You are on page 1of 1

Which economist or politician did their homework? Which is bluffing?

Somebody didn’t do their homework (aka due diligence) and simply guessed or trusted
somebody else’s guess. S.W.A.G. is acceptable if one does a ‘thought experiment’ and
logically comes to a supportable conclusion. Hence, Scientific Wildass Guess.

Three economic studies of very similar Carbon Fee & Dividend scenarios beginning at
$10/tCO2 or $15/tCO2 then increasing at a rate of $10/tCO2 each subsequent year
should produce similar impacts vis-à-vis reducing emissions. But these three studies’
differences cannot be logically reconciled. HR-7173 is more optimistic than REMI.

None of these is necessarily closer to what may ultimately become reality, because
none of them has been tested in the real world, and even the experts admit that
“nobody knows.” To be a credible expert and garner trust, one must be transparent.

None of these experts has revealed their assumptions. So, our mission is to ask critical
questions and draw out the unstated assumptions that are the basis for determinations
of these carbon dioxide emissions reductions. To be led down the optimistic trajectory
only to have annual emissions target failures built-in (if we truly believe REMI’s less
optimistic decline approximates reality) leaves us with challenges making unanticipated
extraordinary adjustments, never quite catching up to what science demands, but also
thwarting sufficient planning for parallel complementary CO2 removal efforts that will
fall short and fail due to a false sense of trust in an underachieving low carbon price.

Do we trust REMI modeling or do we trust the politicians’ bipartisan expediency?