The Green Jobs Act is also well worth pursuing.

The Sky Trust would be similar to the proposal above, for increasing the earned income credits, but it would be more politically feasible and easier to implement. When carbon offsets are auctioned, half of the proceeds would be divided up equally among every American with a social security number, and a check mailed to each one of them. The bottom two income brackets should make money on the deal, while the upper income brackets will foot the bill for more valuable energy. I think Americans, especially those currently ambivalent about climate action, will vote for candidates proposing this.

Even more important than a sky trust, the Green Jobs Act must be expanded. Retrofitting American homes and industry is going to take a lot of labor, and we need to include the Americans who need the jobs most in our solution, because we need them to be on board ideologically with the sustainability movement. By promoting green jobs as pathways out of poverty, we score political victories, do social good and fight climate change. Read up more at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

That’s my main problem with a carbon tax in general: it doesn’t guarantee any certain level of reductions in emissions. A carbon tax sets a carbon price and lets the market decide what level of reductions to achieve at that price. A cap and trade, in contrast, sets a required level of reductions and lets the market decide the price of carbon necessary to hit that target. Since guaranteeing that we achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should be our priority, in my mind, a cap and trade is a preferable policy tool to do that – without safety valves which undermine the certainty and integrity of the cap.

Carlos, as for what’s the right target, I think you are probably right that we’ll need to cut emissions harder and faster than 80% by 2050. It’s a matter of trying to shift the debate about what’s possible, and at this point, I’ve been reluctant to move beyond a call for an 80% reduction by 2050. But perhaps it’s time to think hard about the best strategy to shift the Overton window and think about uniting behind a stronger call for emissions reductions. We need to walk the fine line between pushing the window forward and having our calls for action seem impossibly aggressive (and therefore have them fall on deaf ears).

It all comes down to defining the right targets and having the will to meet them. The policy tool will determine whether we do so in a cost-effective way or not. A carbon tax is likely to be more cost-effective.

It is my hope that we will not settle for 80% by 2050. If we get the targets wrong, it doesn’t matter how nice leadership from Congress looks and how excited we get about having won some “strong” action; the reality is that it will be a waste of money and resources that could have instead been spent in helping developing nations deal with climate catastrophe. I still haven’t heard the youth climate movement, as a whole, addressing this issue, even though some of us have brought it up repeatedly. If we don’t call for the necessary actions (those based on probabilities), no Senator or Representative will introduce legislation to cut emissions 95% by 2030. It’s up to us to take a stance on this and demand what the rest of the climate movement is not shooting for: 60% global cuts by 2030 or earlier.