[SustainableTompkins] Need for contacts in the labor movement

[Sylvester Johnson]

	As an associate of the Museum of the Earth, I’ve been giving talks  
on "Controversies in Key Public Policies for Reducing Heat–Trapping  
Emissions”. (My next presentation there, also including the topic  
“Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture” is scheduled for Thursday  
October 18th at 7 PM, with a dish-to-pass to be held by Sustainable  
Tompkins at 6 PM. )
	If unwieldy, inefficient, and regressive cap–trade gets enacted,  
working people will be harmed. If instead the preferable carbon tax  
funding a progressive payroll tax cut gets enacted, the working  
people who can least afford increased energy expenses could be  
benefited.
	To help build a constituency for enactment of a carbon tax instead  
of cap–trade, I'm willing to travel to Washington or NYC to speak to  
staff and officers of labor unions about this subject. I'm seeking  
contacts in the labor movement who might help arrange such a  
presentation.
	The labor movement is missing an opportunity to benefit members. The  
reasons are outlined in the following Abstract, excerpted from my  
full article at
http://climatehealth.net/ArticleCarbonTax.html
A new tax is politically impossible… until it’s politically possible.  
A carbon tax can become politically possible since both labor and  
business get harmed by cap–trade, beyond the added cost of energy.
Cap–trade in heat–trapping emissions makes energy costs even more  
volatile, making budget planning more problematic, while worsening  
the balance of trade due to buying possibly counterproductive offsets  
from abroad, sending jobs abroad for offsets that build in warming.  
Effective action requires reducing emissions at the source, not trading.
A carbon tax assigns definite costs to pollution, while revenues get  
used for payroll tax rebates and energy efficiency projects  
beneficial to the domestic economy.
Taxation upstream at fossil fuel sources minimizes bureaucracy with  
relatively little new hiring needed to supplement the taxation  
bureaucracy already in place, whereas cap–trade feeds intrusive,  
extensive, expensive bureaucracy to attempt to oversee the many  
negotiable features of cap–trade that would be influenced by  
intensive lobbying for unfair advantage, as well as bureaucracy to  
verify the difficult–to–monitor implementation of cap–trade. The  
business lobby should champion a straightforward carbon tax and scorn  
unwieldy and inefficient cap–trade.
Cap–trade is regressive, since costs spread across incomes. It slows  
the economy, depressing the labor market. Emissions trading lines the  
pockets of traders, while offsets provide windfall profits to brokers.
A carbon tax can be transformed from a flat tax hike. It can be made  
progressive by shifting revenue to bigger tax breaks for lower  
incomes than higher, while part of the revenue pumps the economy with  
labor–intensive projects. Many working families who cannot afford an  
increase in energy costs may come out ahead due to this tax–shifting.  
The labor lobby should endorse a carbon tax and disparage cap–trade.
Although a carbon tax, unlike cap–trade, does not in itself set a  
goal for emissions reduction, a carbon tax becomes a policy tool to  
arrive at a goal. It does so more effectively and at less cost than  
capricious cap–trade and evasive offsets.
With motivations for both labor and business to back a carbon tax,  
it’s politically possible.
Fuller explanations of these points and further issues are in the  
full article linked above.

	Please let me know of contacts in the labor movement who might help  
arrange a presentation to staff and officers of labor unions about  
this subject.
	Best regards,
Sylvester
Sylvester Johnson, Ph.D. Applied Physics
(607) 539-6193
P.O. Box 146
Brooktondale NY USA 14817-0146
ContactSJ at mac.com
Non-profit website: www.climatehealth.net