With that, he stood, buttoned his jacket, and walked out the door.
Conclusion: At the end of all this, I remain optimistic about the chances of passing the legislation outlined in the white paper. The objections registered by Dr. Pietrus, my sister, Seth, and members of the political team—these all serve to underscore the complex nature of the endeavor. There is no legislation that will look ideal to every constituency. However, I agree with Ms. McCowen, who pointed out that a reduction in the income tax will make the bill just palatable enough to sell to the key moderate members of the Republican caucus. Whether Dr. Pietrus supports the bill or not, A Fierce Blue Fire and other environmental groups will be under too much pressure to let this effort fail. The same goes for the administration. I will conclude by sharing the preliminary results from NOAA’s IAM about the modeled effects of the legislation: With IRA subsidies set to expire in 2032, the US is on course for a 44 percent reduction of carbon-equivalent emissions over 2005 levels by 2040. The bill would accelerate that to 57 percent, according to models. Without a carbon tariff, it will have little effect on global emissions and many carbon-intensive industries will relocate to other countries. A range of economic impacts could emerge. The models foresee carbon concentration rising to 550 ppm by midcentury with a range of adverse climatic effects possible, including but not limited to a sea level rise of seven to fifteen feet by 2100.
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH ALANA AFZEL ON NEW YORK TIMES PODCASTS
Kate Morris Discusses Recent Controversies and Where Climate Legislation Now Stands
March 28, 2029
Alana Afzel Today on The Conversation, we have a special guest, who needs, I’m guessing, very little introduction. From the trenches of the climate crisis, executive director of A Fierce Blue Fire, Kate Morris. Kate, how are you?
Kate Morris Oh, ya know: the Dude abides.
Alana Afzel [Laughter] Okay, I know you’re short on time, so let’s get straight to it. You’re finding yourself in the middle of multiple controversies, but let’s start with the big one. Explain to our listeners what has happened with the House bill, the so-called PRIRA legislation, why FBF nearly revolted, and what just passed the House of Representatives over the weekend.
Kate Morris We threw a f—— fit.
Alana Afzel Yes, explain the fit.
Kate Morris We found ourselves in this bizarre position where our supposed allies were actually proposing something weaker than the Republican president. Democrats have basically convinced themselves that they will lose seats if they vote for any kind of price on carbon.
Alana Afzel You’re specifically talking about the shock collar?
Kate Morris Yeah, that’s right. The Dems want to spend money but they’re nervous about trying to actually keep carbon in the ground. They don’t want to use the best tools because they view those tools as making them politically vulnerable. So, what was being proposed in Congress was middling investments in renewables and frontline communities, but as we’ve seen, that doesn’t get the job done with decarbonization, so we had to make it clear that this was not acceptable.
Alana Afzel You don’t think using regulations and standards can achieve the needed greenhouse gas reductions?
Kate Morris Well, they could if given the chance, and any plan should include strong standards. The problem is Republicans and oilmen drag them into the courts, which can affect implementation. On top of that, the average American worker sees no benefit and has no skin in the game. The shock collar’s rebate checks create a political constituency for decarbonization that will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge. Then there’s the global element. We’ve f—ed around with these nonbinding international accords like Paris for too long. This plan starts a race to the top, so if China is making high-carbon steel and Sweden is making incredibly efficient low-carbon steel, suddenly the Swedish steel is the cheap stuff. We build the largest economic bloc in the world and lock these countries, including ourselves, into this program of accelerated action. So in one policy, one bill, we can address global emissions, workers, and justice all at once. None of this is a panacea, but it’s the best way of moving faster than f— in an emergency.”
Alana Afzel And that’s the bill that your allies have muscled through in the House.
Kate Morris Yeah, I mean, it’s missing some stuff we’d like to see put back in. The tax starts at $30 a ton, and $3 trillion is not nearly enough in investment. Then there’s a miserable chunk of money that goes to arming rich communities on the coasts, some insurance bailouts—look, it’s not perfect, but the framework is there. Joy [LaFray] and Tracy [Aamanzaihou] have been key in getting Democrats in line, and now we’re counting on Cy Fitzpatrick to help push this over the finish line in the Senate. But we are as close to major action as we’ve ever been.
Alana Afzel The bill has come under criticism from some environmental justice groups that say it fails to properly address racial and gender hierarchies.
Kate Morris That’s horse——. This is a frontal assault on chronic inequality. Folks are trying to hold climate policy hostage to single-payer health care and jobs guarantees and slavery reparations and police reform and other forms of social policy while our planet collapses. It’s all backward. They’re trying to put Band-Aids on a gunshot wound before we go in and get the bullet out. That’s the climate crisis. Folks keep touting these reparations proposals that are deficit-financed conscience-laundering for affluent white liberals, and it pisses me off when those same people scoff at the tax-and-dividend plan. We are literally taking money from rich polluters and putting it in the pockets of working people as a foundational piece of a reparative project. It doesn’t just offer the fiction of “Hey, here’s a few bucks so you can build generational wealth, even though yours is the last generation to enjoy a functioning atmosphere.” That would be a funny joke by white people, I guess.
Alana Afzel Yes, but I think their point is you rarely comment on patriarchy or white power structures. That you’re focused on technocratic solutions.
Kate Morris Alana, girl, for real. If that’s what people think, then they’re not listening to me. That’s all I comment on. Who I will work with—that’s a different story. You think I don’t get pissed when some conservative pol tells me all I care about is identity politics? I’m like, dude, if you were constantly reminded of your identity in every f—— interaction of your life, you’d probably form some opinions of it yourself. But none of this stuff is metaphysical. We are not interested in bettering this world into a woke ash heap. We are committed to taking capital, and therefore political power, out of the hands of a fossil-fuel oligarchy. That is the global recipe to attack a primary source of misogyny, racism, and endemic inequality. Distributed systems of energy will redistribute political and economic power faster and more decisively than any other action, period.