[M]uch of the world's future rests on whether American citizens, their Congress and president can put aside political differences and individual interests to shift our society onto a new and exciting path towards sustainability.
Not by baby steps, but by a big, giant leap forward.
That makes it especially important for Congress to enact legislation this year that will significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.1 The United States needs to lead. The debate shouldn't be about whether the climate is changing, but about whether we will respond by ignoring the threats or by reducing carbon emissions.
But we also need to be honest that there will be a cost to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Whether Congress adopts cap and trade legislation or a carbon tax,2 the legislation will only work if it changes behavior, and that's going to cost something. That's why it's disheartening to learn that the Ensign amendment passed the Senate 98-0.3 The Senate appears to think that it should "protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation"
1Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide is another possibility. I'm no expert, but it the risks of geoengineering seem enormous. There's no margin of error. If we try geoengineering in the hope that it will prevent catastrophic climate change without simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our goose will be cooked if geoengineering fails. If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then geoengineering has a greater margin of error. Hence my focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
2Head over to Environmental Capital for a straightforward analysis of the pros and cons of cap and trade versus a carbon tax. Bottom line?
[B]oth a carbon tax and carbon cap-and-trade will achieve the same level of increased efficiency by achieving the optimal abatement level at the minimum cost. The only difference is the distributional implications. The cost to the firm is lower for carbon cap-and-trade. The government receives tax revenue with a carbon tax.That suggests to me that we ought to go for a carbon tax, but I'll take cap and trade if we can get it.
3Hat tip: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Leave a comment