Buy insurance for the planet
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in 2015 almost exactly two-thirds of Wisconsinites were homeowners. Nearly all of them, it’s safe to say, have a policy that protects them against a catastrophic loss such as a fire. If only we exercised such prudence in protecting our shared home against the catastrophe of global warming.
Homeowners insurance, particularly in Wisconsin, is relatively cheap. The average premium is just over $600, which amounts to roughly 1% of the state median income and less than half a percent of the state median home value. It’s a small price to pay to protect what the State of Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance guidebook on the subject notes is “the largest single investment most people make.”
As a community, don’t we have even larger “investments” in the civilization we have built and the environment that sustains it? If so, shouldn’t we be actively searching for an “insurance” policy against the worst effects of climate change?
Even people who live in brick houses buy fire insurance. For precisely the same reasons, even skeptics should be willing to endorse strong policy measures to counteract climate change. Only if — contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus — you truly believe that the probability of human-induced climate change is zero or that its cumulative effects (on weather patterns, health, agriculture, coastal regions, the oceans, species and political stability) will be negligible would it be prudent to do otherwise.
A carbon fee and dividend scheme such as that proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL), which would put a price on carbon at the source and return all of the resulting revenue directly to individual taxpayers, actually would put money in the pockets of all but the wealthiest 40%. On top of that, a sophisticated study by the non-partisan think tanks REMI and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. has estimated that the policy would generate over 2 million jobs and actually add to economic growth — all while cutting carbon emissions by 33% by 2025 and eliminating 13,000 premature deaths. (The full study can be found on CCL’s website.)
In 2011, a panel of generals and admirals noted in a report titled “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” that “As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn’t precise enough is unacceptable.” These distinguished officers were right: the climate issue isn’t about certainty vs. uncertainty; it’s about risks. Seen in that light, the wise course is prudent — but forceful — action. A carbon fee and dividend policy fits the bill, in the process giving us, and our collective home, desperately needed insurance.