Article 39 – Resolution to Implement a Carbon Fee and Dividend Program. Submitted by DeAnne Sloan Riddle, for the Carbon Fee and Rebate Working Group of Climate Action NOW. is the greatest threat facing the world today. The severity of storms is increasing; ocean levels are rising; climate refugees are fleeing stricken or flood inundated areas. In our own state, Cape Cod, Boston, Logan airport and other coastal areas are threatened by . According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 16 of the warmest years on record since 1880 have occurred in the last 18 years.

In 2008 the Global Warming Solutions Act was signed into law, which required Massachusetts to set statewide goals to achieve significant reductions of emissions. In May 2016 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts was not on course to meet its targets.

It is clear that to meet our goals, we need incentives for individuals and businesses to become more energy efficient and to move to sources. Passage of carbon pollution fee and dividend bills, currently in the Massachusetts Legislature, would do this. Conservative and liberal economists agree that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change and build a stronger economy is to put a price on carbon pollution.

How does carbon pollution fee and dividend work? Under such a program, a fee would be placed on fossil fuels such as gasoline and entering the state. Prices to consumers would rise, causing them to reduce their consumption by such means as: traveling less, buying more fuel efficient vehicles, using public transportation, lowering their thermostats, investing in alternative energy, etc., as has been true when energy prices have risen in the past. To compensate consumers, the income from this fee would be distributed fairly as a dividend to the residents of the state. Those who used little fuel would receive the same dividend as those who used a lot, likely receiving more than enough to offset the increased cost due to the fee. Those who used a lot of fuel would pay more in fee than received in dividend. Most people would end up with more money in their pockets, especially low income people who tend to use less energy. For example, if everyone received a $200 dividend, a low income resident with a small house and small car (or who takes a bus) would pay less in fee than a wealthy one with a large house and two cars.

How are municipalities affected? Municipalities, like everyone else in the state, will pay higher fuel prices. Experts report that "state and local government" as a whole come out just about even when you return all the employer fees to employers. Some of the bills set aside 20% of the funds for the Green Infrastructure Fund, which would reduce the dividends by 20 percent. However, if all this money goes to grants for municipalities to implement clean energy initiatives, they should come out substantially ahead.

All employers, including nonprofits and government agencies, would get dividends proportional to the number of FTE employees. However, the state Department of Energy Resources would have the authority to shift some of the money to companies or industries that are vulnerable to out-of-state competition and have high energy costs. Why Carbon Pricing is good for the Massachusetts economy, especially Western MA • Currently energy jobs are out-of-state, Saudi Arabia, Texas, Montana • Renewable energy jobs will be here in MA • These jobs will not be concentrated in Eastern MA as are so many jobs, but since renewable energy will be distributed around the state, the jobs will be created all over the state including Western MA • Because Western MA has research capabilities and infrastructure, we will be poised to take advantage of the carbon pricing catalyst effect to increase innovation. • Because MA carbon pricing bills are founded on equity (ARISE for in Springfield voted unanimously to support carbon pricing), people in the lowest 40 percent of income will have more money in their pocket. So there will be more money in Western Mass economy • A rural driving provision in both bills will bring more money to Western MA

National League of Cities letter “PRESIDENT TRUMP:

“As elected leaders of cities of every size across the country, we write to reaffirm our commitment to using the power of local office and local governments to preserve environmental goals that have directly improved the health, safety and welfare of our residents and communities.

“Through organizations such as the National League of Cities and partnerships such as the U.S. Mayors’ National Climate Action Agenda, our cities are taking bold actions to reduce and prepare our communities for future extreme weather events. As the elected officials closest and most directly accountable to residents, we cannot let our communities down by taking a step back on our actions and commitments to address climate change…

“Local leaders are taking action on climate change because as first responders, local governments are on the front lines of delivering services and protecting citizens. Extreme weather events such as heat waves, , heavy downpours, floods and other storms, which have become more frequent and more severe, have brought renewed attention to the need for cities to anticipate, prepare for and adapt to their impacts. These extreme weather events severely impact local and regional infrastructure, economies, public safety, public health, natural landscapes and environmental quality. As local elected officials entrusted with the of tax-payer dollars, we know that the cost of prevention pales in comparison to the cost of inaction — in terms of dollars, property and human life. Moreover, we find that improving energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy makes good economic sense for our residents, our businesses and our communities.

“Scientists agree that climate change is occurring and is primarily man-made, but it does not simply threaten our environment. Leading economists agree that it threatens our future prosperity. Farmers agree that it threatens crop production. Doctors agree that it threatens our public health. And military officials agree that it threatens global security. It would be irresponsible to ignore these voices and falter in our commitments to act.”

(The entire NLC letter can be found at http://www.nlc.org/Cities4Climate)