Implementing carbon tax faces its own challenges

A carbon tax on fossil fuels is sometimes touted as the perfect solution to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, one which would control its production, generate revenue to be transferred to American citizens, and stimulate the overall economy with jobs and new technology.

The “Urge action” guest column (Robert McAfee, Arkansas Citizens’ Climate League) on Aug. 30 follows this contention. But there are negative aspects to a rapid implementation of a carbon tax one does not read about. Here are but a few. The only current alternatives to burning fossil fuels without making carbon dioxide (for electricity, transportation and heating) is electricity produced by nuclear, wind or solar. Because U.S. energy needs are so large, quickly constructing such alternative power sources would be hugely expensive and existing power plants and vehicles, whether paid for or not, would have to be abandoned. (The depreciated cost of the U.S. power system is estimated at almost $2 trillion, and its replacement cost at $5 trillion.) Currently there exists no practical way to store large amounts of electricity produced by wind and solar to be used when the wind does not blow or when the sun does not shine. Rather, fossil fuel plants (mostly burning natural gas) must be staffed and ready to take up the slack when these two renewable sources cease producing.

In addition to the expense of maintaining two parallel sources of power, gas produces carbon dioxide.

For both of the above reasons, a carbon tax would increase the cost of electrical power for Americans. To the extent that the tax would be successful in curtailing burning of fossil fuels, the amount of tax returned to Americans would gradually decrease, but power costs from more expensive renewables plus gas would remain high. Further, atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot be lowered without participation by all world nations, and almost one-third of world greenhouse emissions derive from land-use practices, not fossil fuel burning.

To be practical, any major increased use of renewable power must be phased in over time, giving consideration to both its negative and positive character. A rush into a carbon tax is not the answer. Strong support also should be given to identifying and developing effective ways to store excess renewable power. In recent years the United States is ahead of most other large nations in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, in spite of what you read about how many renewable power sources other countries are adding.

DONALD BOGARD

Bentonville