earlier fossil fuel […]

  6. Taxing carbon may sound like a good idea but does it work? – The Word Merchant says:
    October 26, 2018 at 9:22 pm

    […] from some existing regulations and from being held liable for damage to the environment at the federal or state level from decades of earlier fossil fuel […]

  7. OilWire Issue #6: 1.5°C = No new fossil fuels; Dutch ruling puts Shell on notice; Pipeline blast rocks Nigeria – Global Gas & Oil Network says:
    March 1, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    […] USD 1 million over two years to a U.S. carbon tax advocacy group. The group’s proposal would end climate liability lawsuits, as well as federal regulation of climate pollutants, in exchange for a modest carbon tax, starting […]

  8. This Is What It Would Take for Republicans to Actually Fight Climate Change – The Real News Nowadays says:
    May 14, 2019 at 5:25 am

    […] is that they’re now worried about being sued. Exxon’s support for carbon pricing is contingent on being shielded from lawsuits holding the company liable for the chaos and destruction of climate change—as well […]

  9. This Is What It Would Take for Republicans to Truly Combat Local weather Change – Our DeedHips says:
    May 14, 2019 at 6:13 am

    […] they’re now nervous about being sued. Exxon’s assist for carbon pricing is contingent on being shielded from lawsuits holding the corporate accountable for the chaos and destruction of local weather […]

  10. This Is What It Would Take for Republicans to Actually Fight Climate Change | e-Radio.US says:
    May 14, 2019 at 6:21 am

    […] is that they’re now worried about being sued. Exxon’s support for carbon pricing is contingent on being shielded from lawsuits holding the company liable for the chaos and destruction of climate change—as well […]

  11. This Is What It Would Take for Republicans to Actually Fight Climate Change | e-News.US says:
    May 14, 2019 at 6:29 am

    […] is that they’re now worried about being sued. Exxon’s support for carbon pricing is contingent on being shielded from lawsuits holding the company liable for the chaos and destruction of climate change—as well […]

  12. This Is What It Would Take for Republicans to Actually Fight Climate Change – Thinking Port says:
    May 14, 2019 at 9:05 am

    […] is that they’re now worried about being sued. Exxon’s support for carbon pricing is contingent on being shielded from lawsuits holding the company liable for the chaos and destruction of climate change—as well […]

  13. We Need a Carbon Tax, Now, That Goes Up Over Time | Random ASCII – tech blog of Bruce Dawson says:
    September 24, 2019 at 11:55 pm

    […] is also the Baker/Shultz plan which is too weak to be taken seriously, and which wipes out climate liability for oil companies, and never puts the carbon tax high enough to change […]

  14. Taxing carbon may sound like a good idea but does it work? – SpaceEDGE says:
    October 26, 2019 at 3:27 am

    […] from some existing regulations and from being held liable for damage to the environment at the federal or state level from decades of earlier fossil fuel […]

  15. Exxon backs a small carbon tax, knows only a big one will save the climate says:
    December 3, 2019 at 5:29 pm

    […] the Baker Schultz plan, calls for a tax starting at $40 per ton. Exxon is supporting the plan as a founding member of the Americans for Carbon Dividends (AFCD), the sister advocacy organization of the […]

  16. There’s No Time to Waste in Bringing the Carbon Barons to Justice | Sierra Club says:
    July 29, 2020 at 6:45 am

    […] are showing strengthened resolve to hold the fossil fuel giants accountable for their crimes. Not long ago, the Carbon Barons were operating under the delusion that they could strike a grand political […]

  17. It’s Time to Bring the Carbon Barons to Justice—and Take Their Money - UpdexNews says:
    July 29, 2020 at 12:47 pm

    […] are showing strengthened resolve to hold the fossil fuel giants accountable for their crimes. Not long ago, the carbon barons were operating under the delusion that they could strike a grand political […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • As San Francisco, Oakland Press Climate Cases, They Pay Homage to Tiny Kivalina
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.