TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I am outrageously against ANY Climate initiative that my state has secretly been working on with Council on Foreign Relations and Governor Gina Raimondo leading this pack of legislation even against the will of the Rhode Island Constituents. We are Fed up with All she has implemented here and want it reversed. UGLY Wind turbines LITTERING our coastline and now trying to keep fossil fuel off our energy supply so to get everyone on the GRID that WORLD BANKS FUND? NO NO NO I PROTEST ALL OF IT INCLUDING THE DEADLY 5G!!!! People have WOKEN UP and are REVOLTING!!!!

Higher taxes will burden the people of Maine. Jobs here in Maine are not with out transportation for a great many miles. Please think of the people of Maine.

Connecticut’s transportation sector is the biggest single emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the state at 38% of the total. This is a climate crisis, and we must immediately work to address the greatest challenge of our generation.

I support a transportation plan that is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution while investing in sustainable transportation modes. Bus transit, rail, walking, and biking must be improved across the state, especially in cities and town centers.
This transportation plan is also a land use plan, and we must stop investing in a sprawling, unsustainable development model. Future development in the state must be in cities, town centers, and near transit stations.
We should not be investing in expanding interstates. Expanding our interstates in Connecticut both increases emissions in the long term from induced demand and increased driving while putting development pressure on the state’s dwindling forests and farms.
Many cities and towns in the region have shovel-ready plans to improve transit, rail, and active transportation. We must invest in a future with more people on buses, trains, on foot, and riding bicycles. That future includes more transit-oriented development in walkable communities.
Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles also means immediate health benefits for our most overburdened populations as a result of improved air quality and fewer emissions of localized pollutants responsible for cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular ailments, among other adverse health impacts.

We MUST refigure our methods of transportation to account for emissions. I hope we are embracing all possible solutions. More charging stations, more mass transit, electric buses, rail, etc.

Please set up a strong plan to reduce pollution from transportation. I support Massachusetts joining this plan. The time is passing. We need to make drastic changes now. I am ready.

My initial thoughts/questions are attached in the file upload. I welcome discussion of them.

My name is Cliff Strawitch and I live in Ellicott City, Maryland. Having witnessed firsthand the devastation caused to historic downtown Ellicott City by two catastrophic floods in less than two years, which science tells us was made worse by climate change, I am highly motivated to demand action to reduce greenhouse gasses. The recent IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports on climate change make the urgency of such action clear. Since fossil fuel combustion by transportation is now the largest source of greenhouse gasses, action to reduce this source is essential.
Based on my readings, I believe the best way to reduce this source of greenhouse gasses is a tax on fossil fuels used for transportation. This carbon tax on fossil fuel combustion received the endorsement in the Wall Street Journal on January 17 of 3554 economists including 27 Nobel laureates, 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors and 2 former Secretaries of the US Department of the Treasury. This approach has been demonstrated in British Columbia (BC), Canada since 2008 to both be effective and politically popular. Figure 1{1} shows just how effective it was at reducing refined petroleum fuel use and therefore greenhouse gas emissions in BC as compared to the rest of Canada.

Figure 1: reduction is fuel use in BC as compared to the rest of Canada. The vertical line at 2008 marks the introduction of the fuel tax.
All the revenues generated by this tax were returned to the people as a reduction in other taxes. After some initial resistance, the tax became popular due to this tax reduction feature. Starting at $10 per ton of carbon dioxide, the tax rose $5 per year until 2012, and has remained at $30 per ton ever since.{1} The tax had no statistically significant impact on GDP, a testament to its ability to shield business and consumers. British Columbia’s GDP growth was on par with the rest of Canada from 2008-2011, actually performing slightly better than the rest of Canada by 0.1 percent. In addition, numerous studies, for example the REMI study{2} , show that this approach benefits the majority of families, including the most financially vulnerable, since they will receive more from this carbon dividend than they pay for increased fuel costs.
In his recent book{3}, Professor Gilbert Metcalf of Tufts University points out that a Cap and Trade approach often suffers from political and economic forces that tend to drive the value of a carbon permit for a ton of CO¬2 down to values that are simply too low to be effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as is the case with the current European Emission Trading System{3}. In addition, the price volatility caused by these same forces makes planning very difficult for corporations needing to purchase such permits. A carbon tax suffers from neither of these problems and is therefore in my opinion the best way to address greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.



References
1. “Analyzing British Columbia’s Carbon Tax: by Wharton Public Policy Initiative, October 30, 2016, https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1520-analyzing-british-columbias-carbon-tax
2. The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax”, Regional Economic Modeling Inc., June 9, 2014, https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/
3. “Paying for Pollution: Why a Carbon Tax is Good for America”, Gilbert E. Metcalf, Oxford University Press, 2019

The last thing our state needs is a tax increase, especially on fuel. People in this state, and especially Washington County, need to travel a lot because we are so spread out. That takes a huge bite our of our meager income as it is. With other states pulling out of this "deal," we would be foolish to enter or remain in it. We are already one of the leaders in carbon reduction. This proposal makes no sense.