Thanks as always for your excellent reporting. Hearing stories like the abuse Ms. McKenna had to endure makes me wonder why anyone decent would go into government. I’m grateful for the people - especially women - who persevere.
The abuse that Ms. McKenna faced (and continues to face) is just so typical of those on the conservative side of the political spectrum. They can't win the battle of ideas, so they resort to insults and name-calling. Of course, Trump is the acknowledged expert at this, hence his overwhelming popularity amongst Republicans.
Nigel, I disagree. I'm a registered Independent. I watch media from all sides, and I'm also very familiar with climate science. While mainstream media may exaggerate disasters and downplay market-based solutions, there is no equivalent to the right-wing media's lying about science on the left. Right wing media rejects the scientific consensus about fossil fuel pollution-caused climate change. Take the Murdock media empire: Fox News and the WSJ do not provide an equal counter-weight to mainstream media. They offer a hard right wing extremist view. Fox constantly disputes and downplays basic climate scientific understanding about GHG pollution from fossil fuels. They hype right-wing conspiracy myths. When caught lying, as Fox was recently about its disinformation about the 2020 election being "stolen", it was forced to pay billions in restitution. There is no financially-driven equivalence on the left - no polluting interests pouring money into PR and front groups to maintain the status quo that the Koch Network and other polluters pour into the right: https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2013/december/climate-change.
About your book: economists say there is a simple way to help the US "take back manufacturing": put a carbon pollution price on fossil fuels in the US economy and use a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to charge it on imports at the border. The EU is starting its CBAM this year: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en.
Carbon pricing is spreading around the world and prices are rising. If you want to help the US build back its manufacturing base as well as maintain its position as a global leader, I suggest taking a look around at what our major trading partners are doing, and then help the US put a strong price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels with a CBAM: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/2022/12/carbon-pricing-is-inevitable/.
Can you name a single scientific organization anywhere that supports your opinion? No. Only Koch Network-funded front groups and free market fundamentalists produce propaganda that disputes the mainstream science on this subject, such as your CO2 Coalition: https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/.
"Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies” - IPCC SR15. The IPCC's 1.5°C emissions pathway minimum carbon price is $135/tCO2 in 2030. Thanks to McKenna (and George Butts and PM Trudeau) Canada's carbon fee on fossil fuel production is rising steadily and rapidly, and will be US$135/tCO2 in 2030. That will enable Canada to join the EU's CBAM-protected carbon club, which will kick off in 2026 when the EU applies its carbon price ($85/tCO2 and rising) on imports from free polluting countries (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/green-taxation-0/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en).
There are many things we need to change to achieve our most ambitious climate goals. But the most powerful one is a carbon price on fossil fuels. As Canada has proved, the viable and fair way to do that is a cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports, with all the money collected from the pollution fee paid by fossil fuel producers given to all citizens in equal per-capita shares.
Canada's price is about $50 now, and is nearing the price that will make a difference. One of the reasons it has not had a greater impact already is the market does not believe the price will stick. But if the US passes Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation, all remaining doubts about the durability of carbon pricing will evaporate, and a rapidly expanding carbon club will drive our price around the world. That strong price signal will unleash investment, innovation, and choices we need throughout the global economy. It will make doing the other 50% of the changes we need much easier to do.
Each of us in the US can help make this happen. Please check out how you can help at
Great interview! I think people often dismiss the abuse McKenna received, and others receive as well, as just politics. I'm glad it is highlighted here as what is really is meant to do, to eliminate their voice and perspectives in improving society. So her focusing on women in climate at the UN level is awesome.
I do think her work in getting a carbon tax in Canada was a huge achievement, even if the results at this moment are seemingly marginal and the issue of the tar sands remains. This might be controversial, but if there was a way to use the US export of oil to Canada to stop development of the tar sands or at least at some very low minimum, keeping the province of Alberta "happy" and in conversation with more climate progress, that might be the best solution overall. No firm idea though.
But once the higher tax costs of the carbon tax kick in, I do think the positive affect on climate will be more apparent. Especially with the EU's carbon tariff implemented, and fingers crossed some sort of carbon tariff passes here in the US, I do think having the collected Western world aligned here will help both domestic manufacturing, especially clean technologies, while also pushing other countries to adopt more aggressive climate policies. Don't use this word often, but I do feel hopeful at least in this specific area. Who knows, it may even lead to a US carbon tax however small it might be.
Also it is always interesting to read old interviews with high level policy people or those in government and to see their thoughts and views on things, and then with the benefit and evidence of time, we can see how accurate they were.
"And we're not the only country that's doing this. Every country is trying to figure this out. Take a country like Germany that relies significantly on coal. The big discussion there is they've decided to get off nuclear. They're relying on coal. How do they do that?"
And we have a pretty clear answer to that now. They don't. They just increase their usage of coal AND methane gas, and will see another increase in carbon emissions for the third year in a row, at least in relative amounts to surrounding Western countries.
Don't know if it was her intention in that interview to have a sort of exasperation of "why are you so focused on our tar sands, when countries like Germany and their nuclear policy are a clear climate issue as well", which got nowhere near the amount of coverage Canada's tar sands did. But I do agree with that exasperation.
Again awesome interview and it is really cool HEATED is able to interview these prominent politicians and get their thoughts!
Really interesting read. Also sharing an article published by the (female) CSOs of Google and Microsoft in Fortune last week, that makes some similar observations re: how the “feminization” of certain roles or types of work [by society] can be used as a way to minimize the importance of the work itself, as well as marginalize the women who are doing it. Definitely a lot to unpack regarding the intersection of gender dynamics and climate leadership. https://fortune.com/2023/07/26/microsoft-google-chief-sustainability-officers-cso-barbie-makes-us-proud-little-worried-careers-nakagawa-brandt/
I keep thinking of a comment in previous post imagining a sci-fi world where humans could see GHGs as grey/black smoke. I'd like Climate Barbie to get the GHG vision along with her Birkenstocks. When she sees them smudging her turquoise sky and ocean, not to mention her pink everything else, she's pissed. Barbie and Ken join Hayduke and the gang...
No, you got it very wrong. We need to charge the fossil fuel industry a polluters fee, and give the money to every citizen equally.
It's the most powerful way to reduce climate pollution, and low and middle-income families benefit financially.
When we price pollution in our own economy, we can use a CBAM to charge free polluter countries on their imports. This will strongly encourage China, India, and others to match our pollution price.
This is a win, win, win solution. The only losers are the fossil fuel producers, who are currently polluting for free.
Ever since US media reached into Canada, Canadians have been getting misled in ways similar to the way Americans have been for decades (Why is there so much lying right-wing media? About the Kochs and Wilks, PragerU and DailyWire: https://youtu.be/7ApjSrB6E1c).
Experts say carbon pricing is the most cost-effective and comprehensive way to reduce climate pollution, and that returning the money collected from fossil fuel producers to all citizens is the most equitable way to do it. That's what Canada is doing, and 80% of Canadian families are getting more money back in their quarterly climate action incentive checks than they are paying in trickle-down higher prices from the pollution fee fossil fuel producers are paying. Too bad right-wing media works so hard at confusing citizens about this powerful, beneficial, family-friendly climate solution.
Nigel, you better learn about CBAMs, your opinions are flawed. Carbon pricing is powerful, spreading, prices are rising, and without it experts say we'll fail to reduce climate pollution as much as we need to. The EU CBAM is the start of a global carbon price. Canada, with it's cash-back carbon price rising to meet that of the EU (and the price the IPCC says is required for our safety), will likely join the EU's carbon club, and the US will likely follow shortly as well. A primer for you: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/2022/12/carbon-pricing-is-inevitable/
Wow, you put yourself in your place with that one, Nigel. McKenna was helping implement the most cost-effective and fair way to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuels according to economists from across the political spectrum: clcouncil.org/economists-statement. The fact that she triggered you, and those uglies who sent her threats and did other acts of ignorance, rudeness, and hate, is a reflection of what decades of fossil fuel industry-funded disinformation and hate media generated in the dark corners of the public. Ignorance and intolerance is glorified by right-wing hate media, and it should be held accountable for the predictable public response of the triggered crazies. We need laws that hold media accountable for the predictable results of lying, manufactured misunderstanding, division, and hate.
Every country in the world has agreed to the 1.5°C warming target, which requires global 50% GHG emissions reductions by 2030, net-zero emissions by 2050, and negative emissions for the rest of the century. Over 70 countries have set national goals to achieve net-zero targets, including the US. This global resolve is not based on religion, it is based on the scientific consensus that we have a fossil fuel climate pollution problem.
Right wing media misleads people about basic climate science, and free market fundamentalists ignore facts and the scientific consensus with religious zeal.
If you can name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports your opinion, I would like to hear it. If you can't, you're in the same situation as a lot of religious fanatics.
Thanks as always for your excellent reporting. Hearing stories like the abuse Ms. McKenna had to endure makes me wonder why anyone decent would go into government. I’m grateful for the people - especially women - who persevere.
The abuse that Ms. McKenna faced (and continues to face) is just so typical of those on the conservative side of the political spectrum. They can't win the battle of ideas, so they resort to insults and name-calling. Of course, Trump is the acknowledged expert at this, hence his overwhelming popularity amongst Republicans.
Go back to your lair, Troll.
Why is there so much lying right-wing media? About the Kochs and Wilks, PragerU and DailyWire: https://youtu.be/7ApjSrB6E1c
Nigel, I disagree. I'm a registered Independent. I watch media from all sides, and I'm also very familiar with climate science. While mainstream media may exaggerate disasters and downplay market-based solutions, there is no equivalent to the right-wing media's lying about science on the left. Right wing media rejects the scientific consensus about fossil fuel pollution-caused climate change. Take the Murdock media empire: Fox News and the WSJ do not provide an equal counter-weight to mainstream media. They offer a hard right wing extremist view. Fox constantly disputes and downplays basic climate scientific understanding about GHG pollution from fossil fuels. They hype right-wing conspiracy myths. When caught lying, as Fox was recently about its disinformation about the 2020 election being "stolen", it was forced to pay billions in restitution. There is no financially-driven equivalence on the left - no polluting interests pouring money into PR and front groups to maintain the status quo that the Koch Network and other polluters pour into the right: https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2013/december/climate-change.
About your book: economists say there is a simple way to help the US "take back manufacturing": put a carbon pollution price on fossil fuels in the US economy and use a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to charge it on imports at the border. The EU is starting its CBAM this year: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en.
A CBAM is a WTO compliant way to give US manufacturers a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their existing carbon advantage over dirtier producing developing countries: https://clcouncil.org/reports/americas-carbon-advantage.pdf. There's a bipartisan bill in Congress to prepare for doing this: https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-is-in-the-prove-it-act-introduced-by-senator-coons-and-senator-cramer/.
We can each help Congress do this by telling them at http://cclusa.org/prove.
Carbon pricing is spreading around the world and prices are rising. If you want to help the US build back its manufacturing base as well as maintain its position as a global leader, I suggest taking a look around at what our major trading partners are doing, and then help the US put a strong price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels with a CBAM: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/2022/12/carbon-pricing-is-inevitable/.
The Carbon Fee and Dividend policy proposal to reduce climate pollution from fossil fuels came from a group of conservative economists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-winning-republican-climate-solution-carbon-pricing/2020/01/16/d6921dc0-387b-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html
As for your denial that the fossil fuel-caused increase of CO2 by 50% in the atmosphere from a 10,000 year stable 280 ppm level will warm the Earth by about 1.5˚C, and that this warming will be extremely costly, dangerous, and cause irreversible harm, that's not disputed by a single scientific organization in the world. Even Exxon (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20Exxon%20projected%20that%20fossil,has%20been%20proven%20largely%20accurate) and Shell (https://youtu.be/vTlYYlRN0LY) have predicted this for decades. And more recently, 99.9% of the peer-reviewed published literature on the subject supports this understanding: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
Can you name a single scientific organization anywhere that supports your opinion? No. Only Koch Network-funded front groups and free market fundamentalists produce propaganda that disputes the mainstream science on this subject, such as your CO2 Coalition: https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/.
It would seem to speak volumes that someone would leave political office to feel like they were making more of a difference on climate change.
"Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies” - IPCC SR15. The IPCC's 1.5°C emissions pathway minimum carbon price is $135/tCO2 in 2030. Thanks to McKenna (and George Butts and PM Trudeau) Canada's carbon fee on fossil fuel production is rising steadily and rapidly, and will be US$135/tCO2 in 2030. That will enable Canada to join the EU's CBAM-protected carbon club, which will kick off in 2026 when the EU applies its carbon price ($85/tCO2 and rising) on imports from free polluting countries (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/green-taxation-0/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en).
That carbon price (and continuing to rise $10-15/year after) is 50% of the global climate pollution solution according to MIT's En-ROADS climate policy simulator. Explore En-ROADS for some sense of what other complementary policies are required: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Your-Favorite-Climate-Solution.pdf.
There are many things we need to change to achieve our most ambitious climate goals. But the most powerful one is a carbon price on fossil fuels. As Canada has proved, the viable and fair way to do that is a cash-back carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports, with all the money collected from the pollution fee paid by fossil fuel producers given to all citizens in equal per-capita shares.
Canada's price is about $50 now, and is nearing the price that will make a difference. One of the reasons it has not had a greater impact already is the market does not believe the price will stick. But if the US passes Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation, all remaining doubts about the durability of carbon pricing will evaporate, and a rapidly expanding carbon club will drive our price around the world. That strong price signal will unleash investment, innovation, and choices we need throughout the global economy. It will make doing the other 50% of the changes we need much easier to do.
Each of us in the US can help make this happen. Please check out how you can help at
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend.
Great interview! I think people often dismiss the abuse McKenna received, and others receive as well, as just politics. I'm glad it is highlighted here as what is really is meant to do, to eliminate their voice and perspectives in improving society. So her focusing on women in climate at the UN level is awesome.
I do think her work in getting a carbon tax in Canada was a huge achievement, even if the results at this moment are seemingly marginal and the issue of the tar sands remains. This might be controversial, but if there was a way to use the US export of oil to Canada to stop development of the tar sands or at least at some very low minimum, keeping the province of Alberta "happy" and in conversation with more climate progress, that might be the best solution overall. No firm idea though.
But once the higher tax costs of the carbon tax kick in, I do think the positive affect on climate will be more apparent. Especially with the EU's carbon tariff implemented, and fingers crossed some sort of carbon tariff passes here in the US, I do think having the collected Western world aligned here will help both domestic manufacturing, especially clean technologies, while also pushing other countries to adopt more aggressive climate policies. Don't use this word often, but I do feel hopeful at least in this specific area. Who knows, it may even lead to a US carbon tax however small it might be.
Also it is always interesting to read old interviews with high level policy people or those in government and to see their thoughts and views on things, and then with the benefit and evidence of time, we can see how accurate they were.
"And we're not the only country that's doing this. Every country is trying to figure this out. Take a country like Germany that relies significantly on coal. The big discussion there is they've decided to get off nuclear. They're relying on coal. How do they do that?"
And we have a pretty clear answer to that now. They don't. They just increase their usage of coal AND methane gas, and will see another increase in carbon emissions for the third year in a row, at least in relative amounts to surrounding Western countries.
Don't know if it was her intention in that interview to have a sort of exasperation of "why are you so focused on our tar sands, when countries like Germany and their nuclear policy are a clear climate issue as well", which got nowhere near the amount of coverage Canada's tar sands did. But I do agree with that exasperation.
Again awesome interview and it is really cool HEATED is able to interview these prominent politicians and get their thoughts!
Really interesting read. Also sharing an article published by the (female) CSOs of Google and Microsoft in Fortune last week, that makes some similar observations re: how the “feminization” of certain roles or types of work [by society] can be used as a way to minimize the importance of the work itself, as well as marginalize the women who are doing it. Definitely a lot to unpack regarding the intersection of gender dynamics and climate leadership. https://fortune.com/2023/07/26/microsoft-google-chief-sustainability-officers-cso-barbie-makes-us-proud-little-worried-careers-nakagawa-brandt/
I keep thinking of a comment in previous post imagining a sci-fi world where humans could see GHGs as grey/black smoke. I'd like Climate Barbie to get the GHG vision along with her Birkenstocks. When she sees them smudging her turquoise sky and ocean, not to mention her pink everything else, she's pissed. Barbie and Ken join Hayduke and the gang...
The health, financial, and economic benefits of Carbon Fee and Dividend: carboncashback.org/benefits.
How the spread of CBAMs will push carbon pricing around the world: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/green-taxation-0/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en
Why the US should join our major trading partners who are already doing it: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/2022/12/carbon-pricing-is-inevitable/
No, you got it very wrong. We need to charge the fossil fuel industry a polluters fee, and give the money to every citizen equally.
It's the most powerful way to reduce climate pollution, and low and middle-income families benefit financially.
When we price pollution in our own economy, we can use a CBAM to charge free polluter countries on their imports. This will strongly encourage China, India, and others to match our pollution price.
This is a win, win, win solution. The only losers are the fossil fuel producers, who are currently polluting for free.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend
Ever since US media reached into Canada, Canadians have been getting misled in ways similar to the way Americans have been for decades (Why is there so much lying right-wing media? About the Kochs and Wilks, PragerU and DailyWire: https://youtu.be/7ApjSrB6E1c).
Experts say carbon pricing is the most cost-effective and comprehensive way to reduce climate pollution, and that returning the money collected from fossil fuel producers to all citizens is the most equitable way to do it. That's what Canada is doing, and 80% of Canadian families are getting more money back in their quarterly climate action incentive checks than they are paying in trickle-down higher prices from the pollution fee fossil fuel producers are paying. Too bad right-wing media works so hard at confusing citizens about this powerful, beneficial, family-friendly climate solution.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/rc4215/climate-action-incentive-payment.html
Nigel, you better learn about CBAMs, your opinions are flawed. Carbon pricing is powerful, spreading, prices are rising, and without it experts say we'll fail to reduce climate pollution as much as we need to. The EU CBAM is the start of a global carbon price. Canada, with it's cash-back carbon price rising to meet that of the EU (and the price the IPCC says is required for our safety), will likely join the EU's carbon club, and the US will likely follow shortly as well. A primer for you: https://www.greenenergytimes.org/2022/12/carbon-pricing-is-inevitable/
Wow, you put yourself in your place with that one, Nigel. McKenna was helping implement the most cost-effective and fair way to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuels according to economists from across the political spectrum: clcouncil.org/economists-statement. The fact that she triggered you, and those uglies who sent her threats and did other acts of ignorance, rudeness, and hate, is a reflection of what decades of fossil fuel industry-funded disinformation and hate media generated in the dark corners of the public. Ignorance and intolerance is glorified by right-wing hate media, and it should be held accountable for the predictable public response of the triggered crazies. We need laws that hold media accountable for the predictable results of lying, manufactured misunderstanding, division, and hate.
Every country in the world has agreed to the 1.5°C warming target, which requires global 50% GHG emissions reductions by 2030, net-zero emissions by 2050, and negative emissions for the rest of the century. Over 70 countries have set national goals to achieve net-zero targets, including the US. This global resolve is not based on religion, it is based on the scientific consensus that we have a fossil fuel climate pollution problem.
Right wing media misleads people about basic climate science, and free market fundamentalists ignore facts and the scientific consensus with religious zeal.
If you can name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports your opinion, I would like to hear it. If you can't, you're in the same situation as a lot of religious fanatics.