Climate change solution void needs to be filled locally
For people who worry and care about the growing impact of climate change and global warming, the headlines have been a major point of distress as 2018 comes to a close.
In a major policy statement on climate change, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that "we face a direct existential threat” as “climate change is moving faster than we are.” The world, he added, risks approaching “the point of no return” with disastrous consequences if nothing is done.
More recently, the U.S. Government’s 13-agency Fourth National Climate Assessment predicted major economic downturns and widespread deaths by the end of the century if the world dithers and does nothing. But the nation’s Climate Change Denier-in-Chief, President Donald J. Trump, couldn’t have been more dismissive of the report. “I don’t believe it,” he said.
Trump has since proceeded to direct his industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency to roll back Obama-Administration rules limiting emissions from coal plants, while proposing the withdrawal of federal protections for waterways and wetlands across the country.
To top it off in Katowice, Poland, this week, the venue for a followup meeting to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which Trump wants America to disown, the U.S. delegation became a laughingstock among many participants. While the purpose of the conference is to build a template to cope with climate change, our representatives set up a trade show exhibit to promote fossil fuels. As a kicker, the interior secretary happily announced major oil and gas discoveries in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico.
“The United States has an abundance of natural resources and is not going to keep them in the ground,” declared Wells Griffith, Trump’s international energy and climate adviser, according to The New York Times. “We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice their economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability.’
But a day after Griffith spoke, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued its annual Arctic Report Card, which showed that the region is undergoing a multi-year period of warmth “that is unlike any period on record.” The trend carries dark consequences local populations that rely on marine life for food and tourism.
Clearly, the Trump Administration has chosen an unimpeded path of retreat from leadership in worldwide environmental affairs.
Where is the leadership to come from now?
The answers are becoming increasingly clear: from state and local representatives whose constituents and local economies have a lot to lose from climate change, global warming and sea level rise. Florida anyone?
As it happens, U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, who just won a new two-year term as a South Florida congressman, introduced a new bipartisan bill known as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, which is designed to dial back emissions while finding alternatives to fossil fuels. Deutch, a Democrat, unveiled it with three Republicans including Francis Rooney of Florida as co-sponsors.
The measure envisions a fee on the nation's carbon emissions, with citizens receiving a “dividend” from fees the government would collect from corporations. The bill aims to reduce emissions by 40 percent in 12 years by charging polluters a fee starting at $15 per metric ton. A full 100 percent of the funds collected would be returned to citizens and would work this way:
• Equal shares would be distributed monthly by the U.S. Treasury Department to every adult with a Social Security number or tax identification number.
• Half shares would be distributed to every child under the age of 19.
• Treasury collects the fees. As the fees rise, so would the dividend.
“The widespread support national support we received has really been incredible,” Deutch said during a recent conference call with editorial writers. “Climate change isn’t relegated to one region. Sea level rise threatens communities.”
As a trade-off, the bill would suspend federal environmental regulations that pertain only to greenhouse gas emissions. The sponsors believe the pricing policy would achieve better results than the rules on the books. Regulations for other pollutants such as sulfur and mercury would stay in place. If the dividend plan fails to achieve the hoped for carbon reductions, the regulations would go back into effect.
The carbon fee idea actually drew support more than a year ago from the nonprofit Climate Leadership Council, whose founding members include ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell. The idea was developed by several elder Republican statesmen including former Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Schultz.
“The status quo isn’t sustainable,” Deutch said. ”The national climate assessment says the consequences of inaction are dire.”
Despite expressions of support across multiple public and private sectors for a carbon tax or fee, many initiatives to reduce carbon footprints have encountered rough sledding at the polls, in state capitals, in Washington, D.C., and abroad.
In early November, voters in Washington State rejected a carbon tax initiative for the second time in two years. Under the plan, a $15 a metric ton fee on carbon emissions would have started in 2020, rising $2 a year until the state’s carbon emissions goals were met in 2035. The proceeds would have been invested in transportation, energy efficiency and alternative source projects to speed Washington’s transition away from fossil fuels.
The plan was viewed as an improvement over an earlier one that went down to defeat in 2016; voters declined to buy into what was essentially a tax trade-off. Funds raised by carbon taxes were to be returned to residents via a reduction in the state sales tax.
In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing a backlash from leaders in the western provinces who oppose a federal carbon tax in their territories.
Across the Atlantic, a plan to increase fuel taxes by a climate change conscious French government literally went up in flames as rioters took to the streets of Paris and other cities to protest.
Despite the obstacles, Deutch correctly asserts that the U.S. — despite Trump’s bid to sabotage the climate agreement — needs to reassert its worldwide leadership in mitigating global warming. And a dividend plan that includes consumers as stakeholders is a logical step to achieve public buy-in.
The key difference between the carbon dividend act and all of the other plans is that it’s “an effort generating revenue that we will return to the American people,” Deutch said.
He also correctly says that it’s critical to keep the conversation alive, even though the bill had no chance of being considered in Congress before year’s end.
For Deutch, it’s critical for America to return to a leadership path to curb warming and understand climate change.
“It’s crucial to send a message to the rest of the world that America intends to be a leader in taking on climate change and taking action that can help safeguard our planet,” he said. “At a time when given our decisions to withdraw from Paris, it’s important for them to see our Congress taking a significant step in a bipartisan way to reexert American leadership.”
In South Florida, where sea level rise is already posing adverse effects on the financial and daily lives of more than 6 million citizens, constituents should not expect anything less from their local congressmen.