Julia Bernarde | US Environmental Policy Student
In my sophomore year of high school, I became deeply involved in climate advocacy, driven by my proximity to Biscayne Bay and my concern for the surrounding ecosystem. However, I quickly realized that creating real, sustainable change was challenging. I searched for ways to make a lasting impact and concluded that political advocacy offered the best path forward. This led me to Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization focused on advancing environmental policy at the federal government level. The challenges I encountered in pushing for environmental change ultimately led me to recognize the importance of bipartisan climate legislation, such as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA), as a viable solution. I firmly believe that the EICDA is a strong, bipartisan bill that should continue to be introduced in Congress, refined, and eventually passed.
For further context, the EICDA is a bipartisan bill that CCL has championed since 2019. The bill is special, as it places a fee on carbon pollution and redistributes the collected revenue to Americans as a dividend. Since its introduction, the bill has failed to advance past the committee stages in Congress, likely due to political polarization and fossil fuel interests. However, refining and strengthening key aspects of the legislation, such as public and bipartisan outreach, could increase its chances of gaining congressional support.
I strongly support the EICDA because placing a price on carbon brings both environmental and economic benefits in the long-run. Not only will the fee ensure that clean air is restored and Americans’ lives are saved over the years, it also will provide opportunity for national economic growth.[1] For instance, the demand raised by the fee for renewable energy industries will create job opportunities and further stimulate the American economy in the grander macroeconomic lens. Putting a price on carbon could be something that creates real change in our environment and pushes Americans towards cleaner and more reliable energy.
The EICDA stands out as a carbon reduction bill because it is not like a traditional carbon tax. A carbon tax ensures that emitting entities pay a certain amount for the tons of carbon dioxide that they produce and then returns the tax money to the government.[2] The government can then use that money to support clean energy initiatives or however the administration sees fit. The issue with legislation in the traditional carbon tax format is that there is no direct and immediate impact on American consumers. This means that Americans are not seeing any positive change of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially in the short-term. Those that hold more conservative views on how the United States should handle climate change impacts would not see a carbon tax bill as something feasible and beneficial. This distinction is critical in gaining broader support, especially among lawmakers and constituents who are wary of new taxation policies. To reinforce this difference, precise legislative language must be used, and public messaging should highlight the bill’s dividend structure to counter any misconceptions that it functions as a tax.
As aforementioned, the EICDA bill is unique in the sense that it eliminates the step of placing money back in the government’s pocket. Instead, the money from the fee is collected and redistributed in the form of a monthly dividend for American families to decide how to spend. This part of the bill ensures that low-income American families are supported and placed ahead.[3] Thus, the average American does benefit and gains more reason to support a future with reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In order to avoid the “carbon tax” label on the EICDA, precise legislative language should be used in the proposed bill. Additionally, the “dividend versus tax” facts should be stressed in the media to convey to Americans the differences between them.
Another reason why this bill will be more effective than other carbon pricing solutions is it would inherently lead to large carbon dioxide reductions through the higher tax rate proposed relative to its implementation timeline.[4] The rate starts at a fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Then, it increases by $10 each year that the entity continues to emit.[5] Although lower than some other proposed carbon tax bills, the high fee rates are in place to make sure that the 2030 goals set in the Paris Agreement by the United States are officially met.[6] America’s Clean Future Fund Act, another carbon pricing bill, would apply a $65 fee per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted, increasing by $10 each year.[7] However, not only does the America’s Clean Future Fund Act not work like the fee and dividend of the EICDA, it is also only imposing the tax two years after the bill is adopted.[8] This leaves the risk that the greenhouse gas goals set by the United States for 2030 may not be met.
With all of the comparative advantages of the EICDA, one may ask the simple question: why has the EICDA not passed? More importantly, what steps will ensure that the bill is adopted? I propose three key strategies in order to gain more congressional attention towards this climate bill:
- State-level advocacy: Focusing on states’ individual climate challenges can garner more support for the bill. Aiming at congresspeople that are focused on solving specific climate-related disasters or problems for their constituents is a good strategy. The EICDA would be a buffer for these state-level issues and thus can be advocated as a potential solution through the broader lens of carbon fee and dividend.
- Educational media campaigns: National educational media campaigns should occur to bring awareness to the EICDA. These nation-wide campaigns should include a direct breakdown of how dividends can support potential long and short-term financial struggles in communities with majority low-income households.[9] This data already exists, it just needs to be shown in a more user-friendly way. The campaign would bring both a better understanding of the bill and increased attention of its benefits by constituents.
- Restructuring bipartisanship: Congresspeople respond to what their constituents want and prioritize.[10] Thus, there is a possibility to gather support for the EICDA by Democrats and Republicans if there is enough push by more educated and well-informed constituents for the state-level issues to be resolved. Through the other two strategies, constituents will inherently be better informed about economic and environmental interests.
Through these three key strategies, it is likely that the EICDA could be passed when another window of opportunity opens for major federal climate policy adoption. As climate change accelerates, resisting action is not an option, especially when viable policy solutions like the EICDA already exist.
[1]Citizens’ Climate Lobby. “What is a Price on Carbon?” CCL, https://citizensclimatelobby.org/price-on-carbon/.
[2]Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Carbon Tax Basics.” C2ES, 2023, https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-tax-basics/.
[3]Citizens’ Climate Lobby. “Energy Innovation Act Q&A.” CCL, 2025, https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/285#heading_15.
[4]Kaufman, Noah. “A Comparison of the Bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act with Other Carbon Tax Proposals.” Columbia SIPA, 2018, https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/pictures/DeutchCarbonTax-CGEP_Commentary_NEW.pdf.
[5]U.S. Congress. “H.R.5744 – Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2023.” Congress.gov, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5744.
[6]ibid
[7]“Durbin Introduces America’s Clean Future Fund Act To Invest In A Clean Future And Spur Job Creation.” Dick Durbin U.S. Senator for Illinois, 2024, https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-introduces-americas-clean-future-fund-act-to-invest-in-a-clean-future-and-spur-job-creation.
[8]ibid
[9]Citizens’ Climate Lobby. “The Economic Benefits Of Carbon Fee & Dividend Policies.” CCL Community, https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/398#heading_5.
[10]Pennington, Mark. “Principal-Agent Theory and the Welfare State.” CATO Institute, 2011, https://www.cato.org/policy-report/september/october-2011/principal-agent-theory-welfare-state.
In a couple of classes this semester, I’ve gotten a chance to look at the benefits that carbon pricing programs have to offer, especially those with dividends. On top of all of what you covered, dividends also go a long way in promoting equity and easing financial strain on working families, as the price of goods and energy will likely increase as producers transition to cleaner energy. Without a dividend, polluters can just pass on the cost of their emissions to consumers by raising prices, while a dividend holds corporations and the wealthy accountable. The EICDA seems like it would be a great step in the right direction to mitigate climate change, and I think the steps you outlined would go a long way towards getting it passed — especially getting momentum on the state and local level. It really seems like a bill like this will inevitably get passed. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later so that we don’t let as many people feel the negative effects of climate change.