This episode of Resources Radio is a special crossover episode with Energy 360°, a podcast from the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Energy Program. Hosts Daniel Raimi and Sarah Ladislaw talk with Marc Hafstead, an RFF Fellow and director of RFF's Carbon Pricing Initiative. Hafstead gives expert insight on the recent cluster of carbon pricing proposals that have been introduced in the US Congress to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions; the major design elements of these bills, including the proposed carbon price; how revenues are used; how border adjustments can help protect US manufacturers; the political viability of these different proposals, including which policy elements might help build support for carbon price; and whether other policy approaches, such as a Clean Energy Standard, stand more of a chance in today's political environment.
Listen to the Podcast
Top of the Stack
- The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles C. Mann
- Paying for Pollution: Why a Carbon Tax is Good for America by Gilbert E. Metcalf
- "Paying for Pollution, with Gilbert Metcalf" Resources Radio podcast episode
The Full Transcript
Daniel Raimi: Hello and welcome to a special joint podcast of RFF's Resources Radio...
Lisa Hyland: And Energy360. From the CSIS Energy Program, I'm Lisa Hyland.
Daniel Raimi: And I'm Daniel Raimi. Today I team up with CSIS's Sarah Ladislaw to interview RFF fellow, Dr. Marc Hafstead, director of RFF's Carbon Pricing Initiative.
Lisa Hyland: Sarah and Daniel will ask Marc about a raft of recent legislative proposals in the US Congress to price greenhouse gas emissions.
Daniel Raimi: We'll talk about major design elements of these bills, including the proposed carbon price, how revenues are used, and how border adjustments can help protect US manufacturers.
Lisa Hyland: They'll also talk about the political viability of these different proposals, including which policy elements might help build support for carbon price, and whether other policy approaches like a clean energy standard, stand more of a chance in today's political environment.
Daniel Raimi: So stay with us for this special episode of Resources Radio...
Lisa Hyland: And Energy360.
Daniel Raimi: Okay. Marc Hafstead from Resources for the Future, you're our special guest today, and today's a special day because we're co-hosting today's podcast between Resources for the Future and CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies, with Sarah Ladislaw. So hi Sarah, and hi Marc. Thanks so much to both of you for being on the show today.
Sarah Ladislaw: Hey Daniel, it's nice to be here, and thanks Marc for doing this. We're really pleased to be able to do this podcast together.
Marc Hafstead: Thanks for having me.
Daniel Raimi: So I'm going to get us started with a couple of questions. Sarah and I are going to kind of go back and forth in asking questions, and we might chime in at different points, Marc. So we'll try to keep the balls flying at you from different directions.
But first I wanted to ask you the question that we ask everybody on the RFF podcast, which is, how did you personally get interested in energy and environmental issues, and sort of what brought you to working on this topic?
Marc Hafstead: That's a great question. I never set out to be an environmental economist. I went to grad school with a concentration in macroeconomics, and so up until my third year, I really thought that that's the field that I would be going into. And during my third year I got an RA job with Professor Larry Goulder, who needed a student who had strong coding skills to work on his CGE model.
Daniel Raimi: And for the non-economists among us, CGE model being Computable Generalized Equilibrium model.
Marc Hafstead: Correct. And so it was a fit in terms of my skill-set, rather than necessarily my interests, but as I started working with Professor Goulder, and I continued working with him, I still work with him until this day, to be perfectly honest. But as I started working more with him in grad school and actually applying the model to look at, at the time, the impacts of the cap-and-trade program, specifically the Waxman-Markey program, it just became really obvious to me that this was a far more widespread, interesting question than some of the smaller questions that were being asked in macroeconomics.
And so it just became obvious to me that the question of climate policy was super important, and is something that really just needed more work. And so I was happy to keep working on it, and eventually found myself here at Resources for the Future, continuing working on that, and have just kind of... The ball has been rolling ever since.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, fantastic. Well, we're glad you've ended up taking that path, and we're going to take advantage of your expertise today and talk about that topic in particular, climate change and carbon pricing, which is a key way or a key option for addressing climate change.
And to get us rolling, as most of our listeners will know, both with the CSIS podcast and the RFF podcast, there has been a slew of carbon pricing proposals that have been introduced recently in the US Congress, both last year and this year. We don't have time to talk about all of them in detail, that's not what we're going to do today. But can you provide us kind of with a general sense of what are some of the major similarities and the major differences between the different proposals that are out there?
Marc Hafstead: Yeah. In 2019, I've called it the year of the carbon pricing proposal. There's been eight policies that have been introduced to Congress already. Seven of them have been carbon tax bills and one of them has been a cap-and-trade bill. So that's the first major similarity, is that a majority of the bills have been carbon taxes.
Now within the carbon tax bills, they're generally similar and they cover most, if not all of the gases. They all want to have some type of border adjustment, but really the differences are in the the price path, the initial price and how that price changes over time. So there's one bill that was introduced in July by Senator Coons and Senator Feinstein that starts at $15 a year, and rises at $15 a year. So in 10 years the carbon price can be $165.
Daniel Raimi: Which is high.
Marc Hafstead: Which is very high, especially compared to the bill that was introduced just a few weeks ago, the MarKet Choice Act, by Representative Fitzpatrick and three co-sponsors. That policy starts at $35 and rises at 5% above inflation per year. So that in 10 years the price is much smaller than the Coons-Feinstein price.
Sarah Ladislaw: And Marc, one of the things we do in the Energy360 podcast series a lot is try and take a view of different policy proposals for the different strategic lenses against which people evaluate them. And one of them in this context is ambition, right? Everybody's interested in the ambition of a policy or how ambitious it is. What range of emissions reductions would be achieved over the next couple of decades in these policies?
Marc Hafstead: So, if we measure ambition by “will the policy achieve the Paris targets or will it not achieve the Paris targets,” all of these policies that we've seen introduced this year, by our estimation using the carbon pricing model we use here at RFF, all of those policies will achieve the 2025 Paris agreement of emissions, 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels. So even the least ambitious in terms of the price still achieves that policy.
The major differences we see in terms of the ambition of these policies, if we want to kind of broaden the definition of ambition is, as we go out further in time, as we get to like 2030 or 2035, we really start to see bigger differences in these policies. But most of these policies, even the modest ones, come close to achieving, if not achieve 50 percent reductions below 2005 by 2035. And so I think that's a notable goal because that's kind of the putting you on the path towards the deeper decarbonization. Now of course, the Senator Coons and Feinstein act with the much higher price path, that grows at such a high rate, that's going to have larger emissions reductions. We estimate by 2035, emissions will be 66 percent below 2005 levels in 2035. But still, all these policies are doing quite a bit to set us on the path towards decarbonization.
Sarah Ladislaw: Okay. And then sort of looking at the other side of the ledger, you guys, I guess using the Goulder-Hafstead E3 Model, estimated the economic impacts of the proposals. I would imagine you find a similarly wide range, but what are some of the insights you were able to garner there?
Marc Hafstead: Yeah. So economic impacts can mean a lot of things to different people. A lot of people kind of look at GDP impacts, and other people want to look at maybe the impacts on households. So what we see is that, especially in terms of GDP, kind of the overall impact, is we see relatively modest impacts. Even for the steeper policies—of course the steeper policies have higher impacts—but especially in the first five to ten years of the policy, we really don't see super large differences. And kind of the range that we see is, if you think about if the US economy was going to grow 2 percent per year from 2020 to 2035, one of these carbon pricing proposals might reduce the annual growth rate from 2 percent to about 1.9 or 1.95 percent. So there is an impact, but overall over the 15 year impact, it's relatively modest in terms of the annual growth rate.
Daniel Raimi: Thanks Marc, that's really useful. And maybe one quick clarification question, and also I'm going to give you the chance to plug a couple of your products. So the clarification question is, when we're talking about emissions reductions in the model that you're using here, are we just talking about carbon dioxide or are there other gases that are modeled?
Marc Hafstead: Yeah, that's a great question. So we are using the Goulder-Hafstead E3 model, which I've been working on since I was an RA in graduate school. For those who are interested in learning more about the model, we have a book that came out about almost two years ago now, called Confronting the Climate Challenge: US Policy Options. And that has a, it's a great kind of overview of what the model is and how it can be applied. For those who are really interested in the details, there is a hundred page technical appendix, but the people who don't have technical backgrounds can skip that and I think it still gives a good overall highlight of what these kind of economic models can do, and what they can and can't tell us.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, cool. And the other product that I was thinking about plugging for you and for RFF, was this really great carbon pricing calculator that you have put out there on the web. So this kind of like in between, you don't have to have detailed model expertise to know how it works, but you can go there and sort of get quick answers to some of the questions that Sarah and I are asking you today.
Marc Hafstead: Yeah. And so following up on the model, what we've done is we've actually used that model and we've simulated a range of policies. So not only have we simulated, using the model, the eight legislative proposals that have come out this year, we've also simulated a range of custom carbon pricing policies that you can choose. Choose your own adventure, so to speak, to see what the emissions impacts and the economic impacts of the proposals would be. And to answer your first question, yes, we are only modeling energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. So these are the carbon dioxide emissions that come from combusting fossil fuels.
Daniel Raimi: Right, great. So next question is—you can answer this maybe specifically with regard to the bills that are out there, or you can talk about it in a more general sense. So the question is about how to use the revenues that government collects from the application of a carbon price. So there's lots of different ways that the government could potentially use that revenue. Can you talk about some of those options and talk about their relative merits in terms of both maybe political feasibility but also economic efficiency, or other metrics that are of interest?
Marc Hafstead: Yeah. So revenue use is really, really important when it comes to understanding what the economic costs of the policy are going to be. It's less important for the emissions reductions, the price signal is really what's driving the emissions reductions, but the use of the revenue is really going to be for not only what the overall costs of a policy are going to be, but also how those costs are going to be distributed across different parts of the economy. And so just kind of going through what some of the approaches are, and we actually have a great explainer on rff.org called Carbon Pricing 102, that you can check out to learn more about these.
But the first one is carbon dividends, and so this is kind of like sending checks to households so to speak. No one's actually going to get a check in the mail, but it's that type of idea. And this is used to kind of offset the increased energy costs for households. So this policy tends to actually be very good for low-income households, because if you give a constant rebate check of say, $1,000 a year to each household or person, that means a lot to a household that's making $15,000 or even $40,000 a year, where it's going to mean less to households that are making $200,000 or $250,000 a year.
So another option, and this is what we talk a lot about in the papers that I've done in the past, and talking about it in my book, is that you have a tax swap. And that's using the revenue to reduce other taxes. And these can have beneficial effects in that we're going to reduce the harmful impacts of those taxes. So labor taxes, for example, may encourage individuals to work fewer hours, or a payroll tax may encourage an employer to employ less employees because of the extra cost of the tax. And so if you reduce those taxes, you're reducing those disincentives and those can help cause some growth that could offset the costs of the carbon tax.
Some of the other options are reducing individual income taxes or reducing corporate income taxes. Now the idea of using the carbon taxes to reduce corporate income taxes was obviously a lot more popular two years ago, before the introduction of the 2017 tax bill that lowered the corporate taxes. But it's still something that we previously had spent a lot of time talking about. And that tends to be—from our modeling at least—a pretty efficient use, overall low cost of the policy.
Now of course there's other uses of revenues. One thing that's kind of been starting to become more popular is the idea of green spending. Instead of a revenue-neutral policy that returns the revenues back to the households through tax cuts or dividends, the idea is we take the revenue and we can spend it to invest to further reduce our emissions, particularly in places where the pricing policy may not be as effective.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, that's really helpful. And then when we think about the specific bills and their application of these different approaches to using revenue, what do you see? Are there major themes that emerge? Are some approaches more popular than other approaches in the slew of bills that have been introduced recently? I think the dividends idea is, it's at least included in four or five of the proposals, right?
Marc Hafstead: Yeah. I'd say that right now the dividend proposal is probably the most popular, in that we're seeing it in the most proposals. The other one that we've seen is reducing payroll taxes, we saw that in two bills, introduced this July by Representative Rooney and Representative Lipinski, to use the revenues to reduce payroll taxes. And those revenues would actually go to the Social Security trust fund, to offset those lower taxes, so as to not further impact the potential deficits that that program might be facing in the next 15 or 20 years.
And then the bill that was introduced two weeks ago, the Market Choice Act by Representative Fitzpatrick, is slightly different in that it actually follows the idea from the first Market Choice Act, which was introduced in 2018 by former Representative Curbelo, and that is to actually use the revenues to reduce the federal gasoline tax, and then using the revenues to pay for the infrastructure, reimbursing the highway trust fund. And so that's an interesting idea that we haven't really seen before last year, in that it helps reduce the impact on drivers. So the carbon price would increase the price of gasoline by about 1 cent per every dollar of the tax, so a $40 tax would increase the price of gasoline by about 40 cents. But to help offset that, the policy would actually remove the federal gasoline tax that's about 18 cents. And so the price that drivers would face would only be about 22 cents as opposed to 40 cents. So that's an interesting idea as well.
Daniel Raimi: Great, thanks Marc. And so you mentioned in your answer a bill that was introduced two weeks ago. Just for listeners to note, we're recording this on Friday, October 11th, so Marc's talking about sort of late September. This episode is probably going to air in a couple of weeks from... October 11th, so our time distortion field is in full effect. But let me ask another question about the slew of bills before I turn it back over to Sarah to ask about maybe some political elements of what's going on here.
So the bills, as you mentioned a few moments ago, have different approaches when it comes to border adjustments, which is how to handle carbon intensive, maybe manufactured products that are imported into the United States that might not face a carbon tax in the jurisdiction where they are manufactured. So can you talk a little bit about those different approaches for applying a border adjustment or a carbon tax to imported goods, and what the range of approaches looks like in the different bills that are on the table?
Marc Hafstead: So, one of the major similarities in all the bills is the recognition that we need to put a border adjustment to keep our domestic industries competitive. Whether that's putting a fee on imports of goods, or whether that's rebating the fee on exports—both those will help the US industries remain competitive in a world where other countries aren't pricing carbon the same way we are.
So they all have this similarity. There's some differences of course in how they go about doing this, some of those differences are in exactly what industries are covered or what products are covered. Some of them, some of the proposals specifically say that it only applies to sectors with a certain greenhouse gas intensity and a certain trade intensity. So for example, one of the bills, you have to have 5 percent or higher greenhouse gas intensity. So the greenhouse gas as a fraction of your output has to be greater than 5 percent, and you have to be trade intensive of at least 15 percent. So that's kind of a measure of the competition you face.
Daniel Raimi: And trade intensive meaning, at least 15 percent of whatever the good is, is traded internationally? Is that what that means?
Marc Hafstead: Approximately, yes. Sometimes it changes by policy, how they exactly define it. So what a lot of these bills do is they actually put in place mechanisms so a border adjustment will take place. So they create authority for the US Customs and Border Patrol to come up with the rules for how these border adjustments would take place, for commerce to come up with these rules for how these take place. I think that's going to be important because as I mentioned, these things are going to be really difficult to put in place, specifically because you need to know the exact amount of fuel intensity for each good from each region, to appropriately put the price in place, and do it in a way that doesn't single out one country over another.
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah. Marc, closely related to a lot of these design elements that we've been talking about, use of revenue and thinking about border adjustments, is the political considerations that Daniel mentioned, and I was going to bring up. I think one of the interesting things for me is that we have more policies to judge now, and to sort of start thinking about. And I'm just curious about your take on whether or not you think any of the proposals we've seen so far are more politically viable than any of the others, and what we're learning about the sort of political viability of these different proposals based on the reaction we've seen when they come out.
Marc Hafstead: So that's obviously a difficult question for me as an economist to answer. I try to keep the politics to the politicians, and I stick to the economics. I think one thing that's going to be important is having the border adjustments. I don't think we will see a politically viable carbon price that doesn't have border adjustments. Manufacturing industries will not come to the table in any way, shape, or form unless they know that there's going to be some type of border adjustments.
I think some of these policies cover some gases or have some exemptions. It might be, that's an open question, I think, as to whether or not those exemptions are necessary to move the bill past, if the political heft or the political power behind some of those potential exemptions, for example, maybe whether farm emissions are exempted or not. So if the agricultural lobby is great enough to make sure that the only way we get a carbon price is if they're exempt, I don't know the answer to that question or not.
Sarah Ladislaw: And what about the revenue-use dimension of it? Do you think that that's going to be as politically salient a factor as, you know, at least in my world, a lot of people are putting a lot onto that revenue-use side of the equation with the proposal, or at least the belief that a dividend of sorts makes this more saleable.
Marc Hafstead: I think really that's the perfect question. I think that the revenue is going to be the grease which is going to get this through Congress. And I'm not sure we're going to see kind of a pure revenue approach, in terms of all the revenue is going to go to dividends, or all the revenues are going to go to payroll taxes, tax cuts. I think what you'll see is that there will be some negotiations. This is going to be one of the places where people are going to be able to find a common ground in, what my guess is, is that a politically viable proposal will have elements of some of these policies we've seen, in terms of the revenue use. So it will have some dividends, maybe restricted only to low-income households, it may have some tax cuts that can help off more of the working class, middle-class, and maybe some revenue use for green spending to appease the progressive sides who really see that as the way to further reductions.
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah. And so maybe one more question on political viability, is sort of the relationship between these kinds of proposals and carbon pricing proposals and other policy proposals like the clean energy standard, or maybe some tax incentives and other things. What do you think are some of the merits of those other pathways, relative to a carbon pricing proposal, whether it's on the economics or the political side of the equation? And are there areas, maybe as a followup to that, are there areas where you hear people kind of talking about policies as being mutually exclusive, where you actually could see some complementarity?
Marc Hafstead: So I think the biggest problem with a carbon tax today is that it's a tax, and that it's a tax that's very visible. And back in the Waxman-Markey days, the cap-and-trade program was labeled a "Cap and tax." And so I think either type of program, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program, are going to suffer from the fact that the price is very visible and it's very salient. And we've seen in France with the yellow vest movement, that was started when the price of gasoline was going up caused by a carbon price. In Ecuador just this last week, there's been strikes and protests from the removal of fuel subsidies, where the price of gasoline has spiked quite a bit. I think that is going to be the biggest problem, for what we actually as economists see as a benefit of the policy, is that it's very salient and it's very easy to see.
You see this in Canada. Canada, the federal government has imposed a carbon tax on the provinces who refuse to adopt their own carbon policy. And the conservative governments are using these higher prices as part of their campaigns, to potentially remove those carbon prices if they come into power.
And so I think the advantages of some of the other proposals is that, while maybe on a cost-per-ton basis, they're higher, in economic speak they're less efficient, in that the cost-per-ton is higher, they're more implicit. It's harder for consumers to really see that that's what's driving up the price. And so I think the salience is going to be really important, and actually a benefit from the economic side for carbon pricing, but maybe that makes it politically difficult as well.
A clean energy standard I think is a really interesting a policy proposal in that we have research that shows that they don't necessarily have to be extremely inefficient relative to a carbon price, in reducing emissions from the power sector. And so I think the idea is if we want to just start with the power sector, start with the low hanging fruit, I think that could be a start. And maybe that's something that's more politically viable, going sector by sector. And a if a clean energy standard is more politically viable than a carbon price, I think the economics shows that there's not a huge trade off there.
Sarah Ladislaw: Thanks Marc.
Daniel Raimi: Sarah, before we go to our last question, the Top of the Stack, I want to put you on the hot seat and see if you are interested in answering your own question, which is; what do you see as the relative merits of these different approaches? Because I know you've thought about this a bit, and you've written about it as well.
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah. I've been a little dismayed. I can't quite tell if it's—I'm always being careful to be analytical—and not just getting older. I'm a little dismayed at how much there is talk about perfect policy design again, and I really appreciate the work of trying to think through the relative efficiency of different policies and how effective they can be. I just think that's really, really important work. However, I don't see the political opening for carbon pricing as being something that's going to naturally land on anyone's lap.
And so I think what I've noticed is there's a lot of focus on how a carbon price is relatively ascendant, relative to the idea of a cap-and-trade program, or even as we're seeing sort of this pendulum effect in US regulatory policy, there's a little bit of skepticism about regulatory mechanisms being able to deliver emissions reductions. And so all of this is sort of making the promise of a potential economy-wide carbon price seem more attractive. And I just, for all of the folks that are sort of thinking about it and advocating, whether it's on a corporate level or an institutional leve,l for those kinds of policies, I think it's actually going to be quite a big lift.
And so I think it could take a lot of work to get there on the political side of delivering on these policies. And I think all the insights that RFF and others provide to that conversation are extremely valuable. I just think that we have to stop sort of pretending like there's going to be a magical window that's going to open and this is going to all of a sudden be there. I think people are going to have to really make that window of opportunity.
I tend to agree with Marc that things that states already find quite familiar broadly, might be effective. And so there's a lot of things like a clean energy standard or like certain tax incentives that I think could potentially be near-term things we could do, if we just would sort of accept their imperfections from a range of different issues, and sort of just get on with it, if we can make them happen. So anyway, I can see a lot of policies that would be effective, but I just sort of worry that we're getting back into this time where we think about optimal policy design in a definitely suboptimal political environment. So I worry about balancing that ledger a little bit.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, that's a really good sort of realistic point to end on, I think, in our substantive conversation. So now let's go to our last question, the Top of the Stack question, which I'll ask to both Marc and Sarah. Sarah, I'll ask you to go first, and then Marc. So the question is, what is on the top of your literal or metaphorical reading stack? So what have you read or watched or heard lately that you think is really cool, and that you'd recommend to our listeners? Sarah, what's on the top of your stack?
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah. I think the book that I tend to recommend, even though I read it once a while ago, and I'm sort of rereading it in parts, is The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles Mann. I really like it because it forces me to take a historical look at the tension between environmental policymakers and advocates who sort of think about it from a—how do you engage with the environment from a social and sort of practical level, and a regulatory and policy level, and then the scientific world, right? Who thinks about, how do you find engineering and technological solutions to some of our environmental challenges?
And I think I like it because we tend to think about our time today as being particularly divisive. I like to think about the tension between sort of the advocacy and the scientific community as being a potentially positive force, if we can only try and figure out how to direct it in that way. And so it's a really great read for folks who are interested in that kind of dynamic.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, cool. I've heard so many good things about that book and I still haven't read it, so I'll have to pick that up soon.
Sarah Ladislaw: I'll let you borrow it.
Daniel Raimi: Okay, cool. Marc, how about you? What are you looking at these days?
Marc Hafstead: Well, as always I have a lot of reports on my desk, usually that I need to read or review for a journal. So I obviously won't recommend any of those, but that's definitely the top of my stack.
Daniel Raimi: So you're the dreaded reviewer number two, huh?
Marc Hafstead: Sometimes, unfortunately. But in terms of carbon pricing proposals, I think Gib Metcalf's book, Putting a Price on Carbon, is a great read. And it's not incredibly technical, and I think it can reach an audience to kind of show why economists really think that this is the policy that can be, as I said in response to this new IMF report that just came out, that I think this book will demonstrate why we think that carbon pricing is the most effective tool for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah, that's a great recommendation, and we can refer listeners to a previous episode of Resources Radio where we interviewed Gib about his book. And he really explained it very clearly, and it's an excellent read.
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah, I'd second that. It's a great book.
Daniel Raimi: Yeah. Okay, great. Well, I will close this out then I guess, and say thanks to Marc for joining us and to Sarah and CSIS for helping us put together this joint podcast. It's been really great.
Sarah Ladislaw: Yeah, thanks Marc and thanks Daniel. It's been a real pleasure for Energy360 to be able to join with you guys. You do a great job not only in your podcast, but Marc, your work is really exceptional and we're looking forward to using the carbon pricing tool and some of the other resources that you're putting out there.
Marc Hafstead: Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And thank you, Daniel for having me on.
Daniel Raimi: You've been listening to Resources Radio. If you have a minute, we'd really appreciate you leaving us a rating or a comment on your podcast platform of choice. Also, feel free to send us your suggestions for future episodes. Resources Radio is a podcast from Resources for the Future. RFF is an independent nonprofit research institution in Washington DC. Our mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. Learn more about us at rff.org.
The views expressed on this podcast are solely those of the participants. They do not necessarily represent the views of Resources for the Future, which does not take institutional positions on public policies. Resources Radio is produced by Elizabeth Wason, with music by me, Daniel Raimi. Join us next week for another episode.