Last Monday, I had the chance to sit in on a panel between former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis and Adam Flint, the director of clean energy programs at Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition. They discussed possible strategies to mitigate the damaging impacts of climate change and prevent further destruction from occurring globally. Inglis and Flint disagreed on some things, but their overall message was the same — we need to unite as one nation, and world, in order to tackle the problem of climate change.
This panel came at the perfect time, in the wake of a climate report recently released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This report strictly states that if we don’t make “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” we will experience a climate crisis as early as the year 2030. Regions of the world will experience more severe weather events, coral reefs will nearly completely die off, sea levels will rise higher and cause a massive loss of coastal communities and hundreds of millions of people will face food shortages and poverty.
In order to avoid the most severe predictions of these consequences, it is imperative that we drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to chemistry and physics, this reduction is entirely possible. However, given the drastic divide in U.S. politics today, this becomes less likely. On the bright side, there exists a solution that may realistically bridge the goals and ideals of both Republicans and Democrats: a carbon tax.
By definition, a carbon tax is a fee imposed on the burning of coal, oil and gas. The economic theory behind this tax is that it will internalize the externalities associated with emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In simpler terms, it will reveal the hidden costs that are currently unaccounted for in the price of producing and consuming carbon. These costs include the environmental degradation and climate changes aforementioned. The price of carbon will drastically rise, and thus, society will be discouraged from using fossil fuels and, instead, encouraged to use renewable energies, which involve far fewer negative impacts.
This solution was championed in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate report and also was discussed in the panel between Inglis and Flint. Inglis claimed that the carbon tax may win the support of the Republican side upon certain terms, one of which is revenue neutrality. This means that as a carbon tax is implemented, other taxes such as income or social security would be reduced. This would ensure that the government doesn’t grow in power, which is typically an unwanted scenario by many Republicans. Revenue neutrality also, as Flint pointed out in the panel, may win the support of the Democratic side. Democrats are typically concerned with the preservation of equity. If overall taxes do not rise, lower- and middle-class Americans may avoid a disproportionate burden of America’s transition toward cleaner energies.
Further, both parties may also support a carbon tax if it is border adjustable. Border adjustability means that America would impose the carbon tax on imports unless they are already carbon-taxed within their origin countries. This would force other countries to impose carbon taxes of their own because they would rather keep the tax money within their borders than give it to the United States. The U.S. economy would not be hurt or disadvantaged; if anything, businesses, specifically clean energy ones, would thrive.
Revenue neutrality and border adjustability are just a couple of ways of designing a carbon tax that satisfies both major U.S. political parties. The carbon tax is much more complicated than what I am able to cover in this article, and I urge you to learn more about it and explore its many versions. If the United States rises to the occasion as a world leader in the battle against climate change, other countries will follow suit. To do so, we must dare to stray from our polarized party lines. We must learn to work together as one united country, and one united world, in the collective problem of climate change.
Georgia Kerkezis is a junior majoring in environmental studies.