In February, President Trump announced a new $1 trillion climate-related initiative called the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
The legislation would increase funding for wind, solar, solar power, and biofuels by $1 billion.
It would also increase funding to states to fund energy-efficient lighting and other energy-saving measures.
The goal of the law is to reduce the country’s carbon emissions by $4 trillion by 2030.
In the next six years, Congress will approve $1t of additional spending to offset the cost of the climate initiative.
The plan would also allocate $500 billion in additional tax revenue to finance the new climate program.
The total amount of tax revenue would be $1trillion, or nearly four times the $1tn Trump has proposed.
Trump’s $1 Trillion Climate-Related Tax ProposalTo be sure, the plan doesn’t include any additional funding for clean energy, and the president has repeatedly pledged that his tax plan will be revenue neutral.
But it does promise to create a new revenue stream.
It will be $3.5trillion over the next two years, or over 20% of the new federal budget.
The new revenue will be used to fund renewable energy incentives and energy-efficiency projects.
It also will pay for the construction of additional fossil fuel-fired power plants.
Trump has promised to put $1-trillion in this new revenue over the coming two years.
This is an unprecedented level of support for renewable energy, particularly as the federal government is struggling to pay for it.
“I don’t want to see any new taxes increase, but I do want to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy,” said Robert Kottlowski, senior vice president of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Council, a group that has been pushing for carbon pricing for decades.
Kottlowskis group has been pressing Congress to create this $3-trilion revenue stream for renewables for years, arguing that it would create jobs and drive down greenhouse gas pollution.
But the $3 trillion level of renewable energy funding is far lower than the $4-trillions that the Trump administration has proposed, and even lower than what states are already investing in.
“It’s very unlikely that we can put the necessary money in place in two years,” said Kottlewski.
“But we should be able to make the investment.
It’s a lot of money, and I think it will make a big difference.”
But what about the carbon-pricing portion of the bill?
What if Congress doesn’t pass this new climate plan?
The carbon tax is one of the biggest components of the Trump tax plan.
It is a combination of the tax on carbon emissions and a carbon fee.
It was originally created by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
In theory, this new tax could be a big boon to the renewable energy industry.
In practice, though, it will probably make little difference.
In fact, many economists are predicting that the carbon tax will have little effect on the energy market.
The carbon tax, as originally designed, was supposed to be revenue-neutral.
However, in 2013, a Republican-led Senate passed legislation that allowed states to levy additional carbon taxes.
In 2018, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that exempted the carbon levy from the Clean Air Act.
Since the new tax is revenue-based, it would take a lot more money to raise as much revenue as originally proposed.
So, the question is: What if the new carbon tax does not raise as many as expected?
That’s where the $2-trillon in revenue-sharing funding comes in.
It will be important to note that the new plan includes a $1 million carbon tax credit, not a carbon tax.
That means that the federal carbon tax revenue could be used for additional renewable energy and other climate-focused projects.
But what if states are not happy with this new carbon revenue?
They could try to pass their own carbon tax instead.
That is, states could pass their version of the Clean Energy Tax Credit (CETC) instead of the carbon mandate, and they would likely find that it is a much less popular proposal than the carbon revenue plan.
As long as states don’t have the money to implement a new carbon-tax program, there is little chance that they would pass a carbon-based tax, Kottklaus said.
“States could pass a bill that says, ‘This is our carbon-specific plan and it doesn’t go far enough,'” he said.
“And that would get people to think about what is the best way to go about reducing carbon emissions.
But they won’t have any additional funds available to support their plan.
So they would