U.S. Government-Shrinking Carbon Business Opportunity Act by Freedom Workers

Thinking outside of the box is important, I'm glad this proposal is attempting to do so. I have some clarifying questions though. Below is a passage from your proposal: "Carbon Business Opportunity funds are collected at wells, mines, and borders. The carbon opportunity would apply to imports (goods and fossil fuels) proportional to the imports’ carbon footprint. For fossil fuels produced in the U.S., the carbon price is collected at the well or the mine based on the sold production." I'm curious, who do you envision doing the collecting of funds? You mention that private banks will be in charge of managing the money (and making investments), but how will you decide whether Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan collects the money in the first place? Finally, how will this proposal reduce carbon emissions? Recall that doing so is an important criteria for this contest.

rdc8J - Private Banks bid for the business of collecting and distributing the money every few years. Good possibility the Banks will offer to pay for the opportunity to handle the money, if the money management contract is structured to allow Banks some short-term use of the money. The primary goals of the money management contract are to 1) collect all the money (prevent cheating) and 2) disburse the money quickly within the rules (prevent cheating). The Banks do not invest the money in ways which might delay disbursements more than a few days. The write-up does not directly address how this proposal will reduce carbon emissions because doing so might offend the target audience. At the least, it would dilute the message "Americans can "make out" at the expense of the rest of the world." I expect that contest judges and most of the target audience realize that increasing the relative cost of fossil fuels drives people to avoid buying fossil fuels and to permanently store CO2. Judges have an interesting dilemma: Do you appreciate my lack of specifics as an innovative answer to "How much will ..." in keeping with the proposals design audience to accomplish the main goal (How could a carbon price be implemented...) knowing full well that $120/ton of CO2 will drive emissions of fossil CO2 to zero relatively quickly; or do judges adhere tightly to their scoring boxes.

Hi Mark, Your Proposal seems very interesting and definitely different to most other approaches I have seen to setting a price on carbon. There are a few details I would be interested in clarifying: You claim that “Businesses in general will experience roughly the same net costs.” However different businesses and sectors have different levels of exposure to changes in energy prices and therefore would not experience the same cost increase as others. How would you address this? -You suggest the CBO “would apply to imports (goods and fossil fuels) proportional to the imports’ carbon footprint”. How would that carbon footprint be calculated/reported? By whom? How would the infrastructure to calculate/maintain footprints for these products be paid for? -How does the CBO incorporate the need to reduce emissions from non-energy sectors? What about products in which many/most of their emissions come from the process/product itself rather than from related energy consumption (meat and dairy products, solid waste, cement production, etc) -You describe a “Simple Reward” that is basically distributing CBO funds to all taxpayers based on the actual taxes they pay. What is being rewarded? What is the relationship between level of taxes payed and a behavior you are trying to promote that is being rewarded through this distribution scheme? I look forward to your response.

I'll stick with Mark's comment but go farther. A majority of the House of Representatives wants "small government." It is possible to build small government into the carbon business opportunity. Mostly the same individuals do not see the need for climate action, especially when such actions look like "big government." These same people and others in the House are likely to be reelected, if their constituents "make out" perhaps especially at the expense of the rest of the world. Catch 22 - Declaring the carbon business opportunity zeros fossil fuel emissions rapidly could win the contest, but winning Climate CoLab is not an endorsement with small government believers (No offense, but whoever wins is automatically suspect and certainly not from the correct tribe.) But not quantifying the carbon reduction doesn't win the contest and the lack of publicity leaves the House ignoring the "big government" carbon tax bills. Solution - If your judges are that diverse, some of them will be able to slip the "small government" carbon business opportunity to several influential (wide audience) advocates of small government. Your well-connected judge should consider not tainting this small government opportunity by mentioning it came from Climate CoLab. I don't mind if they "forget" it, wake up six months from now with this great idea, and then contact the appropriate people. Having this discussion on the radio and TV is a better prelude to action by the House than winning Climate CoLab.