The indications of a warming world are numerous and hard to miss. Last year was the third-warmest year on record for both the planet and the United States — exceeded only by 2015 and 2016. In June, scientists reported that Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992 — yielding “enough water to cover Texas to a depth of nearly 13 feet,” the Associated Press reported.
The indications of inaction on the subject are also abundant and visible. Last year, President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to ease regulations on power plants and motor vehicles that were integral to the Obama administration’s efforts to slow climate change.
Bipartisan action — once a normal response to environmental harms — is not on the agenda for Congress or the White House. But a growing group of farsighted pragmatists are nonetheless trying to find a middle ground between the entrenched adversaries.
They have a proposal for combating global warming with something for both sides. And though getting current Republican and Democratic officeholders to unite behind it seems impossible, the advocates have managed to win the support of such environmental groups as the Nature Conservancy and Conservation International as well as oil giants Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP.
Former Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott and former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen are part of a new organization called Americans for Carbon Dividends. They support a plan offered last year by the Climate Leadership Council, a group featuring such GOP stalwarts as former Secretary of State George Schultz and Council of Economic Advisers chairman N. Gregory Mankiw.
The idea is to impose a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, starting at $40 per ton and gradually increasing. That would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by about 38 cents. The tax would foster conservation, make alternative energy sources such as solar and nuclear power more competitive and give consumers and companies time to adapt without painful disruptions. Economists generally agree that a levy of this type would produce the most benefit for the least cost.
Some on the right dispute the wisdom of any government action to reduce carbon output, seeing global warming as wildly overhyped if not entirely fictitious. Others simply think it would be dangerous to give the government the power to regulate so many economic activities. They are suspicious of a carbon tax because it would provide a big new source of revenue, potentially funding an expansion of government.
But the people supporting this particular carbon tax have an answer for that objection. They want to rebate the money to citizens as “carbon dividends” – which would amount to about $2,000 per family of four at the start. All the revenue would be returned to the public.
Why collect money only to give it back? The intent is to change consumer behavior when it comes to energy use without creating a pot of money for elected officials to squander. Individuals who conserve would come out ahead, while those who drive gas-guzzlers with abandon would pay in more than they get back.
In this scenario, the tax would also replace the current regulations on emissions and energy use, dramatically reducing the role of government bureaucrats. “Less government, less pollution” is the theme.
The next president may be more eager than Trump to combat global warming. With a carbon tax in place, though, carbon emissions would be reduced without expensive new federal dictates.
Right now, most people in Washington show little interest in finding sensible solutions that can attract support across the political spectrum. If and when that changes, the carbon dividends plan should be high on the list.
— Chicago Tribune
