“In the best of all possible worlds, a wise Congress would figure out just which technologies will work best, and how they can be implemented most efficiently. But that’s asking an awful lot. There are days when I’d be willing to give up every penny of the wind and solar subsidies we desperately need if that meant we could also kill the subsidies for “clean coal” and atomic energy—a level playing field, with the cost of carbon entered accurately into the equation, might be just what we need.”

–Bill McKibben, “The Greenback Effect,” Mother Jones May/June 2008

“I think it’s fine to invest new money; my guess is that the fastest way of doing that is to impose a high enough price on carbon that private enterprise sees the possibility of a big win in new technologies.”

–Bill McKibben, Earth Chats, Slate.com

In that same interview, McKibben pointed to Cap and Dividend as a solution, which would distribute 100% of the auction proceeds back to the public instead of making investments in clean energy:

“I think that people should take a look at the Cap and Dividend system, also called Skytrust, proposed by Peter Barnes—basically, the govt. would cut us each a check annually for our share of the atmosphere. I think it makes a good deal of sense politically.”

Any of your insights are appreciated.